4.7 Article

Individual particle analysis of indoor, outdoor, and community samples from the 1998 Baltimore particulate matter study

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 35, Issue 23, Pages 3935-3946

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00191-1

Keywords

scanning electron microscopy; individual particle; indoor air sources; indoor-outdoor comparison; inorganic particulate matter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) recently conducted the 1998 Baltimore Particulate Matter (PM) Epidemiology-Exposure Study of the Elderly. The primary goal of that study was to establish the relationship between outdoor PM concentrations and actual human PM exposures within a susceptible (elderly) subpopulation. Personal, indoor, and outdoor sampling of particulate matter was conducted at a retirement center in the Towson area of northern Baltimore County. Concurrent sampling was conducted at a central community site. The main objective of this work was to use computer-controlled scanning electron microscopy (CCSEM) with individual-particle X-ray analysis to measure the chemical and physical characteristics of geological and trace element particles collected at the various sampling locations in and around the retirement facility. The CCSEM results show that the relative abundances of some geological and trace element particle classes identified at the outdoor and community locations differ from each other and from the indoor location. Particle images acquired during the computer-controlled analyses played a key role in the identification of certain particle types. Review of these images was particularly useful in distinguishing spherical particles (usually indicative of combustion) from nonspherical particles of similar chemical composition. Pollens and spores were also identified through a manual review, of the particle images. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

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