This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Carbonyl levels in indoor and outdoor air in Mexico City and Xalapa, Mexico
´ ´ Garcıa, ´ Ma. del Carmen Torres, Irma Rosas, Armando Baez*, Hugo Padilla, Rocıo ´ Belmont Raul
´ ´ ´ ´ ´ Laboratorio de Quımica Atmosferica, Centro de Ciencias de la Atmosfera, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico D.F. 04510, Mexico Received 30 October 2001; accepted 10 August 2002
Abstract Carbonyl compounds in air were measured at two houses, three museums, and two offices. All sites lacked airconditioning systems. Although indoor and outdoor air was measured simultaneously at each site, the sites themselves were sampled in different dates. Mean concentrations were higher in indoor air. Outdoor means concentrations of acetone were the highest in all sites, ranging from 12 to 60 mg my3 . In general, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had similar mean concentrations, ranging from 4 to 32 and 6 to 28 mg my3, respectively. Formaldehyde and acetone mean indoor concentrations were the highest, ranging from 11 to 97 and 17 to 89 mg my3 , respectively, followed by acetaldehyde with 5 to 47 mg my3 . Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde had the highest mean concentration in the offices where there were smokers. Propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde concentrations did not show definite differences between indoor and outdoor air. In general, the highest outdoor and indoor hourly concentrations were observed from 10:00 to 15:00 h. Mean indooryoutdoor ratios of carbonyls exceeded 1. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde risks were higher in smoking environments. ᮊ 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Indoor; Aldehydes pollution; Carbonyls; Exposure; Risk
1. Introduction Carbonyl compounds are ubiquitous constituents of the atmosphere (Granby et al., 1997; Zhang and Smith, 1999). Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are the two most abundant carbonyls in urban air (Grosjean et al., 1993; Granby et al., 1997; Zhang
*Corresponding author. Tel.: q52-55-5622-4050; fax: q5255-5616-0789. ´ ). E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (A. Baez
and Smith, 1999). They are emitted by many mobile and stationary sources (Grosjean et al., 1993). Secondary aldehydes are intermediates in the photo-oxidation of organic compounds in the atmosphere (Carlier et al., 1986). Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been studied because of their adverse health effects. The most frequently observed effects are eye and lung irritation (Grosjean et al., 1993; Erdem et al., 1996; Grimaldi et al., 1998; WHO, 2000). Also, formaldehyde and acrolein are suspected carcino-
0048-9697/03/$ - see front matter ᮊ 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 4 8 - 9 6 9 7 Ž 0 2 . 0 0 3 4 4 - 3
and to estimate health risks for people who live and work in indoor environments in this city. 1976. 1991. Baez gens (Stupfel. 1990. cigarette smoking. wood combustion... The analytical conditions were as follows: a Spherisorb S5 ODS2 reverse phase analytical column. cookstoves. The derivatives were detected at 360 nm with a GBC LC 1200 UV y VIS detector. 1999).2.. 3. 1999. Grimaldi et al. 1994. 1997. Leaderer and Hammond. air was passed through the cartridge at a flow rate of 1-l miny1 (total sample volume of 120 l). Milford. 1993). Zhang and Smith. wood products). simultaneous indoor and outdoor measurements of formaldehyde.. respectively. Muramatsu et al. Erdem et al. MA). Rosenbaum et al. 2. Miguel et al. the Anthropology museum in Xalapa City. US CPSC. 1991..212 ´ et al.. 1995. US CPSC. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. 1998. US EPA. then wrapped in aluminum foil and refrigerated. acetaldehyde.. 1994.3. Cigarette smoking is also an indoor source of propionaldehyde (US DHHS. 1998). e. However... Zhang and Smith. 2) was selected as a reference site. . Miguel et al. 1997). 1990. For the studied carbonyls. Indoor and outdoor samples were simultaneously collected with Sep-Pak DNPH-Silica cartridges (Waters. Carlier et al. few measurements of other aldehydes have been published (Lewis and Zweidinger.. Sampling sites Two residential houses. selected as a reference site. In this study. 1992. 1990. 1990. Muramatsu et al. Chuah et al. Calibration was done by direct injection of standard mixtures with known amounts of solid hydrazones dissolved in acetonitrile. Indoor measurements of formaldehyde have been made in offices and residential houses (Zhang et al.. Roussel. two museums (Universum museum and the Templo Mayor museum) and two offices were sampled in the MCMZ (coded as 1. 