Indoor Air Guideline Levels for Formic, Acetic, Propionic and Butyric Acid

Nielsen, Gunnar Damgård; Hansen, Lea Frimann; Andersen, Bjørn Skjønning; Poulsen, N.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.1998.tb00028.x

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Safety factors take into account inter-species differences (when data are based on animal tests) and intra-species differences (to take into account differences in sensitivity). Other safety factors can account for differences in exposure time (workplace and indoor environment) (Nielsen et al, 1998).…”

Section: Toxicological Reference Values and Additivity Of Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was the case for formaldehyde and SO2. Alternatively, guideline values proposed by the Nordic Committee on Building Regulations are applied (Nielsen et al, 1996;Nielsen et al, 1998) (organic acids, propanal, butanal, hexanal, octanal, and ammonia). Indoors, persons are typically exposed to mixtures of pollutants.…”

Section: Toxicological Reference Values and Additivity Of Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk assessment of sensory irritants in indoor air—a case study in a French school

Meininghaus

Kouniali

Mandin

et al. 2003

Environment International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exposure to airborne pollutants can result in adverse health effects. Acute symptoms can for instance comprise of irritation of the eyes or of the respiratory tract (called sensory irritation). In a recent case, health problems were reported in a French school and supposedly attributed to the presence of airborne irritant pollutants. Based on measured concentrations, the risk of developing the described health effects was assessed.Numerous airborne sensory irritants (aldehydes, organic acids, VOCs, SO 2 , NH 3 ) were identified and quantified in the indoor air by using active and passive sampling and online monitoring techniques. Reference values based on toxicological properties of compounds (sensory irritants) were taken from the literature. If not available, tentative values were specially developed for this purpose. Concentrations of all sensory irritants remain below their corresponding guideline values and are comparable to literature data. It was concluded that the risk of developing sensory irritation due to the presence of the studied compounds is negligible. This holds both for individual compounds and for the mixture of studied compounds. Limitations of the employed sampling strategy, and of existing sampling and analytical techniques, which do not allow for analysing more reactive compounds -which are strong sensory irritants -may play a role. New sampling techniques need to be developed. Psychosocial factors (group behaviour, increased attention to sensory irritation) should also be taken into account when dealing with health complaints on sensory irritation.

show abstract

Section: Toxicological Reference Values and Additivity Of Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Toxicological Reference Values and Additivity Of Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk assessment of sensory irritants in indoor air—a case study in a French school

Meininghaus

Kouniali

Mandin

et al. 2003

Environment International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additional adverse effects of inhaled acids are seen when the conjugate anion also has toxicological effects (Larson 1989;Linden et al 1992). Tissue and organs with high oxygen consumption (optic nerve, brain, heart and kidney) may be particularly vulnerable to HFor exposures (Nielsen et al 1998). It may also act as an enhancer of the initiation and/or promotion of carcinogenesis (Nielsen et al 1998;Kivity et al 1994;Alexandrov et al 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although low levels of inhaled acids can be neutralized by respiratory ammonia (NH 3 ) (Larson 1989;Koenig et al 1989;Utell 1985), inhaled acids may cause cell damage due to a protonation reaction (Reis et al 1995;Nielsen et al 1998). The toxicological effects of HFor are firstly caused by its acid character, which leads to irritation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tissue and organs with high oxygen consumption (optic nerve, brain, heart and kidney) may be particularly vulnerable to HFor exposures (Nielsen et al 1998). It may also act as an enhancer of the initiation and/or promotion of carcinogenesis (Nielsen et al 1998;Kivity et al 1994;Alexandrov et al 1989). Nielsen et al (1998) proposed a guideline threshold value of 0.2 ppm (0.3 mg m −3 ) for HFor and 0.5 ppm (1 mg m −3 ) for HAc, since lower concentrations would be neutralized by exhaled NH 3 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analysis of indoor gaseous formic and acetic acid, using radial diffusive samplers

Stranger

Potgieter‐Vermaak

Sacco

et al. 2008

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A diffusive sampling method for the determination of gaseous acetic and formic acids, using a radial symmetry diffusive sampler, has been optimised for a 7-day exposure time in this study. Sampling rate determinations were performed on data obtained from a dynamic exposure chamber, simulating the indoor conditions of an empty, closed, room, at room temperature and minimal wind speed. Analysis has been performed by means of ion chromatography. The sampling rates for formic acid concentrations of 128 microg m(-3) and 1248 microg m(-3) were determined to be 91.2 +/- 3.9 ml min(-1) and 111.6 +/- 2.8 ml min(-1), respectively. The acetic acid sampling rate was independent of the concentration in the range 160 microg m(-3)-1564 microg m(-3), and amounted to 97.3 +/- 3.1 ml min(-1). Experimentally determined sampling rates showed deviations of 3% for acetic acid, and 3-21% for formic acid, in relation to theoretically derived values. The blank values were as low as 1.69 +/- 0.07 microg for formic acid and 1.21 +/- 0.14 microg for acetic acid, and detection limits lower than 0.5 microg m(-3) could be achieved, which is an improvement of 98-99% compared to previously validated diffusive sampling methods. This study describes the first step of an extended validation program in which the applicability of these types of samplers for the measurement of organic acids will be validated and optimised for the environmental conditions typical for museum showcases.

show abstract

Indoor Air Quality In Nonindustrial Occupational Environments

Morey¹,

Horner²,

Epstien³

et al. 2001

Patty's Industrial Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indoor air in occupied buildings is always more polluted from human‐sourced contaminants than the air outside the building. This is true for modern buildings constructed during the past decade as well as for primitive shelters erected centuries or millennia ago. It follows that a continuous source of outdoor air is required to prevent the degradation of indoor air from contaminants arising from people and their activities. This was realized historically by the inventors of roof vents for exhaust of fire smoke and by early designers of openable windows for introduction of make‐up (outdoor) air. Major sources on indoor air pollutants are discussed, i.e., microbials, allergens, volatile organic compounds, pesticides, combustion products, tobacco smoke, radon, and particulates. Sampling of these pollutants and interpretation of data are included. Varied approaches to indoor air quality studies, ventilation, protocols and guidelines, and control are discussed.

show abstract

Indoor Air Guideline Levels for Formic, Acetic, Propionic and Butyric Acid

Cited by 17 publications

References 73 publications

Risk assessment of sensory irritants in indoor air—a case study in a French school

Risk assessment of sensory irritants in indoor air—a case study in a French school

Analysis of indoor gaseous formic and acetic acid, using radial diffusive samplers

Indoor Air Quality In Nonindustrial Occupational Environments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About