4.7 Article

Domestic wood burning and PM2.5 trace elements:: Personal exposures, indoor and outdoor levels

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 39, Issue 14, Pages 2643-2653

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.01.016

Keywords

black smoke; exposure assessment; fine particles; X-ray fluorescence; wood smoke markers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Personal exposures as well as indoor and outdoor levels of PM2.5 were measured with cyclones and impactors simultaneously in the winter of 2003 in a residential area where wood burning for domestic space heating is common. Twenty-four-hour samples from both wood-burning households (wood burners) and a reference group were analysed for mass and elemental concentration using energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) and for black smoke (BS) concentration using an EEL 43 reflectometer. Wood-smoke particles made statistically significant contributions of K, Ca, and Zn for both personal exposure and indoor concentration, the median levels of these elements being 66-80% higher for the wood-burning group. In addition, Cl, Mn, Cu, Rb, and Pb were found to be possible markers of wood smoke, though levels of these were only significantly higher among the wood-burning group for either personal exposure or indoor concentrations. PM2.5 mass and S levels were not significantly elevated in wood burners, probably due to large variations in outdoor concentrations from long-distance transported air pollution. Personal exposure and indoor levels showed high correlations for all species, and the personal exposure levels were usually higher than or equal to the indoor levels. The associations between personal exposure and outdoor levels were generally weak except for outdoor S and PM2.5 levels that were both highly correlated with personal S exposure levels (r(s) > 0.8). (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available