| Literature DB >> 33799654 |
Sunghee Cho1,2, Gahye Lee1,2, Duckshin Park1, Minjeong Kim1.
Abstract
Resuspension of particulate matter (PM) in classrooms, which increases the risk of negative impact on student health from exposure to PM, is influenced by humidity level in the indoor environment. The goal of this study is to investigate the properties of PM resuspension in accordance with relative humidity through classroom test chamber experiments. In actual classrooms, it is challenging to control factors influencing resuspension. Therefore, the classroom chamber that reflects the environment of elementary school classroom (e.g., structure, floor material) is used in this study. The humidity of the classroom chamber is adjusted to 35%, 55%, 75%, and 85% by placing it inside a real-size environmental chamber, which allows artificial control of climatic conditions. At the respective humidity conditions, PM resuspension concentration and resuspension factor caused by occupant walking across the classroom chamber are analyzed. The results show that both of the resuspension concentration and resuspension factor reveal a linear negative correlation to humidity increase. Furthermore, coefficient of determination (R2) indicating goodness-of-fit of the linear regression model between the resuspension concentration and humidity is 0.88 for PM10 and 0.93 for PM2.5. It implies that accuracy of the regression model for estimating PM10 and PM2.5 resuspension concentrations is 88% and 93%, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: classroom; occupants’ activity; particulate matter; relative humidity; resuspension; resuspension factor
Year: 2021 PMID: 33799654 PMCID: PMC8000034 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18062856
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Design specifications of the classroom chamber.
| Item | Specifications | Characteristics | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Size | Length | 9 m | Same as actual classroom |
| Width | 3 m | One-third of actual classroom | |
| Height | 3 m | Same as actual classroom | |
| Entrance | 900 mm × 2100 mm | Hinged door; installed at the front and rear | |
| Window to the corridor | 1500 mm × 800 mm (2ea) | ||
| Window to the schoolyard | 1500 mm × 800 mm (4ea) | ||
| Occupant’s entrance | 900 mm × 2100 mm | Sliding door; installed at the front and rear | |
| Floor material | wooden décor-tile | ||
Figure 1Inside the classroom chamber (Note: cube-shaped devices on the poles are simple particulate matter (PM) measurement devices but they were not used in this study).
Operating specifications of real-scale environmental chamber.
| Item | Specification | |
|---|---|---|
| Chamber size | data | |
| Humidity | Controllable range | 5~95% |
| Controllability | ±5% | |
| Temperature | Controllable range | −43~63 °C |
| Controllability | <±1 °C | |
| Freezing | Chamber temperature | <−5 °C |
| Ice depth * | 10 mm > at −10 °C | |
| Solar irradiation | 500~1200 W/m2 | |
| Wind speed | 0~15 km/h | |
(note) * depth of ice which can be frozen on the floor and wall of the chamber.
Figure 2Real-scale environmental chamber: (a) inside the environmental chamber, (b) classroom chamber inside the environmental chamber.
Figure 3Schematic diagram of PM resuspension experiment in classroom chamber under various humidity conditions.
Specification of the A1 ultrafine test dust (Powder Technology INC., Arden Hills, MN USA).
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||
| SiO2 | 69–77 | Al2O3 | 8–14 | |||
| Fe2O3 | 4–7 | CaO | 2.5–5.5 | |||
| K2O | 2–5 | Na2O | 1–4 | |||
| MgO | 1–2 | TiO2 | 0–1 | |||
|
| ||||||
|
| 0.97 | 1.38 | 2.75 | 5.50 | 11.0 | 22.0 |
|
| 3–5 | 7–10 | 23–27 | 65–69 | 95–97 | 100 |
Weather conditions in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province over the most recent three years.
| Spring | Summer | Autumn | Winter | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-rainfall days | Temperature (°C) | 13.0 | 26.0 | 14.5 | −1.4 |
| Humidity (%) | 53.4 | 64.6 | 59.1 | 50.6 | |
| Rainfall days | Temperature (°C) | 11.7 | 24.7 | 15.3 | 0.0 |
| Humidity (%) | 69.3 | 77.4 | 72.2 | 63.1 | |
Figure 4Example of analysis of PM resuspension concentration and time in the classroom chamber.
Indoor and outdoor humidity for the classroom simulation chamber (inside the real-scale environmental chamber).
| Indoor Humidity (%) | Outdoor Humidity (%) |
|---|---|
| 37 | 35 |
| 52 | 55 |
| 67 | 76 |
| 73 | 85 |
Figure 5Changes in PM10 concentrations in the classroom chamber under each humidity condition: at 35%, 55%, 75%, and 85% humidity.
Figure 6Changes in PM2.5 concentrations in the classroom chamber under each humidity condition: at 35%, 55%, 75%, and 85% humidity.
PM resuspension concentrations in the classroom chamber under each humidity condition (the values in bracket represent the standard deviations).
| [µg/m3 ] | 35% | 55% | 75% | 85% or Above |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM10 | 22.3 (±8.3) | 17.6 (±6.8) | 13.2 (±2.0) | 4.6 (±1.6) |
| PM2.5 | 3.6 (±1.6) | 3.0 (±2.0) | 2.0 (±0.6) | 1.0 (±0.2) |
Figure 7Comparison of PM resuspension concentration under each humidity condition.
PM resuspension factors of the classroom chamber under each humidity condition.
| [µg/µg] | 35% | 55% | 75% | 85% or Above |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM10 | 0.0106 (±0.004) | 0.0033 (±0.003) | 0.0062 (±0.001) | 0.0022 (±0.001) |
| PM2.5 | 0.0017 (±0.0008) | 0.0014 (±0.001) | 0.0010 (±0.0003) | 0.0005 (±0.0001) |
Figure 8Comparison of PM resuspension factor under each condition of (a) indoor and (b) outdoor humidity of the classroom chamber.