Source apportionment of exposure to toxic volatile organic compounds using positive matrix factorization

Anderson, Melissa J.; Miller, Shelly L.; Milford, Jana B.

doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500168

Cited by 42 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The factor explained 50% of the variance in the data. Results were consistent with a source apportionment analysis of the NJ and CA TEAM studies (Anderson et al, 2001), which with different statistical techniques found that aromatics are the major source of personal exposure to VOCs (resembling automobile exhaust, gasoline vapor or ETS). After tobacco smoke (partially restricted in this study), a population-based study in West Germany (Hoffmann et al, 2000) found that automobile-related activities such as driving a car or refueling were also associated with significantly increased levels of benzene.…”

Section: Factor Analysissupporting

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ambient, indoor and personal exposure relationships of volatile organic compounds in Mexico City Metropolitan Area

Serrano-Trespalacios

Ryan

Spengler

2004

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Air pollution standards and control strategies are based on ambient measurements. For many outdoor air pollutants, individuals are closer to their sources (especially traffic) and there are important indoor sources influencing the relationship between ambient and personal exposures. This paper examines the relationship between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) measured at central site monitoring stations and personal exposures in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area. Over a 1-year period, personal exposures to 34 VOCs were measured for 90 volunteers from 30 families living close to one of five central monitoring stations. Simultaneous 24-h indoor, outdoor and central site measurements were also taken. Dual packed thermal desorption tubes and C 18 DNPH-coated cartridges were used for sampling VOCs and these were analyzed by GC/MS and HPLC, respectively. A factor analysis of the personal exposure data aided in grouping compounds by the most likely source type: vehicular (BTEX, styrene and 1,3-butadiene), secondary formed or photochemical (most aldehydes), building materials and consumer products (formaldehyde and benzaldehyde), cleaning solvents (tetrachloroethene and 1,1,1-trichloroethane), volatilization from water (chloroform and trichloroethene) and deodorizers (1,4-dichlorobenzene). Mean ambient, indoor and personal concentrations were 7/7/14 mg/m 3 for benzene, 1/3/3 for 1,3-butadiene, 6/20/20 for formaldehyde and 3/9/50 for 1,4-dichlorobenzene. Geometric mean (GM) ambient concentrations of trichloroethene and carbon tetrachloride were similar to GM personal exposures. While outdoor and indoor home GM concentrations for most vehicular related compounds (benzene, MTBE, xylenes and styrene) were comparable, the GM personal exposures were twice as high. Indoor concentrations of 1,3-butadiene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethane, chloroform, formaldehyde, valeraldehyde, propionaldehyde and n-butyraldehyde were comparable to personal exposures. For certain compounds, such as chloroform, aldehydes, toluene, 1,3-butadiene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene, GM personal exposures were more than two times greater than GM ambient measurements.

show abstract

Section: Factor Analysissupporting

confidence: 70%

“…The sixth factor had high loads on 1,4-dichlorobenzene associated with deodorizers. Similarly, the TEAM studies source apportionment analysis (Anderson et al, 2001(Anderson et al, , 2002) also found that 1,4-dichlorobenzene came up as a separate factor representing mothballs and deodorizers.…”

Section: Factor Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Ambient, indoor and personal exposure relationships of volatile organic compounds in Mexico City Metropolitan Area

Serrano-Trespalacios

Ryan

Spengler

2004

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While a number of studies have measured exposure to VOCs and aldehydes (13,14,(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29), none have concentrated specifically on an occupational setting with intense and prolonged exposure to diesel exhaust and exhaust from other combustion sources. However, a few studies have focused on VOC and aldehyde exposures in similar microenvironments to those observed in our study, including background, traffic, and transportation depots.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occupational Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds and Aldehydes in the U.S. Trucking Industry

