Cargando…
Evaluation of Fine and Ultrafine Particles Proportion in Airborne Dust in an Industrial Area
The health impacts of suspended particulate matter (SPM) are significantly associated with size—the smaller the aerosol particles, the stronger the biological effect. Quantitative evaluation of fine and ultrafine particles (FP and UFP) is, therefore, an integral part of ongoing epidemiological studi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431044/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34501505 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178915 |
_version_ | 1783750844759408640 |
---|---|
author | Machaczka, Ondrej Jirik, Vitezslav Brezinova, Viera Vrtkova, Adela Miturova, Hana Riedlova, Petra Dalecka, Andrea Hermanova, Barbara Slachtova, Hana Siemiatkowski, Grzegorz Osrodka, Leszek Sram, Radim J. |
author_facet | Machaczka, Ondrej Jirik, Vitezslav Brezinova, Viera Vrtkova, Adela Miturova, Hana Riedlova, Petra Dalecka, Andrea Hermanova, Barbara Slachtova, Hana Siemiatkowski, Grzegorz Osrodka, Leszek Sram, Radim J. |
author_sort | Machaczka, Ondrej |
collection | PubMed |
description | The health impacts of suspended particulate matter (SPM) are significantly associated with size—the smaller the aerosol particles, the stronger the biological effect. Quantitative evaluation of fine and ultrafine particles (FP and UFP) is, therefore, an integral part of ongoing epidemiological studies. The mass concentrations of SPM fractions (especially PM(2.5), PM(1.0), PM(0.25)) were measured in an industrial area using cascade personal samplers and a gravimetric method, and their mass ratio was determined. The results of PM(2.5), PM(1.0) were also compared with the reference measurement at stationary stations. The mean ratios PM(2.5)/SPM, PM(1.0)/SPM, and PM(1.0)/PM(2.5) were 0.76, 0.65, and 0.86, respectively. Surprisingly, a mass dominance of UFP with an aerodynamic diameter <0.25 μm (PM(0.25)) was found with mean ratios of 0.43, 0.57, 0.67 in SPM, PM(2.5) and PM(1.0). The method used showed satisfactory agreement in comparison with reference measurements. The respirable fraction may consist predominantly of UFP. Despite the measures currently being taken to improve air quality, the most biologically efficient UFP can escape and remain in the air. UFP are currently determined primarily as particle number as opposed to the mass concentration used for conventional fractions. This complicates their mutual comparison and determination of individual fraction ratios. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8431044 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84310442021-09-11 Evaluation of Fine and Ultrafine Particles Proportion in Airborne Dust in an Industrial Area Machaczka, Ondrej Jirik, Vitezslav Brezinova, Viera Vrtkova, Adela Miturova, Hana Riedlova, Petra Dalecka, Andrea Hermanova, Barbara Slachtova, Hana Siemiatkowski, Grzegorz Osrodka, Leszek Sram, Radim J. Int J Environ Res Public Health Article The health impacts of suspended particulate matter (SPM) are significantly associated with size—the smaller the aerosol particles, the stronger the biological effect. Quantitative evaluation of fine and ultrafine particles (FP and UFP) is, therefore, an integral part of ongoing epidemiological studies. The mass concentrations of SPM fractions (especially PM(2.5), PM(1.0), PM(0.25)) were measured in an industrial area using cascade personal samplers and a gravimetric method, and their mass ratio was determined. The results of PM(2.5), PM(1.0) were also compared with the reference measurement at stationary stations. The mean ratios PM(2.5)/SPM, PM(1.0)/SPM, and PM(1.0)/PM(2.5) were 0.76, 0.65, and 0.86, respectively. Surprisingly, a mass dominance of UFP with an aerodynamic diameter <0.25 μm (PM(0.25)) was found with mean ratios of 0.43, 0.57, 0.67 in SPM, PM(2.5) and PM(1.0). The method used showed satisfactory agreement in comparison with reference measurements. The respirable fraction may consist predominantly of UFP. Despite the measures currently being taken to improve air quality, the most biologically efficient UFP can escape and remain in the air. UFP are currently determined primarily as particle number as opposed to the mass concentration used for conventional fractions. This complicates their mutual comparison and determination of individual fraction ratios. MDPI 2021-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8431044/ /pubmed/34501505 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178915 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Machaczka, Ondrej Jirik, Vitezslav Brezinova, Viera Vrtkova, Adela Miturova, Hana Riedlova, Petra Dalecka, Andrea Hermanova, Barbara Slachtova, Hana Siemiatkowski, Grzegorz Osrodka, Leszek Sram, Radim J. Evaluation of Fine and Ultrafine Particles Proportion in Airborne Dust in an Industrial Area |
title | Evaluation of Fine and Ultrafine Particles Proportion in Airborne Dust in an Industrial Area |
title_full | Evaluation of Fine and Ultrafine Particles Proportion in Airborne Dust in an Industrial Area |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Fine and Ultrafine Particles Proportion in Airborne Dust in an Industrial Area |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Fine and Ultrafine Particles Proportion in Airborne Dust in an Industrial Area |
title_short | Evaluation of Fine and Ultrafine Particles Proportion in Airborne Dust in an Industrial Area |
title_sort | evaluation of fine and ultrafine particles proportion in airborne dust in an industrial area |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8431044/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34501505 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18178915 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT machaczkaondrej evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT jirikvitezslav evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT brezinovaviera evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT vrtkovaadela evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT miturovahana evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT riedlovapetra evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT daleckaandrea evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT hermanovabarbara evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT slachtovahana evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT siemiatkowskigrzegorz evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT osrodkaleszek evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea AT sramradimj evaluationoffineandultrafineparticlesproportioninairbornedustinanindustrialarea |