International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia.
International Laboratory for Air Quality and Health, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia; Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia.
Environ Int. 2017 Nov;108:75-83. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.025. Epub 2017 Aug 9.
It has been shown that the exposure to airborne particulate matter is one of the most significant environmental risks people face. Since indoor environment is where people spend the majority of time, in order to protect against this risk, the origin of the particles needs to be understood: do they come from indoor, outdoor sources or both? Further, this question needs to be answered separately for each of the PM mass/number size fractions, as they originate from different sources. Numerous studies have been conducted for specific indoor environments or under specific setting. Here our aim was to go beyond the specifics of individual studies, and to explore, based on pooled data from the literature, whether there are generalizable trends in routes of exposure at homes, schools and day cares, offices and aged care facilities. To do this, we quantified the overall 24h and occupancy weighted means of PM, PM and PN - particle number concentration. Based on this, we developed a summary of the indoor versus outdoor origin of indoor particles and compared the means to the WHO guidelines (for PM and PM) and to the typical levels reported for urban environments (PN). We showed that the main origins of particle metrics differ from one type of indoor environment to another. For homes, outdoor air is the main origin of PM and PM but PN originate from indoor sources; for schools and day cares, outdoor air is the source of PN while PM and PM have indoor sources; and for offices, outdoor air is the source of all three particle size fractions. While each individual building is different, leading to differences in exposure and ideally necessitating its own assessment (which is very rarely done), our findings point to the existence of generalizable trends for the main types of indoor environments where people spend time, and therefore to the type of prevention measures which need to be considered in general for these environments.
已经表明，人们面临的最大环境风险之一是空气中的颗粒物暴露。由于室内环境是人们大部分时间所处的地方，为了防范这种风险，需要了解颗粒物的来源：它们是来自室内、室外还是两者都有？此外，需要分别为每个 PM 质量/数量粒径分数回答这个问题，因为它们来自不同的来源。已经针对特定的室内环境或特定的环境进行了许多研究。在这里，我们的目标是超越个别研究的具体情况，并根据文献中的汇总数据探索家庭、学校和日托中心、办公室和养老院中暴露途径是否存在普遍趋势。为此，我们量化了 PM、PM 和 PN-颗粒物数浓度的 24 小时和占用加权平均值。在此基础上，我们总结了室内颗粒物的室内和室外来源，并将平均值与世界卫生组织指南（PM 和 PM）和城市环境中报告的典型水平（PN）进行了比较。结果表明，颗粒物指标的主要来源因室内环境类型而异。对于家庭来说，室外空气是 PM 和 PM 的主要来源，但 PN 来自室内来源；对于学校和日托中心，室外空气是 PN 的来源，而 PM 和 PM 则有室内来源；对于办公室，所有三种粒径分数的来源都是室外空气。虽然每栋建筑都不同，导致暴露程度不同，理想情况下需要对其进行单独评估（但很少这样做），但我们的发现表明，人们在其中度过时间的主要室内环境类型存在可推广的趋势，因此需要考虑针对这些环境的一般预防措施。