Davis¹,

Blicharz

Hart

et al. 2007

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diesel exhaust is a complex chemical mixture that has been linked to lung cancer mortality in a number of epidemiologic studies. However, the dose-response relationship remains largely undefined, and the specific components responsible for carcinogenicity have not been identified. Although previous focus has been on the particulate phase, diesel exhaust includes a vapor phase of numerous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and aldehydes that are either known or suspected carcinogens, such as 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde. However, there are relatively few studies that quantify exposure to VOCs and aldehydes in diesel-heavy and other exhaust-related microenvironments. As part of a nationwide assessment of exposure to diesel exhaust in the trucking industry, we collected measurements of VOCs and aldehydes at 15 different U.S. trucking terminals and in city truck drivers (with 6 repeat site visits), observing average shift concentrations in truck cabs and at multiple background and work area locations within each terminal. In this paper, we characterize occupational exposure to 18 different VOCs and aldehydes, as well as relationships with particulate mass (elemental carbon in PM < 1 μ m and PM 2.5 ) across locations to determine source characteristics. Our results show that occupational exposure to VOCs and aldehydes varies significantly across the different sampling locations within each terminal, with significantly higher exposures noted in the work environments over background levels (p < 0.01). A structural equation model performed well in predicting terminal exposures to VOCs and aldehydes as a function of job, background levels, weather conditions, proximity to a major road, and geographic location (R 2 = 0.2-0.4 work area; R 2 = 0.5-0.9 background).

show abstract

“…If the concentration is less than or equal to the MDL provided, the uncertainty is calculated using the following equation, Unc = 5/6 × MDL; If the concentration is greater than the MDL provided, the calculation is Unc = [(Error fraction × mixing ratios) 2 + (MDL) 2 ] 1/2 . The number of factors in the PMF model was chosen based on the result from PCA/APCS model [55].…”

Section: Source Apportionment With Positive Matrix Factorization (Pmf)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Source attributions of hazardous aromatic hydrocarbons in urban, suburban and rural areas in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region

Zhang

Wang

Barletta

et al. 2013

Journal of Hazardous Materials

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t sWe measured aromatic hydrocarbons at four contrasting sites in the PRD region. Diagnostic ratios were used to imply sources of aromatic hydrocarbons. Sources of aromatic hydrocarbons were apportioned by PMF receptor model. Solvent use, vehicle exhaust and biomass burning contributed over 89% AHs. Biomass burning contributed to AHs, particularly for Benzene in the rural. t r a c tAromatic hydrocarbons (AHs) are both hazardous air pollutants and important precursors to ozone and secondary organic aerosols. Here we investigated 14 C 6 -C 9 AHs at one urban, one suburban and two rural sites in the Pearl River Delta region during November-December 2009. The ratios of individual aromatics to acetylene were compared among these contrasting sites to indicate their difference in source contributions from solvent use and vehicle emissions. Ratios of toluene to benzene (T/B) in urban (1.8) and suburban (1.6) were near that of vehicle emissions. Higher T/B of 2.5 at the rural site downwind the industry zones reflected substantial contribution of solvent use while T/B of 0.8 at the upwind rural site reflected the impact of biomass burning. Source apportionment by positive matrix factorization (PMF) revealed that solvent use, vehicle exhaust and biomass burning altogether accounted for 89-94% of observed AHs. Vehicle exhaust was the major source for benzene with a share of 43-70% and biomass burning in particular contributed 30% to benzene in the upwind rural site; toluene, C 8 -aromatics and C 9 -aromatics, however, were mainly from solvent use, with contribution percentages of 47-59%, 52-59% and 41-64%, respectively.

show abstract

Source apportionment of exposure to toxic volatile organic compounds using positive matrix factorization

Cited by 42 publications

References 27 publications

Ambient, indoor and personal exposure relationships of volatile organic compounds in Mexico City Metropolitan Area

Ambient, indoor and personal exposure relationships of volatile organic compounds in Mexico City Metropolitan Area

Occupational Exposure to Volatile Organic Compounds and Aldehydes in the U.S. Trucking Industry

Source attributions of hazardous aromatic hydrocarbons in urban, suburban and rural areas in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About