4.7 Article

Exposure and health risk assessment of PM2.5-bound trace metals during winter in university campus in Northeast China

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 576, 期 -, 页码 628-636

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.126

关键词

-

资金

  1. HIT Environment and Ecology Innovation Special Funds (Harbin Institute of Technology)
  2. Source apportionment of airborne particulate matters in Harbin City (Department of Environmental Protection of Heilongjiang Province) [HSCJ201602]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to better understand the risk to students' health caused by pollution derived from fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter <2.5 mm (PM2.5), this study collected 189 samples in one outdoor and four different functional indoor environments of a research center in a university campus. Trace metals (TMs) bound to PM2.5 in outdoor and indoor environments were measured using X-ray fluorescence spectrometry. The TMs measured were: As, Co, Cd, Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn, Mn, Hg, and Pb. The measurements of PM2.5-bound TMs before and during the 2015 Spring Festival held in Northeast China were compared. Results showed that pollution due to PM(2.5)bound TMs in outdoor and indoor environments was higher before than during the Spring Festival. Cu (in three indoor environments) and Zn (in an outdoor environment) showed the highest concentrations among the ten TMs that were measured. Hg showed the lowest concentrations in all the environments analyzed. The concentrations of PM2.5-bound TMs declined among four indoor environments in the following order: the atrium, the students' office (sampled just nine days before the Spring Festival), the laboratory, and an empty room. The potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic health risks derived from PM2.5-bound-bound TMs were within safe limits for graduate and undergraduate students, according to the standards established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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