4.6 Article

Assessment of ultrafine particles in Portuguese preschools: levels and exposure doses

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 618-628

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12114

关键词

ultrafine particles; preschools; indoor; outdoor air; children; exposure dose

资金

  1. Fundacao para Ciencia e Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/65722/2009]
  2. IJUP [PP_IJUP2011 121]
  3. European Union (FEDER funds through COMPETE)
  4. National Funds (Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia) [PEst-C/EQB/UI0511/2013, Pest-C/EQB/LA0006/2013]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PEst-C/EQB/UI0511/2013] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was to assess ultrafine particles (UFP) number concentrations in different microenvironments of Portuguese preschools and to estimate the respective exposure doses of UFP for 3-5-year-old children (in comparison with adults). UFP were sampled both indoors and outdoors in two urban (US1, US2) and one rural (RS1) preschool located in north of Portugal for 31days. Total levels of indoor UFP were significantly higher at the urban preschools (mean of 1.82x10(4) and 1.32x10(4)particles/cm(3) at US1 an US2, respectively) than at the rural one (1.15x10(4)particles/cm(3)). Canteens were the indoor microenvironment with the highest UFP (mean of 5.17x10(4), 3.28x10(4), and 4.09x10(4)particles/cm(3) at US1, US2, and RS1), whereas the lowest concentrations were observed in classrooms (9.31x10(3), 11.3x10(3), and 7.14x10(3)particles/cm(3) at US1, US2, and RS1). Mean indoor/outdoor ratios (I/O) of UFP at three preschools were lower than 1 (0.54-0.93), indicating that outdoor emissions significantly contributed to UFP indoors. Significant correlations were obtained between temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, solar radiation, and ambient UFP number concentrations. The estimated exposure doses were higher in children attending urban preschools; 3-5-year-old children were exposed to 4-6 times higher UFP doses than adults with similar daily schedules.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据