Determination of response of real-time SidePak AM510 monitor to secondhand smoke, other common indoor aerosols, and outdoor aerosol

Jiang, Ruo-Ting; Acevedo-Bolton, Viviana; Cheng, Kai-Chung; Klepeis, Neil E.; Ott, Wayne R.; Hildemann, Lynn M.

doi:10.1039/c0em00732c

Cited by 81 publications

(100 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Instruments and Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Although the size range of secondhand smoke particles is 0.02-2 mm, about 90% of the particle mass is between 0.1 and 0.5 mm (Klepeis et al, 2003). Jiang et al (2011) found a consistent relationship between the SidePak readings and known mass concentrations of tobacco smoke measured using a gravimetric, pump-driven sampler with filters weighted on a precision laboratory scale.The calibration study by Jiang et al (2011) compared the SidePak monitor with gravimetric sampling for several types of aerosols: cigarette smoke, incense sticks, burning wood chips, toasted bread, and ambient air. The strong linear correlation between the gravimetric filter-based measurements and the SidePak monitor measurements gave R 2 values all above 0.995.…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The SidePak's User Guide (TSI, 2006(TSI, , 2013a recommends that investigators calibrate the monitor for the particular aerosol under study. In a previous laboratory quality control study, Jiang et al (2011) conducted quality assurance experiments with up to 17 SidePak monitors side-by-side using a real smoker as the source, comparing the results in a chamber with a filter-based gravimetric sampler. The present study used the same SidePak monitors that were used in that study.…”

Section: Instruments and Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their results for tobacco smoke were consistent with a gravimetric comparison reported by Lee et al (2008), who reported a calibration factor of 0.295 for a SidePak monitor with secondhand smoke as the source. We used the same SidePak monitors described in our published quality assurance study (Jiang et al, 2011), and we applied the same calibration factors: SP-4 (CF ¼ 0.25), SP-6 (CF ¼ 0.305), SP-7 (CF ¼ 0.295), SP-8 (CF ¼ 0.29), SP-16 (CF ¼ 0.26), and SP-17 (CF ¼ 0.26). A published SidePak calibration factor for highway emissions was not directly available, so we used the same secondhand smoke calibration factors for each monitor during both the smoking and nonsmoking periods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present study used the same SidePak monitors that were used in that study. In practice, we set the internal custom calibration factor of each SidePak monitor to CF ¼ 1.0; then we applied the proper calibration factor based on the quality assurance study by Jiang et al (2011) by rescaling the data for each monitor in the data analysis phase. A TSI 2.5-mm-size impactor was installed at the intake of each SidePak monitor, which can measure particles down to a diameter of 0.1 mm (TSI, 2013a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Outdoor fine and ultrafine particle measurements at six bus stops with smoking on two California arterial highways—Results of a pilot study

Ott

Acevedo-Bolton

Cheng

et al. 2013

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As indoor smoking bans have become widely adopted, some U.S. communities are considering restricting smoking outdoors, creating a need for measurements of air pollution near smokers outdoors. Personal exposure experiments were conducted with four to five participants at six sidewalk bus stops located 1.5-3.3 m from the curb of two heavily traveled California arterial highways with 3300-5100 vehicles per hour. At each bus stop, a smoker in the group smoked a cigarette. Gravimetrically calibrated continuous monitors were used to measure fine particle concentrations (aerodynamic diameter 2.5 µm; PM 2.5 ) in the breathing zones (within 0.2 m from the nose and mouth) of each participant. At each bus stop, ultrafine particles (UFP), wind speed, temperature, relative humidity, and traffic counts were also measured. For 13 cigarette experiments, the mean PM 2.5 personal exposure of the nonsmoker seated 0.5 m from the smoker during a 5-min cigarette ranged from 15 to 153 µg/m 3 . Of four persons seated on the bench, the smoker received the highest PM 2.5 breathing-zone exposure of 192 µg/m 3 . There was a strong proximity effect: nonsmokers at distances 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 m from the smoker received mean PM 2.5 personal exposures of 59, 40, and 28 µg/m 3 , respectively, compared with a background level of 1.7 µg/m 3 . Like the PM 2.5 concentrations, UFP concentrations measured 0.5 m from the smoker increased abruptly when a cigarette started and decreased when the cigarette ended, averaging 44,500 particles/cm 3 compared with the background level of 7200 particles/cm 3 . During nonsmoking periods, the UFP background concentrations showed occasional peaks due to traffic, whereas PM 2.5 background concentrations were extremely low. The results indicate that a single cigarette smoked outdoors at a bus stop can cause PM 2.5 and UFP concentrations near the smoker that are 16-35 and 6.2 times, respectively, higher than the background concentrations due to cars and trucks on an adjacent arterial highway.Implications: Rules banning smoking indoors have been widely adopted in the United States and in many countries. Some communities are considering smoking bans that would apply to outdoor locations. Although many measurements are available of pollutant concentrations from secondhand smoke at indoor locations, few measurements are available of exposure to secondhand smoke outdoors. This study provides new data on exposure to fine and ultrafine particles from secondhand smoke near a smoker outdoors. The levels are compared with the exposure measured next to a highway. The findings are important for policies that might be developed for reducing exposure to secondhand smoke outdoors. IntroductionWith widespread adoption of indoor smoking bans, there has been considerable interest by local communities in restricting smoking outdoors. However, few data exist on air pollutant concentrations near a smoker outdoors to support these policies, and there are no published data comparing secondhand smoke exposure at sidewalk bus stops with the l...

show abstract

Section: Instruments and Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 84%

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Instruments and Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations