4.5 Article

Indoor black carbon and brown carbon concentrations from cooking and outdoor penetration: insights from the HOMEChem study

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 1476-1487

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d1em00283j

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation [G-2017-9944]
  2. Sloan Foundation [G-2016-7050, G-2019-12301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Particle emissions from cooking are a significant contributor to indoor air pollution, with light-absorbing carbon being an important component. The study found that indoor-to-outdoor ratios of BC and BrC were 0.6 and 0.7 during periods of no activity, with indoor BC exposure levels during Thanksgiving experiments being approximately 4 times higher compared to background conditions.
Particle emissions from cooking are a major contributor to residential indoor air pollution and could also contribute to ambient concentrations. An important constituent of these emissions is light-absorbing carbon, including black carbon (BC) and brown carbon (BrC). This work characterizes the contributions of indoor and outdoor sources of BC and BrC to the indoor environment by concurrently measuring real-time concentrations of these air pollutants indoors and outdoors during the month-long HOMEChem study. The median indoor-to-outdoor ratios of BC and BrC during the periods of no activity inside the test house were 0.6 and 0.7, respectively. The absorption angstrom ngstrom exponent was used to characterize light-absorbing particle emissions during different activities and ranged from 1.1 to 2.7 throughout the campaign, with the highest value (indicative of BrC-dominated emissions) observed during the preparation of a simulated Thanksgiving Day holiday style meal. An indoor BC exposure assessment shows that exposure for an occupant present in the kitchen area was similar to 4 times higher during Thanksgiving Day experiments (primarily due to candle burning) when compared to the background conditions.

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

4.5
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