4.8 Article

School Children's Personal Exposure to Ultrafine Particles in the Urban Environment

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 113-120

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es403721w

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council (ARC)
  2. QLD Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR)
  3. QLD Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) [LP0990134]
  4. Centre for Air quality health Research and evaluation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There has been considerable scientific interest in personal exposure to ultrafine particles (UFP). In this study, the inhaled particle surface area doses and dose relative intensities in the tracheobronchial and alveolar regions of lungs were calculated using measured 24-h UFP time series of school children personal exposures. Bayesian hierarchical modeling was used to determine mean doses and dose intensities for the various microenvironments. Analysis of measured personal exposures for 137 participating children from 25 schools in the Brisbane Metropolitan Area showed similar trends for all participating children. Bayesian regression modeling was performed to calculate the daily proportion of children's total doses in different microenvironments. The proportion of total daily alveolar doses for home, school, commuting, and other were 55.3%, 35.3%, 4.5%, and 5.0%, respectively, with the home microenvironment contributing a majority of children's total daily dose. Children's mean indoor dose was never higher than the outdoor's at any of the schools, indicating there were no persistent indoor particle sources in the classrooms during the measurements. Outdoor activities, eating/cooking at home, and commuting were the three activities with the highest dose intensities. Children's exposure during school hours was more strongly influenced by urban background particles than traffic near the school.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available