Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
A dynamic multi-compartment computer model has been developed to describe the physical processes determining
indoor pollutant concentrations as a function of outdoor concentrations, indoor emission rates and building characteristics. The model has been parameterised for typical UK homes and workplaces and linked to a time-activity model to
calculate exposures for a representative homemaker, schoolchild and o$ce worker, with respect to NO . The estimates of
population exposures, for selected urban and rural sites, are expressed in terms of annual means and frequency of hours in
which air quality standards are exceeded. The annual mean exposures are estimated to fall within the range of 5}21 ppb
for homes with no source, and 21}27 ppb for homes with gas cooking, varying across sites and population groups. The
contribution of outdoor exposure to annual mean NO exposure varied from 5 to 24%, that of indoor penetration of
outdoor air from 17 to 86% and that of gas cooking from 0 to 78%. The frequency of exposure to 1 h mean
concentrations above 150 ppb was very low, except for people cooking with gas. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Indoor pollution; Nitrogen dioxide; Microenvironment modelling; Personal exposure modelling
1. Introduction
The real health e!ects of air pollution depend on the
concentrations experienced by people rather than those
recorded by stationary air quality monitors located outdoors. Two key features of people which strongly in#uence their exposures are their mobility and the time spent
indoors (Loth and Ashmore, 1994). Recent estimates suggest that the average proportion of time spent indoors by
the population in developed countries is about 90%, with
considerable variation between individuals (GB Parliament House of Commons Environment Committee,
* Corresponding author. Present address: Deptartment of Environmental Science, University of Bradford, West Yorkshire
BD7 1DP, UK. Fax: #44-1274-235699.
E-mail address: m.r.ashmore@bradford.ac.uk (M.R. Ashmore).
Present address: Physics Department, National University
of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Present address: Institute of Public and Environmental
Health, Birmingham University, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
1352-2310/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 2 - 2 3 1 0 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 7 6 - X
270
2. Model description
2.1. Summary of modelling approach
The deterministic modelling approach applied here
combines two types of models:
(i) A physical model, used to calculate hourly indoor
air pollutant concentrations for di!erent microenviron-
(1)
271
(3)
This indoor/outdoor pollutant ratio represents a longterm equilibrium value. Thus, for a ME with no indoor
sources, the protection o!ered against outdoor pollutants is determined by three parameters: (i) the air exchange rate j , (ii) the deposition velocity v and (iii) the
building fabric xltration factor f. Table 1 summarises the
values selected for these parameters as representative of
UK buildings, as explained below.
(i) Air exchange rate. Air exchange rate (air change
h\ } abbreviated to ACH) or inxltration rate j is the
rate at which air passes into a building as a result of its
structural leakage or its ventilation system. In a typical
British house with windows and other controllable openings closed, this rate lies in the range of 0.3}1.7, with
a mean value of 0.7 ACH (Warren and Webb, 1980),
which is quite high compared to housing in countries
Table 1
Summary of input parameters for the physical model
MEs
j (h\)
Kitchen
1.0
1.5
0.7
1.5
1.2
1.5
0.8
1.2
1.5
Living room
O$ce
Classroom
(Winter)
(Summer)
(Winter)
(Summer)
(Winter)
(Summer)
(Mech. vent.)
(Winter)
(Summer)
< (m)
A/< (m\)
25
1.8
40
1.8
50
0.9
144
0.9
272
(4)
273
Table 2
Simulated microenvironments and percentage of time spent in each by the three groups, split by season and weekend/weekday
Simulated population groups
1. Homemakers
2. Schoolchildren
3. O$ce workers
Winter
weekdays
Winter
weekends
Summer
weekdays
Summer
weekends
Bedroom
Living room
Kitchen
Outdoors
Shops}restaurants
Transport
Bedroom
Living room
Kitchen
Outdoors
School
Shops-rest.
Transport
Bedroom
Living room
Kitchen
Outdoors
O$ce
Shops}rest.
Transport
31
39
19
6
5
*
41
20
6
6
23
4
*
31
22
6
2
29
6
4
35
32
17
4
8
4
43
33
8
4
*
8
4
38
38
8
4
*
8
4
31
22
19
23
5
*
41
14
6
12
23
4
*
31
14
6
10
29
6
4
35
20
17
16
8
4
43
16
8
21
*
8
4
38
22
8
20
*
8
4
274
3. Results
3.1. Physical model
To demonstrate the key "ndings of the physical model,
we present the predicted NO concentrations in the main
MEs, using the outdoor data from one site in winter
} Leeds (Fig. 2). When there is no indoor source (Fig. 2a),
the concentrations in the kitchen are a little higher than
those in the living room, due to the higher ventilation
rates. In the o$ce simulations (Fig. 2c), the indoor concentration is, as expected, higher for a naturally ventilated o$ce than for a mechanically ventilated o$ce.
The classroom simulations, as well as those for the shop
ME, produce similar concentration pro"les to a naturally
ventilated o$ce, since the parameters are assumed to be
the same. Gas cooking produces large intermittent increases in the NO levels in the kitchen, with the two
peaks shown in Fig. 2b corresponding to breakfast and
dinner preparation; the 1 h mean concentration in the
kitchen reaches a maximum of 286 ppb. The simulations,
which assume that the door between the two rooms is
open, also show elevated NO levels in the living room
during cooking, with a maximum 1-h mean concentration of 84 ppb.
