4.7 Article

Children exposure assessment to ultrafine particles and black carbon: The role of transport and cooking activities

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 53-58

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.06.041

关键词

Ultrafine particles; Black carbon; Children's exposure; Cooking; Personal monitoring; Dose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An accurate evaluation of the airborne particle dose-response relationship requires detailed measurements of the actual particle concentration levels that people are exposed to, in every microenvironment in which they reside. The aim of this work was to perform an exposure assessment of children in relation to two different aerosol species: ultrafine particles (UFPs) and black carbon (BC). To this purpose, personal exposure measurements, in terms of UFP and BC concentrations, were performed on 103 children aged 8-11 years (10.1 +/- 1.1 years) using hand-held particle counters and aethalometers. Simultaneously, a time-activity diary and a portable GPS were used to determine the children's daily time-activity pattern and estimate their inhaled dose of UFPs and BC. The median concentration to which the study population was exposed was found to be comparable to the high levels typically detected in urban traffic microenvironments, in terms of both particle number (2.2 x 10(4) part. cm(-3)) and BC (3.8 mu g m(-3)) concentrations. Daily inhaled doses were also found to be relatively high and were equal to 3.35 x 10(11) part. day(-1) and 3.92 x 10(1) mu g day(-1) for UFPs and BC, respectively. Cooking and using transportation were recognized as the main activities contributing to overall daily exposure, when normalized according to their corresponding time contribution for UFPs and BC, respectively. Therefore, UFPs and BC could represent tracers of children exposure to particulate pollution from indoor cooking activities and transportation microenvironments, respectively. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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