2000
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500076
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of indoor fine aerosol contributions from environmental tobacco smoke and cooking with a portable nephelometer

Abstract: Personal monitoring studies have indicated that environmental tobacco smoke ( ETS ) and cooking are major indoor particulate sources in residential and nonindustrial environments. Continuous monitoring of fine particles improves exposure assessment by characterizing the effect of time -varying indoor sources. We evaluated a portable nephelometer as a continuous monitor of indoor particulate levels. Simultaneous sampling with the nephelometer and PM 2.5 impactors was undertaken to determine the relationship bet… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
42
1
1

Year Published

2001
2001
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(20 reference statements)
4
42
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This differs from our previous finding of no difference between the indoor and outdoor b sp -PM 2.5 regression slopes based on data from the first year of the Seattle study (Liu et al, 2002). In addition to the effect of using an older model neph, this difference in mass scattering efficiencies may also be due to indoorgenerated particles that scatter light more efficiently than the ambient aerosol (Brauer et al, 2000) and/or to the fact that the neph is especially sensitive to the size range in which particles infiltrate most efficiently (B0.1-0.5 mm) (Waggoner and Weiss, 1980;Sarnat et al, 2006). Thus, the particle sizedependence of F inf may alter the size distribution of the ambient aerosol as it comes indoors and result in an indoor aerosol with a slightly increased mass scattering efficiency.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 98%
“…This differs from our previous finding of no difference between the indoor and outdoor b sp -PM 2.5 regression slopes based on data from the first year of the Seattle study (Liu et al, 2002). In addition to the effect of using an older model neph, this difference in mass scattering efficiencies may also be due to indoorgenerated particles that scatter light more efficiently than the ambient aerosol (Brauer et al, 2000) and/or to the fact that the neph is especially sensitive to the size range in which particles infiltrate most efficiently (B0.1-0.5 mm) (Waggoner and Weiss, 1980;Sarnat et al, 2006). Thus, the particle sizedependence of F inf may alter the size distribution of the ambient aerosol as it comes indoors and result in an indoor aerosol with a slightly increased mass scattering efficiency.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 98%
“…(Although our nephelometric data set was purged of samples that were nonsystematically distorted via condensation in the optical chamber, approximate 1-h peak PM concentrations of our study are semiquantitative in that nephelometric response during high-pollution episodes may depart from that derived from 24-h calibration. Published laboratory studies which explore nephelometric response to cooking-generated aerosols suggest that optically determined 1-h peak PM concentrations might overestimate mass by about 10% (Jenkins et al (2004), cooking oil) or underestimate 1-h peaks by a factor of 2.5 (Brauer et al (2000), frying potatoes).…”
Section: Sensitivity Of Measures Of Central Tendency To Censorship Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Higher daytime ratios likely resulted from particles generated indoors and from higher AER during the day as compared with overnight. 4,5,17,18,24,32 Because of their strong association, the independent effects of indoor sources and home ventilation on the ratios could not be examined.…”
Section: Outdoor and Indoor Particle Concentrationsmentioning
confidence: 99%