The seasonal mean NO concentrations in each ME,
as well as the mean indoor/outdoor ratio (I/O), calculated for the Leeds data, are presented in Table 3. The
simulated winter I/O values are consistent with the pattern shown in Fig. 2; values are in the range 0.44}0.55 in
no-source homes, with higher values in naturally ventilated, compared with mechanically ventilated, o$ces,
and in kitchens compared to living rooms. In homes with
gas cooking, the seasonal I/O ratio is above 1.0 in the
kitchen, but not in the living room. There is a higher I/O
value at home in the summer than in the winter simulations (Table 3), both for the no source and the source
scenarios. This is due to the increased air exchange rates,
which allow pollutants to enter at a faster rate from
outdoor air.
3.2. Predicted annual mean exposures
The estimated annual mean NO exposures calculated
for the individuals in the three groups and the four
monitoring stations, for the no source scenario are shown
in Fig. 3a. For all groups, the annual mean exposures are
lower than the annual mean concentration at the corre-
275
Table 3
Summary of simulated NO concentrations (ppb) and indoor/outdoor ratios, using outdoor data from the Leeds site
Winter
Summer
I/O
Outdoor (Leeds)
30.3
14.7
13.4
0.48
0.44
14.6
14.6
0.61
0.61
33.3
20.4
1.10
0.67
29.8
18.9
1.24
0.78
O$ce
Natural ventilation
Mechanical ventilation
16.6
13.5
0.55
0.44
14.5
10.7
0.60
0.44
Classroom
16.6
0.55
14.5
0.60
I/O
ME
24.1
Fig. 3. Modelled annual mean exposures to NO for four sites for homes (a) without gas cooking and (b) with gas cooking, for
homemakers (HM), schoolchildren (SC), and o$ce workers in naturally ventilated o$ces (OW).
276
Table 4
Estimated contribution (%) of penetration of outdoor air (In), indoor sources (Ck) and outdoor air (Out) to annual mean NO exposure,
for di!erent sites and groups
Lullington Heath
Birmingham
Leeds
London
In
Ck
Out
In
Ck
Out
In
Ck
Out
In
Ck
Out
No source
Homemaker
Schoolchild
O$ce worker
76
79
86
*
*
*
24
21
14
76
79
86
*
*
*
24
21
14
76
79
86
*
*
*
24
21
14
76
79
86
*
*
*
24
21
14
Gas cooking
Homemaker
Schoolchild
O$ce worker
17
36
38
78
54
55
5
10
7
35
56
61
54
29
29
11
15
10
37
58
62
52
27
27
11
15
11
41
61
66
45
22
23
14
17
11
4. Discussion
This study has provided, for the "rst time, modelled
estimates of exposure to NO in the UK, which include
indoor exposures. A modelling approach has been adopted, which links a physical microenvironmental model
with a time-activity model. The value of our approach is
that allows the e!ects of di!erent physical features of the
indoor microenvironments and di!erent activity patterns
to be quantitatively compared. Furthermore, it
allows the separation of indoor exposure into that due
to indoor sources and that due to penetration of outdoor air. However, the use of mean values for the
parameters and a single indicative activity pro"le for
each group in our study means that the expected variability in personal exposures is not represented in the
model predictions, and the results of this study can
only be indicative of NO exposure patterns in the UK
population.
Nevertheless, the model predictions clearly demonstrate the large e!ect of indoor activities on personal
exposures, which di!er greatly from those monitored at
the corresponding "xed site monitors, and the large contrasts between exposures, which arise from di!erences in
activity patterns and exposure to indoor sources. Therefore, although the model predictions can only be regarded as indicative of population exposures, this type of
preliminary modelling work is of considerable value. It
identi"es key factors which in#uence indoor concentrations and personal exposures in the UK, providing a "rst
estimate of the relative importance of pollutant sources
for chronic and acute health e!ects and evaluating potential implications for policy on air pollution control both
outdoors and indoors.
Due to the limited data on the indoor environment in
the UK, many of the parameters of the physical model
can only be estimated, or based on studies carried out
elsewhere where building design and climate may di!er
from the UK. The key uncertainties in the physical model
are as follows:
(i) the fact that the two-compartment approach does
not adequately represent the actual homes in which
people live;
(ii) the limited UK data available to quantify the key
parameters of the model. Current cooking and
activity patterns may di!er substantially from
those in the 1980s and may vary seasonally
more than the current simulations allowed. For
source strength, especially, there is a great uncertainty regarding the current applicability of 1985 data on
gas usage, given socio-demographic changes over the
last 15 years;
(iii) the limited representivity of the monitoring sites,
especially given the variation in locations used by
individuals.
277
278
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the "nancial support of the Joint
Environment Programme of National Power PLC,
PowerGen plc and Eastern Generation Ltd. Our current
research in this "eld is supported by the UK Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
References
AIVC 44, 1994. An analysis and data summary of the AIVC's
numerical database. Technical note AIVC, Air In"ltration
and Ventilation Centre, 44.
279