| Literature DB >> 33295177 |
Nijing Wang1, Nora Zannoni1, Lisa Ernle1, Gabriel Bekö2, Pawel Wargocki2, Mengze Li1, Charles J Weschler2,3, Jonathan Williams1,4.
Abstract
Humans are a potent, mobile source of various volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in indoor environments. Such direct anthropogenic emissions are gaining importance, as those from furnishings and building materials have become better regulated and energy efficient homes may reduce ventilation. While previous studies have characterized human emissions in indoor environments, the question remains whether VOCs remain unidentified by current measuring techniques. In this study conducted in a climate chamber occupied by four people, the total OH reactivity of air was quantified, together with multiple VOCs measured by proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometry (PTR-ToF-MS) and fast gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (fast-GC-MS). Whole-body, breath, and dermal emissions were assessed. The comparison of directly measured OH reactivity and that of the summed reactivity of individually measured species revealed no significant shortfall. Ozone exposure (37 ppb) was found to have little influence on breath OH reactivity but enhanced dermal OH reactivity significantly. Without ozone, the whole-body OH reactivity was dominated by breath emissions, mostly isoprene (76%). With ozone present, OH reactivity nearly doubled, with the increase being mainly caused by dermal emissions of mostly carbonyl compounds (57%). No significant difference in total OH reactivity was observed for different age groups (teenagers/young adults/seniors) without ozone. With ozone present, the total OH reactivity decreased slightly with increasing age.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33295177 PMCID: PMC7788569 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c04206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Technol ISSN: 0013-936X Impact factor: 9.028
Experimental Conditions and Information
| experiment
number | experiment type | temperature (°C) (replicate) | relative humidity (%) (replicate) | age |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | whole-body: young adult (group A1) | 26.2–30.3 | 31–35 | mean: 25 (19–30) |
| 6 (21) | whole-body: young adult (group A2) | 23.7–27.5 | 16–23 | |
| (23.3–27.7) | (17–25) | |||
| 10 | whole-body: young adult (group A3) | 25.3–28.8 | 28–31 | |
| 18 (26) | whole-body: teenager (group T4) | 24.6–28.4 | 29–37 | mean: 13.8 |
| (25.8–30.0) | (30–36) | (13–15) | ||
| 16 (25) | whole-body: senior (group S5) | 25.3–29.7 | 24–30 | mean: 70.5 |
| (25.4–29.0) | (24–28) | (68–72) | ||
| 12 | breath: young adult (group A3) | 32.2–32.6 | 56–62 | |
| 13 | skin: young adult (group A3) | 26.3–29.9 | 24–28 |
Experiment numbers are identical to those in Bekö et al.[42] Numbers in parentheses refer to replicate measurements.
Figure 1Calculated and measured OH reactivity of adult whole-body emissions under ozone-free and ozone-present conditions. Error bars represent the standard deviation derived from the data of four benchmark experiments (Experiments 1, 6, 10, and 21).
Top 10 Species Contributing to the Calculated OH Reactivity of Adult Whole-Body Emissions (average levels and standard deviations of Experiments 1, 6, 10, and 21) under Ozone-Free and Ozone-Present Conditions
| mass (H+) | compounds | OH reactivity ± SD (s–1) | fraction ± SD% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ozone-free | isoprene | 12 ± 2.4 | 76 ± 3.8 | |
| 137.132 | limonene | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 3.6 ± 1.0 | |
| 127.112 | 6MHO | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 2.6 ± 1.3 | |
| 45.034 | acetaldehyde | 0.3 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.9 | |
| ammonia | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.5 | ||
| 195.186 | geranyl acetone | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.6 | |
| 87.044 | 1,4-butanedial | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | |
| 33.034 | methanol | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.3 | |
| 91.057 | C4H10S | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.5 | |
| 71.049 | C4H6O | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | |
| ozone-present | isoprene | 11.0 ± 1.2 | 33 ± 3.8 | |
| 127.112 | 6MHO | 9.3 ± 1.1 | 28 ± 1.2 | |
| 101.096 | 4OPA | 1.9 ± 0.2 | 5.8 ± 0.1 | |
| 143.143 | nonanal | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 3.5 ± 0.1 | |
| 87.044 | 1,4-butanedial | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | |
| 45.034 | acetaldehyde | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.8 | |
| 137.132 | limonene | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 2.2 ± 1.0 | |
| 141.127 | nonenal | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | |
| propanal | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.0 | ||
| 195.186 | geranyl acetone | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.5 | |
Isoprene and propanal data were obtained from fast-GC–MS.
Ammonia data was obtained from a cavity ring-down spectrometer (Picarro G2103).
Per-Person OH Reactivity from Human Emissions in Various Studies
| indoor environments | OH reactivity per person before adjustment (s–1 p–1) | indoor volume (m3) | outdoor ACR (h–1) | indoor ozone level (ppb) | OH reactivity per person after adjustment (s–1 p–1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| present study | |||||
| chamber (ozone-free) | 4.0 | 22.5 | 3.2 | <1 | 4.0 |
| chamber (ozone-present) | 8.3 | 22.5 | 3.2 | 37 | 8.3 |
| other studies | |||||
| classroom (Tang et al.[ | 0.12 | 670 | 5 | not reported | 5.4 |
| cinema (Stönner et
al.[ | 0.055 | 1300 | 5 | low | 5.0 |
| gallery room (high-occupancy
event) (Price et al.[ | 0.080 | 6000 | 0.8 | 5 | 5.3 |
OH reactivity per person before adjustment was estimated using reported VOCs emission rates, details shown in the Supporting Information.
OH reactivity per person before adjustment was estimated on the basis of reported OH reactivity and occupancy number, details shown in the Supporting Information.
Figure 2Measured and calculated OH reactivity of breath (Experiment 12), dermal (Experiment 13), and corresponding whole-body emissions (Experiment 10) under ozone-free and ozone-present conditions. Error bars represent the total uncertainty of the measured and calculated OH reactivity.
Figure 3Total calculated and measured OH reactivity and the calculated OH reactivity for five chemical subgroups (those making the greatest contributions) for whole-body emissions from teenagers (T, n = 2), young adults (YA, n = 4), and seniors (S, n = 2). Error bars refer to the standard deviations obtained from benchmark experiments in each age group. Since nitrogen containing species were dominated by ammonia (due to its high mixing ratios[49]) and the data were only available for one benchmark experiment, the variation (error bars) for the senior group (Experiment 25) could not be derived.