Formaldehyde in Occupied and Unoccupied Caravans in Australia

Abstract

A study of 132 unoccupied and 60 occupied caravans was conducted to determine levels of formaldehyde and factors which may affect these levels. Repeat monitoring was carried out 6 months later in 50 of the occupied caravans. A questionnaire was also used to assess potential factors associated with the recorded levels. Mean formaldehyde levels of 100 ppb in unoccupied caravans and 29 ppb in occupied caravans were recorded. A negative correlation was found between formaldehyde levels and the age of caravans. There were significant seasonal differences in formaldehyde levels measured, with higher levels recorded in winter.

Formaldehyde in the Indoor Environment

“…Hanrahan et al 303 have measured formaldehyde levels up to 2.8 ppm. The data by Dingle et al 304 based on 192 caravans are consistent with other studies, but these authors have also found distinct differences between occupied and unoccupied caravans. Furthermore, Dingle et al point out that the increased formaldehyde concentrations in mobile homes result from higher loading rates with wood-based materials of approximately 1.4 m 2 m -3 and lower air exchange rates compared to conventional buildings.…”

Variations and Sources of Formaldehyde Levels in Residential Indoor Air in Ankara, Turkey

“…Indoor formaldehyde levels have been measured in various countries [11,12] and found to depend on several factors, but mainly on the age of the building and the building materials, type of construction, the ventilation rate, indoor temperature and humidity [2,4,[13][14][15]. The greatest exposure to formaldehyde occurs in rooms in which there is tobacco smoking [16][17][18][19].…”

Statistical Analysis of Exposure Data: Formaldehyde in Occupied and Unoccupied Caravans in Australia

“…Dear Sir, I found the article 'Formaldehyde in Occupied and Unoccupied Caravans in Australia' to be an interesting exposure study and it provides useful information on formaldehyde exposure in caravans [1]. However, I must take exception with the reporting of the summary data and statistical analysis.…”

“…However, for exposure data, it is suggested that the W test is most appropriate, particularly for sample populations with less than 50 measurements [2][3][4]. For exposure samples, including area samples as reported in the article [1], previous studies [3,7,10,11,17] have suggested the distribution to be nonnormal and to best fit a logarithmic function. When these data, the exposure samples, are transformed using logarithms, distribution would then appear normal.…”