Abstract
Indoor air quality is a growing concern as we spend the majority of time indoors and as new buildings are increasingly airtight for energy saving purposes. For a better understanding of residential indoor air pollution in Switzerland we conducted repeated 1–2-week-long indoor and outdoor measurements of particle number concentrations (PNC), particulate matter (PM), light absorbance of PM2.5 (PMabsorbance) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Residents of all homes were enrolled in the Swiss Cohort Study on Air Pollution and Lung and Heart Diseases in Adults (SAPALDIA). Indoor levels were comparable in urban areas and generally low in rural homes. Average indoor levels were 7800 particles/cm3 (interquartile range=7200); 8.7 μg/m3 (6.5) PM2.5 and 10.2 μg/m3 (11.2) NO2. All pollutants showed large variability of indoor/outdoor ratios between sites. We observed similar diurnal patterns for indoor and outdoor PNC. Nevertheless, the correlation of average indoor and outdoor PNC between sites as well as longitudinal indoor/outdoor correlations within sites were low. Our results show that a careful evaluation of home characteristics is needed when estimating indoor exposure to pollutants with outdoor origin.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 6 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $43.17 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schweizer C, Edwards RD, Bayer-Oglesby L, Gauderman WJ, Ilacqua V, Jantunen MJ et al. Indoor time-microenvironment-activity patterns in seven regions of Europe. J Expo Sci Env Epid 2007; 17: 170–181.
Peters A, Veronesi B, Calderon-Garciduenas L, Gehr P, Chen LC, Geiser M et al. Translocation and potential neurological effects of fine and ultrafine particles a critical update. Part Fibre Toxicol 2006; 3: 13.
Chen C, Zhao B . Review of relationship between indoor and outdoor particles: I/O ratio, infiltration factor and penetration factor. Atmos Environ 2011; 45: 275–288.
Chan WR, Price PN, Sohn MD, Gadgil AJ, Analysis of U.S. Residential Air Leakage Database. LBNL Report 53367 2003.
Eeftens M, Meier R, Phuleria HC, Ineichen A, Corradi E, Ragettli MS et al Spatial and temporal variability of ultrafine particles, NO2, PM2.5, PM2.5 absorbance, PM10 and PMcoarse in Swiss study areas. Submitted.
Fierz M, Houle C, Steigmeier P, Burtscher H . Design, calibration, and field performance of a miniature diffusion size classifier. Aerosol Sci Technol 2011; 45: 1–10.
EPA. Summary of guidance; filter conditioning and weighing facilities and procedures for PM2.5 reference and class i equivalent methods. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Research Triangle Park, NC. 1998.
Allen R, Box M, Liu LJ, Larson TV . A cost-effective weighing chamber for particulate matter filters. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2001; 51: 1650–1653.
Gotschi T, Oglesby L, Mathys P, Monn C, Manalis N, Koistinen K et al. Comparison of black smoke and PM2.5 levels in indoor and outdoor environments of four European cities. Environ Sci Technol 2002; 36: 1191–1197.
ISO. Ambient air – Determination of a black smoke index: ISO 9835:1993 International Standard Organization 1993.
Cyrys J, Heinrich J, Hoek G, Meliefste K, Lewne M, Gehring U et al. Comparison between different traffic-related particle indicators: elemental. carbon (EC), PM2.5 mass, and absorbance. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2003; 13: 134–143.
Zhu YF, Hinds WC, Krudysz M, Kuhn T, Froines J, Sioutas C . Penetration of freeway ultrafine particles into indoor environments. J Aerosol Sci 2005; 36: 303–322.
Vette AF, Rea AW, Lawless PA, Rodes CE, Evans G, Highsmith VR et al. Characterization of indoor-outdoor aerosol concentration relationships during the Fresno PM exposure studies. Aerosol Sci Tech 2001; 34: 118–126.
K. Koponen I, Asmi A, Keronen P, Puhto K, Kulmala M . Indoor air measurement campaign in Helsinki, Finland 1999 – the effect of outdoor air pollution on indoor air. Atmos Environ 2001; 35: 1465–1477.
Hoek G, Kos G, Harrison R, de Hartog J, Meliefste K, ten Brink H et al. Indoor–outdoor relationships of particle number and mass in four European cities. Atmos Environ 2008; 42: 156–169.
Matson U . Indoor and outdoor concentrations of ultrafine particles in some Scandinavian rural and urban areas. Sci Total Environ 2005; 343: 169–176.
Beko G, Weschler CJ, Wierzbicka A, Karottki DG, Toftum J, Loft S et al. Ultrafine particles: exposure and source apportionment in 56 Danish homes. Environ Sci Technol 2013; 47: 10240–10248.
Kearney J, Wallace L, MacNeill M, Xu X, VanRyswyk K, You H et al. Residential indoor and outdoor ultrafine particles in Windsor, Ontario. Atmos Environ 2011; 45: 7583–7593.
Abt E, Suh HH, Catalano P, Koutrakis P . Relative contribution of outdoor and indoor particle sources to indoor concentrations. Environ Sci Technol 2000; 34: 3579–3587.
Montagne D, Hoek G, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Lanki T, Pennanen A, Portella M et al. Agreement of land use regression models with personal exposure measurements of particulate matter and nitrogen oxides air pollution. Environ Sci Technol 2013; 47: 8523–8531.
Janssen NAH, Hoek G, Simic-Lawson M, Fischer P, van Bree L, ten Brink H et al. Black carbon as an additional indicator of the adverse health effects of airborne particles compared with PM10 and PM2.5. Environ Health Perspect 2011; 119: 1691–1699.
Acknowledgements
We thank the field workers carrying out the air pollution measurements, the whole SAPALDIA team (listed in the Supplementary Information), and in particular the late Prof. Lee-Jane Sally Liu (1965–2011) who initiated this exposure assessment project. We also thank Dr. Robert Gehrig for his long-term contribution to this project and to SAPALDIA in general, the cantonal and national authorities for providing routine monitoring data and the study participants for their help during the data collection period. This study was funded by grant N° 324730_135673 from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and supported by the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). SNSF is the main funder of SAPALDIA since its start in 1990 with grants no 33CSCO-134276/1, 33CSCO-108796, 3247BO-104283, 3247BO-104288, 3247BO-104284, 3247-065896, 3100-059302, 3200-052720, 3200-042532, 4026-028099, PMPDP3_129021/1 and PMPDP3_141671/1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology website
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meier, R., Eeftens, M., Phuleria, H. et al. Differences in indoor versus outdoor concentrations of ultrafine particles, PM2.5, PMabsorbance and NO2 in Swiss homes. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 25, 499–505 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2015.3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2015.3
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Particulate matter emissions during autopsies: a method to reduce exposure
Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2022)
-
Indoor monitoring of heavy metals and NO2 using active monitoring by moss and Palmes diffusion tubes
Environmental Sciences Europe (2020)
-
Richtwerte für Stickstoffdioxid (NO2) in der Innenraumluft
Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz (2019)