2001
DOI: 10.1080/02786820117449
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Penetration of Ambient Fine Particles into the Indoor Environment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

4
40
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 144 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
4
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Typical pressure differences between cavities and rooms in Danish buildings at average outdoor wind velocities would be in the range of 1-10 Pa (K. T. Andersen, personal communication). Even though the penetration depends on slit geometry, the results by Mosley et al (2001) show that for the particle size range found in this study (from approximately 0.6 lm for particles smaller than the spores and up to approximately 8 lm for agglomerates of spores), the penetration through cracks could range from close to 100% to almost 0%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Typical pressure differences between cavities and rooms in Danish buildings at average outdoor wind velocities would be in the range of 1-10 Pa (K. T. Andersen, personal communication). Even though the penetration depends on slit geometry, the results by Mosley et al (2001) show that for the particle size range found in this study (from approximately 0.6 lm for particles smaller than the spores and up to approximately 8 lm for agglomerates of spores), the penetration through cracks could range from close to 100% to almost 0%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 56%
“…This penetration is extremely dependent on spore size, the geometry of cracks, and on the pressure difference between the cavity and the room. As an example, Mosley et al (2001) measured the penetration of different particle sizes between two chambers through horizontal slits (0.5 mm wide, 102 mm deep, and 433 mm long). The penetration was measured as a function of the pressure difference.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The envelope penetration process is influenced by several factors, including the geometry of leaks, pressure differences across the envelope, air velocities through leaks, and particle size (Liu and Nazaroff, 2001;Nazaroff, 2004). To date, specific measurements of particle penetration factors have been made in fewer than approximately 50 homes worldwide (Chao et al, 2003;Long et al, 2001;Mosley et al, 2001;Rim et al, 2010Rim et al, , 2013Stephens andSiegel, 2012, 2013;Thatcher and Layton, 1995;Thatcher et al, 2003;Vette et al, 2001;Zhu et al, 2005). Each of these studies has varied considerably in their measurement approach, test duration, resulting uncertainty in parameter estimates, and the sizes and classes of particles that were measured.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous investigations of the penetration of outdoor airborne particulate matter have generally occurred in four forms, including: (i) modeling efforts (Liu and Nazaroff, 2001); (ii) laboratory measurements of building envelope structures (Liu and Nazaroff, 2003;Mosley et al, 2001); (iii) measurement of indooroutdoor concentration ratios (or Ôinfiltration factorsÕ) during periods free of indoor sources (e.g., Abt et al, 2000;Bennett and Koutrakis, 2006;Bhangar et al, 2011;Fogh et al, 1997;McAuley et al, 2010), which are sometimes coupled with models to estimate penetration factors from measured data (e.g., Long et al, 2001;Lunden et al, 2003;Vette et al, 2001;Williams et al, 2003;Zhu et al, 2005); and (4) specific particle penetration methods applied in buildings (Chao et al, 2003;Rim et al, 2010;Thatcher and Layton, 1995;Thatcher et al, 2003). Chen and Zhao (2011) present an extensive review of many of these studies, but the previous studies on specific particle penetration methods provide the most relevant motivation for this work.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%