| Literature DB >> 29498704 |
Yaolin Lin1,2, Jiale Zou3, Wei Yang4, Chun-Qing Li5.
Abstract
PM2.5 pollution has become a severe problem in China due to rapid industrialization and high energy consumption. It can cause increases in the incidence of various respiratory diseases and resident mortality rates, as well as increase in the energy consumption in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems due to the need for air purification. This paper reviews and studies the sources of indoor and outdoor PM2.5, the impact of PM2.5 pollution on atmospheric visibility, occupational health, and occupants' behaviors. This paper also presents current pollution status in China, the relationship between indoor and outdoor PM2.5, and control of indoor PM2.5, and finally presents analysis and suggestions for future research.Entities:
Keywords: China; I/O relationship; PM2.5; control; impact
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29498704 PMCID: PMC5876983 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15030438
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Spatial and temporal distribution of PM2.5 in Chinese cities [5].
Implementation time table for each country/organization on PM2.5 concentration limit.
| Country/Organization | Annual Average Limit (μg·m−3) | Daily Average Limit (μg·m−3) | Notes | Web References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| USA-1 | 15 | 65 | Established in 1997 | [ |
| USA-2 | 15 | 35 | Established in 2006 | |
| USA-3 | 15 | 12 | Established in 2012 | |
| Australia | 8 | 25 | Established in 2003, not enforced till now | [ |
| WHO air quality goal (AQG) | 10 | 25 | Published in 2005, and the limit is mainly for developing countries | [ |
| WHO transition target-1 (the most flexible limit) | 35 | 75 | Compared with AQG value, long-term exposure at these levels increases the risk of death by about 15% | |
| WHO transition target-2 | 25 | 50 | Among other health benefits, exposures at this level reduce the risk of death by about 6% (2% to 11%) compared with transition target-1 | |
| WHO transition target-3 | 15 | 37.5 | This is the lowest level for long-term exposure to PM2.5, at which total mortality, cardiopulmonary disease mortality and lung cancer mortality will increase with over 95% confidence | |
| EU-1 (2010–2015) | 25 | Published in 2008, executed in 2010, and not allowed to go beyond the limit in 2015 | [ | |
| EU-2 (2015–2020) | 20 | Not enforced until 2020 | ||
| Singapore (long term target) | 10 | 25 | Established in 2008 | [ |
| Singapore-1 (2008–2014) | 15 | Established in 2008 | ||
| Singapore-2 (2015–2020) | 12 | 37.5 | Established in 2015 | |
| Japan | 15 | 35 | Established in 2009 | [ |
| India | 40 | 60 | Established in 2009 | [ |
| China level 1 | 15 | 35 | Established in 2012, fully implemented in 2016 | [ |
| China level 2 | 35 | 75 |
EU: European Union.
Figure 2Histogram distribution of PM2.5 concentration [7].
Modeling methods and analysis on sources of PM2.5.
| Method | Reference | Location | Sampling Time Period | Main Sources of PM2.5 and Their Contribution Rates |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMB | [ | Ningbo | 15–24 March 2010; | Urban dust (20.42%), coal dust (14.37%) and vehicle exhaust (15.15%) |
| [ | Urumchi | 19–30 January 2013 | Urban dust (24.7%), coal dust (15.6%) and secondary particles (38.0%) | |
| [ | Qizhou | September 2013; | Dust (21–35%), secondary particles (25–26%) and vehicle exhaust (21–26%) | |
| [ | Ningbo | 25–31 January 2010; | Urban dust (19.9%), coal dust (14.4%), secondary sulfate (16.9%), vehicle exhaust (15.2%), secondary nitrate (9.78%) and secondary organic carbon (8.85%) | |
| [ | Tianjin | 13–20 May 2010; | Open source (urban dust, soil dust and construction cement dust, total contribution of 30%),Secondary particles (secondary sulfate, secondary nitrate and secondary carbon, total contribution of 28%), coal dust (19.6%) and vehicle exhaust (15.9%) | |
| [ | Chongqing | 6–28 February 2012; | Secondary particles (30.1%) and moving source (27.9%) | |
| [ | Beijing | August 2012–July 2013, continuous for 5 to 7 days per month | Secondary inorganic salts (36%), organic matter (20%), vehicle/fuel (16%), coal burning (15%), soil dust (6%) and others (7%) | |
| [ | Xining | 26 February–4 March 2014; | Urban dust (26.24%), coal dust (14.5%), vehicle exhaust (12.8%), secondary sulphate (9.0%), biomass burning (6.6%), secondary nitrates (5.7%), steel dust (4.7%), construction dust (4.4%), soil dust (4.4%), food and beverage emissions (2.9%) and other unidentified sources (5.2%) | |
| [ | Xingtai | 24 February–15 March 2014; | Coal dust (25%), secondary inorganic particles (sulfate and nitrate, 45%), vehicle exhaust (11%), dust (9%), soil dust (3%), construction and metallurgical dust (1%) and other unidentified sources (3%) | |
