4.6 Article

Temporal variability of indoor dust concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 693-701

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12759

关键词

concentration; dust; intraclass correlation coefficient; source rate; semivolatile organic compound; temporal variability

资金

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPAG2013-STAR-K1]
  2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P42-ES004699]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study examined the temporal variability of indoor dust concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and found that most SVOCs have small within-home temporal variability, but some may vary over time due to seasonal changes.
The determinants of the temporal variability of indoor dust concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) remain mostly unexplored. We examined temporal variability of dust concentrations and factors affecting dust concentrations for a wide range of SVOCs. We collected dust samples three times from 29 California homes during a period of 22 months and quantified concentrations of 47 SVOCs in 87 dust samples. We computed intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) using three samples collected within the same house. We calculated correlation coefficients (r) between two seasons with similar climate (spring and fall) and between two seasons with opposite climate (summer and winter). Among 26 compounds that were detected in more than 50% of the samples at all three visits, 20 compounds had ICCs above 0.50 and 6 compounds had ICCs below 0.50. For 19 out of 26 compounds, correlation coefficients between spring and fall (r = 0.48-0.98) were higher than those between summer and winter (r = 0.09-0.92), implying seasonal effects on dust concentrations. Our study showed that within-home temporal variability of dust concentrations was small (ICC > 0.50) for most SVOCs, but dust concentrations may vary over time for some SVOCs with seasonal variations in source rates, such as product use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据