Kumar Prashant, Rawat Nidhi, Tiwari Arvind
Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), School of Sustainability, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, Surrey, United Kingdom; Institute for Sustainability, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Global Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), School of Sustainability, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Environ Res. 2023 Jan 15;217:114849. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114849. Epub 2022 Nov 19.
A naturally-ventilated operational classroom was instrumented at 18 locations to assess spatial variations of classroom air pollution (CRAP), thermal comfort and ventilation indicators under 10 different scenarios (base scenario without air purifier (AP); three single AP scenarios; three scenarios with two APs at same locations; three scenarios with two APs at different locations). Unlike PM, monitored PM and CO concentrations followed the diurnal occupancy profile. Highest vertical variation (38%) in CO was at the classroom entry zone at 40-300 cm height. CO increased until 225 cm before stratifying further. PM increased to highest levels at children sitting height (100 cm) before decreasing to adult breathing height (150 cm). Highest horizontal variations in CO (PM) were 29% (22%) at 40 cm height between the entry and occupied zones. Teachers' exposure to CO (PM) in breathing zone varied by up to 6% (3%); the corresponding variations across monitored locations were up to 14% (19%). Teachers' exposure to CO was up to 13% higher than that of children and 18% lower for PM. Traffic emissions (PM and NO), secondary pollutants (VOCs and O), thermal comfort parameters and noise level in the classroom varied insignificantly among scenarios. PM reduction was not doubled by using two air purifiers, which were most effective when placed within the highest PM concentration zone. Cross-comparisons of scenarios showed: use of AP reduced classroom's spatial average PM up to 14%; PM was reduced by increasing the AP's filtration capacity; and AP had insignificant impact on spatial average CO. PM showed a maximum reduction of 46% (teacher zone), 62% (occupied zone) and 50% (entry zone) at children's breathing height, depending on usage scenario. This study produced high-resolution data for validating the detailed numerical models for classrooms and informing decision-making on AP's placement to minimise children's exposure to CRAP and re-breathed CO.
在一个自然通风的实用教室的18个位置安装了仪器,以评估在10种不同场景下(无空气净化器的基础场景;三个单一空气净化器场景;三个在相同位置安装两个空气净化器的场景;三个在不同位置安装两个空气净化器的场景)教室空气污染(CRAP)、热舒适度和通风指标的空间变化。与颗粒物(PM)不同,监测到的PM和一氧化碳(CO)浓度遵循每日的使用情况分布。CO的最高垂直变化(38%)出现在教室入口区域40 - 300厘米高度处。CO在进一步分层之前一直增加到225厘米。PM在儿童就座高度(100厘米)处增加到最高水平,然后在成人呼吸高度(150厘米)处下降。在入口区域和使用区域之间,40厘米高度处CO(PM)的最高水平变化为29%(22%)。教师呼吸区域内CO(PM)的暴露差异高达6%(3%);监测位置之间的相应差异高达14%(19%)。教师CO的暴露比儿童高13%,PM的暴露比儿童低18%。交通排放物(PM和氮氧化物)、二次污染物(挥发性有机化合物和臭氧)、热舒适度参数以及教室中的噪音水平在各场景之间变化不显著。使用两个空气净化器并没有使PM减少翻倍,空气净化器放置在PM浓度最高的区域时效果最佳。各场景的交叉比较表明:使用空气净化器可使教室的空间平均PM降低高达14%;通过提高空气净化器的过滤能力可降低PM;空气净化器对空间平均CO的影响不显著。根据使用场景,在儿童呼吸高度处,PM在教师区域最多降低46%,在使用区域最多降低62%,在入口区域最多降低50%。本研究产生了高分辨率数据,用于验证教室的详细数值模型,并为空气净化器的放置提供决策依据,以尽量减少儿童接触CRAP和再吸入CO。