| PMF | [ | Wuhan | July 2011–February 2012 | Vehicle sources (27.1%), secondary sulphates and nitrates (26.8%), manufacturing emissions (26.4%) and biomass combustion (19.6%) |
| [ | Chengdu | 29 April–17 May 2009; | Soil dust and raise dust (14.3%), biomass combustion (28.0%), vehicle sources (24.0%) and secondary nitrates/sulfates (31.3%) | |
| [ | Shenzhen | January–December 2009 | Secondary sulphate (30.0%), vehicle sources (26.9%), biomass combustion (9.8%) and secondary nitrates (9.3%) | |
| [ | suburbs of Shanghai | 23 December 2012–18 February 2014 | Secondary aerosol (50.8%), fuel combustion (17.5%), biomass combustion/sea salt (17.2%), raise dust/construction dust (7.7%), and coal-burning/smelting dust (6.9%) | |
| [ | North China | 3 January–11 February 2014 | Coal combustion (29.6%), biomass combustion (19.3%) and vehicle sources (15.9%) | |
| [ | Lanzhou | Winter 2012 and summer 2013 | Steel industry, secondary aerosols, coal combustion, power plants, vehicle emissions, crustal dust, and smelting industry contributed 7.1%, 33.0%, 28.7%, 3.12%, 8.8%, 13.3%, and 6.0%, respectively, in winter, and 6.7%, 14.8%, 3.1%, 3.4%, 25.2%, 11.6% and 35.2% in summer | |
| [ | Chongqing | 2012–2013 | Secondary inorganic aerosols (37.5%), coal combustion (22.0%), other industrial pollution (17.5%), soil dust (11.0%), vehicular emission (9.8%) and metallurgical industry (2.2%) | |
| [ | Yellow River Delta National Nature Reserve (YRDNNR) | January–November 2011 | Secondary sulphate and nitrate (54.3%), biomass burning (15.8%), industry (10.7%), crustal matter (8.3%), vehicles (5.2%) and copper smelting (4.9%) | |
| [ | Shanghai | October 2011–August 2012 | Coal burning (30.5%), gasoline engine emission (29.0%), diesel engine emission (17.5%), air-surface exchange (11.9%) and biomass burning (11.1%) | |
| [ | Zhengzhou | April 2011–December 2013 | Coal burning (29%), vehicle (26%), dust (21%), secondary aerosols (17%) and biomass burning (4%) | |
| [ | Qingshan District, Wuhan | 15 November–28 December 2013 | Traffic exhaust (28.60%), industry (27.10%), road dust (22%), coal combustion (13.20%) and building dust (9.5%) | |
| FA | [ | Beijing | 16 January–28 February 2013 | Industrial dust and human activities (40.3%), biomass combustion and building dust (27.0%), soil and wind induced dust (9.1%), fossil fuel sources (4.9%), electronic waste sources (4.8%) and regional migration sources (4.6%) |
| PCA | [ | Hangdan | January, April, July and October 2015 | Secondary aerosol source, transportation, fossil fuel and biomass burning (46.5%), soil and construction dust (19.5%), steel industry (19.5%) and transportation (9%) |
| [ | Hangdan | October 2012–January 2013 | Industry and coal burning (33.3%), secondary aerosol and biomass burning (21.7%), vehicle (12.8%) and road dust (9.1%), | |
| WRF/Chem+ observation data analysis | [ | Guangzhou | January–December 2013 | Moving sources (37.4%), industrial emissions (32.2%), electricity emissions (12.2%), residential emissions (6.6%) and others (11.6%) |
| PMF and backward trajectory model | [ | Heze | 13–22 August 2015; | Secondary inorganic salt (32.61%), vehicle emissions (22.60%), raise dust (19.64%), coal dust (16.25%) and construction cement dust (9.00%) |
| Chemical mass balance gas constraint-Iteration (CMBGC-Iteration) | [ | Tianjin | April 2014–January 2015 | Secondary sources (30%), crustal dust (25%), vehicle exhaust (16%), coal combustion (13%), SOC (7.6%) and cement dust (0.40%) |
| Ensemble-average of CMB, CMB-Iteration, CMB-GC, PMF, WALSPMF, and NCAPCA | Secondary sources (28%), crustal dust (20%), coal combustion (18%), vehicle exhaust (17%), SOC (11%) and cement dust (1.3%) | |||
| Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model | [ | 25 Chinese provincial capitals and municipalities | 2013 | Power plants (8.7–12.7%), agriculture NH3 (9.5–12%), windblown dust (6.1–12.5%) and secondary organic aerosol (SOA) (5.4–15.5%) |
| Particle Induced X-ray Emission(PIXE), XRay Fluorescence (XRF), and PMF | [ | Xigngzhen District, Beijing | 19 May 2007–19 July 2013 | Coal burning (29.2%), vehicle exhaust and waste incineration (26.2%), construction industry (23.3%), soil (15.4%) and industry with chlorine (5.9%) |
| Inventory-Chemical Mass Balance (I-CMB) | [ | Beijing | 2012 | Coal (28.06%), vehicle (19.73%), dust (17.88%), industry (16.50%), food (3.43%) and plant (3.40%) |
CMB: chemical mass balance method; PMF: positive matrix factorization; FA: factor analysis; PCA: principal component analysis; WRF: Weather Research and Forecasting; WALSPMF: Weighted Alternating Least Squares Positive Matrix Factorization; NCAPCA: Non-negative Constrained Absolutely Principle Analysis.
