4.0 Article

Vehicular air pollution, playgrounds, and youth athletic fields

期刊

INHALATION TOXICOLOGY
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 541-547

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08958370600685640

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In spite of epidemiological evidence concerning vehicular air pollution and adverse respiratory/cardiovascular health, many athletic fields and school playgrounds are adjacent to high traffic roadways and could present long-term health risks for exercising children and young adults. Particulate matter (PM1,0.02-1.0 mu m diameter) number counts were taken serially at four elementary school athletic/playground fields and at one university soccer field. Elementary school PM1 measurements were taken over 17 days; measurements at the university soccer field were taken over 62 days. The high-traffic-location elementary school field demonstrated higher 17-day [PM1] than the moderate and 2 low traffic elementary school fields (48,890 +/- 34,260, 16,730 +/- 10,550, 11,960 +/- 6680, 10,030 +/- 6280, respective mean counts; p < .05). The 62-day mean PM1 values at the university soccer field ranged from 115,000 to 134,000 particles cm(-3). Lowest mean values were recorded at measurement sites furthest from the highway (similar to 34,000 particles cm(-3)) and followed a second-order logarithmic decay (R-2 = .999) with distance away from the highway. Mean NO2 and SO2 levels were below 100 ppb, mean CO was 0.33 +/- 1.87 ppm, and mean O-3 was 106 +/- 47 ppb. Ozone increased with rising temperature and was highest in the warmer afternoon hours (R = .61). Although the consequence of daily recess play and athletic activities by school children and young athletes in high ambient [PM1] conditions has not yet been clearly defined, this study is a critical component to evaluating functional effects of chronic combustion-derived PM exposure on these exercising schoolchildren and young adults. Future studies should examine threshold limits and mechanistic actions of real-world particle exposure.

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

4.0
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