Characterization of indoor particle sources: A study conducted in the metropolitan Boston area.

Abstract

An intensive particle monitoring study was conducted in homes in the Boston, Massachusetts, area during the winter and summer of 1996 in an effort to characterize sources of indoor particles. As part of this study, continuous particle size and mass concentration data were collected in four single-family homes, with each home monitored for one or two 6-day periods. Additionally, housing activity and air exchange rate data were collected. Cooking, cleaning, and the movement of people were identified as the most important indoor particle sources in these homes. These sources contributed significantly both to indoor concentrations (indoor-outdoor ratios varied between 2 and 33) and to altered indoor particle size distributions. Cooking, including broiling/baking, toasting, and barbecuing contributed primarily to particulate matter with physical diameters between 0.02 and 0.5 microm [PM((0.02-0.5))], with volume median diameters of between 0.13 and 0.25 microm. Sources of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameters between 0.7 and 10 microm [PM((0.7-10))] included sautéing, cleaning (vacuuming, dusting, and sweeping), and movement of people, with volume median diameters of between 3 and 4.3 microm. Frying was associated with particles from both PM((0.02-0.5)) and PM((0.7-10)). Air exchange rates ranged between 0.12 and 24.3 exchanges/hr and had significant impact on indoor particle levels and size distributions. Low air exchange rates (< 1 exchange/hr) resulted in longer air residence times and more time for particle concentrations from indoor sources to increase. When air exchange rates were higher (> 1 exchange/hr), the impact of indoor sources was less pronounced, as indoor particle concentrations tracked outdoor levels more closely.

References 28

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 3

• Indoor Exposure to Selected Air Pollutants in the Home Environment: A Systematic Review · 2020
  No notice
• Sources of airborne microorganisms in the built environment · 2015
  No notice
• Pulmonary Effects of Indoor- and Outdoor-Generated Particles in Children with Asthma · 2005
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.