Figure 3Sources of indoor PM2.5.
Current status of indoor PM2.5 pollution.
| Building Type | Sampling Location | Sampling Condition | Average Indoor PM2.5 Concentration (μg·m−3) | References | Times Exceeding Limit Set by Standard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public place | Chongqing | Business hour | 211 (68–468) | [ | 6.03 |
| Public place | Ma’anshan | Business hour | 133.73 (74.96–259.28) | [ | 3.82 |
| Residential building | Lanzhou | Daily routine | Kitchen: 124.75 (48.14–279.25); Bedroom: 118.91 (38.34–367.62) | [ | 3.56; 3.40 |
| Residential building | Nanjing | No cooking, no smoking | 80 (47–113) | [ | 2.29 |
| Hospital | Shenzhen | Business hour | 36.71 (4.98–318.01) | [ | 1.05 |
| Government agency | Tianjin | Business hour | 71.0 (1–380) | [ | 2.03 |
| Shopping mall | Beijing | Business hour | 47 (9–253) | [ | 1.34 |
| Market | Beijing | Business hour | 56.21–61.36 | [ | 1.61–2.25 |
| Food court | Nanchang | Business hour | 164 (38.03–492.73) | [ | 4.69 |
I/O (indoor/outdoor) ratio under different ventilation modes.
| Ventilation Mode | Reference | Sampling Time Period | Building Type | Impact Factors of I/O Ratio | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Natural ventilation | [ | 1 December 2013–28 February 2014 | Residential building | Outdoor PM2.5 mass concentration level | When the outdoor PM2.5 concentration is in the ranges of 0–33 μg·m−3, 34–65 μg·m−3, 66–129 μg·m−3, and ≥130 μg·m−3, the I/O ratios are 1.75, 1.05, 0.76 and 0.63, respectively |
| [ | April–December 2015 (one week per month, except in July and August) | School | Outdoor PM2.5 mass concentration level, ACH, wind speed and outdoor air temperature | The time average I/O is 0.69. It varies in the range of 0.1–5.46. The I/O ratio decreases with the increases of outdoor PM2.5 mass concentration level | |
| [ | 09:00–18:00, 13–15 March 2014 | Laboratory complex building | ACH | 48.7–57.3% of the PM2.5 pollutants come from indoor sources and the I/O ratio varies 0.90–1.23 | |
| Infiltration | [ | September 2013–August 2014 | Office | Outdoor dry bulb temperature, relative humidity ratio and wind speed | The average ACH is 0.10 under mild weather, 0.22 when the wind speed is 1.6–3.4 m/s, 0.39 when the wind speed is 5.5–8.0 m/s. The corresponding I/O ratios are 0.43, 0.56 and 0.62, respectively |
| [ | Winter, 2014 | Residential building | Indoor pollution sources | When the indoor PM2.5 concentration reached its peak value, the I/O ratio was 0.67–0.89 | |
| [ | June 2013–August 2013; December 2013–February 2014 | Office | Seasonal changes, wind speed and relative humidity ratio | The indoor and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations in winter were higher than those in summer and the corresponding I/O ratios were also higher in winter than in summer |
ACH: air changes per hour.
Air conditioner with efficient PM2.5 purification function.
| Brand | Type | Capacity (W) | Energy Grade | Main PM2.5 Removal Technology | PM2.5 Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panasonic | KFR-36GW/BpSJ1S | 3600 | 3 | PM2.5 air filter | 84% |
| Haier | KFR-50LW/16UCP22AU1 | 5300 | 2 | PET antibacterial and anti-mildew air filter | 99% |
| Gree | KFR-26GW/(26571)FNBh-1 | 2650 | 1 | Group filters with strong PM2.5 capturing ability, primary air filter and high efficiency air filter | ≥97% |
| KELON | KFR-72LW/EFVEA2(2N01) | 7200 | 2 | Inhibitory fins that inhibit the growth of 99.9% bacteria | ≥99% |
| Midea | KFR-35GW/BP3DN1Y-QA100 | 3500 | 1 | Washable PM2.5 purifying module and dust collecting device | 90% |