Characterizing the Indoor-Outdoor Relationship of Fine Particulate Matter in Non-Heating Season for Urban Residences in Beijing

<div><p>Objective</p><p>Ambient fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) pollution is currently a major public health concern in Chinese urban areas. However, PM_2.5 exposure primarily occurs indoors. Given such, we conducted this study to characterize the indoor-outdoor relationship of PM_2.5 mass concentrations for urban residences in Beijing.</p><p>Methods</p><p>In this study, 24-h real-time indoor and ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations were concurrently collected for 41 urban residences in the non-heating season. The diurnal variation of pollutant concentrations was characterized. Pearson correlation analysis was used to examine the correlation between indoor and ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations. Regression analysis with ordinary least square was employed to characterize the influences of a variety of factors on PM_2.5 mass concentration.</p><p>Results</p><p>Hourly ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations were 3–280 μg/m³ with a median of 58 μg/m³, and hourly indoor counterpart were 4–193 μg/m³ with a median of 34 μg/m³. The median indoor/ambient ratio of PM_2.5 mass concentration was 0.62. The diurnal variation of residential indoor and ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations tracked with each other well. Strong correlation was found between indoor and ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations on the community basis (coefficients: r≥0.90, p<0.0001), and the ambient data explained ≥84% variance of the indoor data. Regression analysis suggested that the variables, such as traffic conditions, indoor smoking activities, indoor cleaning activities, indoor plants and number of occupants, had significant influences on the indoor PM_2.5 mass concentrations.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>PM_2.5 of ambient origin made dominant contribution to residential indoor PM_2.5 exposure in the non-heating season under the high ambient fine particle pollution condition. Nonetheless, the large inter-residence variability of infiltration factor of ambient PM_2.5 raised the concern of exposure misclassification when using ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations as exposure surrogates. PM_2.5 of indoor origin still had minor influence on indoor PM_2.5 mass concentrations, particularly at 11:00–13:00 and 22:00–0:00. The predictive models suggested that particles from traffic emission, secondary aerosols, particles from indoor smoking, resuspended particles due to indoor cleaning and particles related to indoor plants contributed to indoor PM_2.5 mass concentrations in this study. Real-time ventilation measurements and improvement of questionnaire design to involve more variables subject to built environment were recommended to enhance the performance of the predictive models.</p></div

Diurnal variation of pollutant concentrations.

<p>(Note: error bars in the Fig stand for standard deviation of the normalized pollutant concentrations).</p

Descriptive statistics of the concentrations of pollutants.

<p>a. Valid ambient and indoor PM_2.5 mass concentrations were simultaneously available for 33 residences.</p><p>Descriptive statistics of the concentrations of pollutants.</p

The information of variables subject to building characteristics and human behavior.

<p>The information of variables subject to building characteristics and human behavior.</p

Pearson correlation between indoor and ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations.

<p>Pearson correlation between indoor and ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations.</p

Predictive model of indoor PM_2.5 mass concentrations.

<p>a. the levels of <i>distance to road</i>: 1- ≤ 193 m, 2–194–270 m, 3–271–425 m, 4- >425 m.</p><p>b. the levels of <i>frequency of furniture cleaning</i>: 1- everyday, 2- some times per week, 3- one time for several weeks.</p><p>c. the levels of <i>smoking</i>: 0- no smoking, 1- yes, 1time, 2- yes, multiple times.</p><p>d. the levels of <i>indoor plants</i>: 1- no plants, 2- a few, 3- many.</p><p>e. the levels of <i>frequency of floor cleaning</i>: 1- everyday, 2- some times per week.</p><p>f. the levels of <i>floor cleaning method</i>: 1- only mop, 2- with mop and broom/vacuum.</p><p>g. the levels of <i>traffic route</i>: 1-arterial road (ring roads and express ways), 2-urban highway, 3-quiet street.</p><p>Predictive model of indoor PM_2.5 mass concentrations.</p

Regression analysis of indoor and ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations.

<p>Regression analysis of indoor and ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations.</p

Predictive model of ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations.

<p>Predictive model of ambient PM_2.5 mass concentrations.</p

Health Risk Assessment of Inhalation Exposure to Formaldehyde and Benzene in Newly Remodeled Buildings, Beijing

<div><p>Objective</p><p>To assess health risks associated with inhalation exposure to formaldehyde and benzene mainly emitted from building and decoration materials in newly remodeled indoor spaces in Beijing.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We tested the formaldehyde and benzene concentrations in indoor air of 410 dwellings and 451 offices remodeled within the past year, in which the occupants had health concerns about indoor air quality. To assess non-carcinogenic health risks, we compared the data to the health guidelines in China and USA, respectively. To assess carcinogenic health risks, we first modeled indoor personal exposure to formaldehyde and benzene using the concentration data, and then estimated the associated cancer risks by multiplying the indoor personal exposure by the Inhalation Unit Risk values (IURs) provided by the U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (U.S. EPA IRIS) and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), respectively.</p><p>Results</p><p>(1) The indoor formaldehyde concentrations of 85% dwellings and 67% offices were above the acute Reference Exposure Level (REL) recommended by the OEHHA and the concentrations of all tested buildings were above the chronic REL recommended by the OEHHA; (2) The indoor benzene concentrations of 12% dwellings and 32% offices exceeded the reference concentration (RfC) recommended by the U.S. EPA IRIS; (3) The median cancer risks from indoor exposure to formaldehyde and benzene were 1,150 and 106 per million (based on U.S. EPA IRIS IURs), 531 and 394 per million (based on OEHHA IURs).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>In the tested buildings, formaldehyde exposure may pose acute and chronic non-carcinogenic health risks to the occupants, whereas benzene exposure may pose chronic non-carcinogenic risks to the occupants. Exposure to both compounds is associated with significant carcinogenic risks. Improvement in ventilation, establishment of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emission labeling systems for decorating and refurbishing materials are recommended to reduce indoor VOCs exposure.</p></div

Distribution of the sampled buildings in 13 districts and counties of Beijing.

<p>Abbreviation in the figure: XC: Xicheng District, DC: Dongcheng District, HD: Haidian District, CY: Chaoyang District, FT: Fengtai District, FS: Fangshan District, SJS: Shijingshan District, CP: Changping District, TZ: Tongzhou District, MTG: Mengtougou District, SY: Shunyi District, DX: Daxing District, PG: Pinggu County.</p