Search

Air pollution health studies of fine particulate matter (diameter ≤2.5 μm, PM2.5) often use outdoor concentrations as exposure surrogates. Failure to account for variability of indoor infiltration of ambient PM2.5 and time indoors can induce exposure errors. We developed and evaluated an exposure model for individuals (EMI), which predicts five tiers of individual-level exposure metrics for ambient PM2.5 using outdoor concentrations, questionnaires, weather, and time-location information. We linked a mechanistic air exchange rate (AER) model to a mass-balance PM2.5 infiltration model to predict residential AER (Tier 1), infiltration factors (Tier 2), indoor concentrations (Tier 3), personal exposure factors (Tier 4), and personal exposures (Tier 5) for ambient PM2.5. Using cross-validation, individual predictions were compared to 591 daily measurements from 31 homes (Tiers 1-3) and participants (Tiers 4-5) in central North Carolina. Median absolute differences were 39% (0.17 h(-1)) for Tier 1, 18% (0.10) for Tier 2, 20% (2.0 μg/m(3)) for Tier 3, 18% (0.10) for Tier 4, and 20% (1.8 μg/m(3)) for Tier 5. The capability of EMI could help reduce the uncertainty of ambient PM2.5 exposure metrics used in health studies.

Residential indoor and outdoor fine particle (PM(2.5)) organic (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) concentrations (48 h) were measured at 173 homes in Houston, TX, Los Angeles County, CA, and Elizabeth, NJ as part of the Relationship of Indoor, Outdoor and Personal Air (RIOPA) study. The adsorption of organic vapors on the quartz fiber sampling filter (a positive artifact) was substantial indoors and out, accounting for 36% and 37% of measured OC at the median indoor (8.2 microg C/m(3)) and outdoor (5.0 microg C/m(3)) OC concentrations, respectively. Uncorrected, adsorption artifacts would lead to substantial overestimation of particulate OC both indoors and outdoors. After artifact correction, the mean particulate organic matter (OM=1.4 OC) concentration indoors (9.8 microg/m(3)) was twice the mean outdoor concentration (4.9 microg/m(3)). The mean EC concentration was 1.1 microg/m(3) both indoors and outdoors. OM accounted for 29%, 30% and 29% of PM(2.5) mass outdoors and 48%, 55% and 61% of indoor PM(2.5) mass in Los Angeles Co., Elizabeth and Houston study homes, respectively. Indirect evidence provided by species mass balance results suggests that PM(2.5) nitrate (not measured) was largely lost during outdoor-to-indoor transport, as reported by Lunden et al. This results in dramatic changes with outdoor-to-indoor transport in the mass and composition of ambient-generated PM(2.5) at California homes. On average, 71% to 76% of indoor OM was emitted or formed indoors, calculated by (1) Random Component Superposition (RCS) model and (2) non-linear fit of OC and air exchange rate data to the mass balance model. Assuming that all particles penetrate indoors (P=1) and there is no particle loss indoors (k=0), a lower bound estimate of 41% of indoor OM was indoor-generated (mean). OM appears to be the predominant species in indoor-generated PM(2.5), based on species mass balance results. Particulate OM emitted or formed indoors is substantial enough to alter the concentration, composition and behavior of indoor PM(2.5). One interesting effect of increased indoor OM concentrations is a shift in the gas-particle partitioning of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from the gas to the particle phase with outdoor-to-indoor transport.

The Relationship of Indoor, Outdoor and Personal Air (RIOPA) study was designed to investigate residential indoor, outdoor and personal exposures to several classes of air pollutants, including volatile organic compounds, carbonyls and fine particles (PM2.5). Samples were collected from summer, 1999 to spring, 2001 in Houston (TX), Los Angeles (CA) and Elizabeth (NJ). Indoor, outdoor and personal PM2.5 samples were collected at 212 nonsmoking residences, 162 of which were sampled twice. Some homes were chosen due to close proximity to ambient sources of one or more target analytes, while others were farther from sources. Median indoor, outdoor and personal PM2.5 mass concentrations for these three sites were 14.4, 15.5 and 31.4 microg/m3, respectively. The contributions of ambient (outdoor) and nonambient sources to indoor and personal concentrations were quantified using a single compartment box model with measured air exchange rate and a random component superposition (RCS) statistical model. The median contribution of ambient sources to indoor PM2.5 concentrations using the mass balance approach was estimated to be 56% for all study homes (63%, 52% and 33% for California, New Jersey and Texas study homes, respectively). Reasonable variations in model assumptions alter median ambient contributions by less than 20%. The mean of the distribution of ambient contributions across study homes agreed well for the mass balance and RCS models, but the distribution was somewhat broader when calculated using the mass balance model with measured air exchange rates.