45 y 55 v y v as a mobile phase. US EPA. The downstream end of the cartridge was connected to a calibrated flow meter. known as one of the most polluted cities in the world. Lee et al. water y acetonitrile. on Fig. etc. An ozone scrubber was connected to the upstream end of the cartridge to avoid degradation of hydrazone derivatives (Waters. 1994). carpets. acetone. 4. 1994a).. This concentration corresponds to 767.. direct emissions from wood products.. Butyraldehyde has been detected in exhaust emissions from diesel engines (US EPA. Zhang et al. 1999). 1999). and furniture which can generate significant indoor formaldehyde levels (Liu et al. It is well known that formaldehyde is directly emitted from construction materials (e. (Bravo et al. 1997. and a flow rate of 1 ml miny1. Sampling Table 2 shows the sampling variables for indoor and outdoor sites. Indoor exposures are generally greater than outdoor exposures (Bravo et al. Table 1 shows some characteristics of the sampling sites.. CT) liquid chromatograph. 1). The objective of this study was to test whether indoor air is more polluted than outdoor air in Mexico City. 1991a. 1990.g.. Kraenzmer. 1995). 1994. 1983. Veracruz State. 1986.1. Additionally. Norwalk. 2. 1996. Veracruz State (coded as 7 on Fig.g. Each cartridge was sealed with Teflon caps immediately after sampling. 1999). During sampling period mentioned in Table 2. propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde were carried out at seven sites: 6 in the Mexico City Metropolitan Zone (MCMZ) and one in Xalapa City. and 20-ml aliquots were injected into a Perkin Elmer (Model 250 Isocratic LC Pump. 5 and 6. Exposure to carbonyls is also important in indoor environments because people spend most of their time in such environments (Zhang et al. Leaderer and Hammond. Analysis Cartridges were eluted with 10 ml of HPLCgrade acetonitrile. 2. Formaldehyde has important indoor sources. these standard mixtures gave a linear response up to 50 ppm of the corresponding hydrazones. 2. Material and methods 2.
Analytical detection limits for formaldehyde. Cartridge collection efficiency was determined by connecting two cartridges in series.´ et al.92"0. 0. 20. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A.31. (4) Templo Mayor museum beside Mexico Cathedral. Carbonyl levels in cartridge field controls were similar to those of the cartridge laboratory blanks.17 mg my3 for a sample volume of 120 l. The average concentrations and standard deviations of cartridge laboratory blanks from five lots were 0. 1054. 1308.12. 2000). acetaldehyde. (2) House in Tlalnepantla County. Baez 213 ´ Fig. which corresponded to 0. Sampling sites location at MCMZ: (1) House in Satelite County.39"0. acetaldehyde. acetaldehyde.48 mg y cartridge for formaldehyde. Ambient carbonyl concentrations were corrected for cartridge field blanks. and acetone. acetone. acetone. (5) Office near Mexico City downtown.66. 27.41.30. and 0. in a sample volume of 120 l.47"0. 0. 0. Cartridge laboratory blanks and cartridge field controls were analyzed to determine background levels of DNPH derivatives. (3) Universum museum at the University of Mexico. Propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde were not detected. (6) Office at the research center in the University of Mexico (Source: INEGI. respectively. propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde. The sample breakthrough of the cartridges . and 0. 1308 and 1533 mg my3 of formaldehyde. 17 and 11 mg ly1. respectively.26. propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde derivatives were 43. values )95% for all carbonyls were obtained at the sampling conditions above mentioned. 1.0. respectively.
2. is 500 ppbv (considering the combined concentrations of all carbonyls) when 120 l of air is sampled. mainly observed in outdoor . 2002). some data.S. Most data followed a normal distribution. Baez Fig. 2. The results ranged from 0. P-0. Veracruz State: (7) Anthropology museum. Some avenues with moderate traffic surrounding the museum are shown (Source: Tips de Xalapa. However.4.D. Sampling site location at Xalapa City.05) was applied to carbonyl data. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A.1% R. The sampling precision was determined from the results obtained from 4 sampling devices co-located and simultaneously operated on 6 occasions.214 ´ et al.3 to 12. Statistical analysis The Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness fit test (two-tailed test.
´ et al. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. of smokers Cooking fuel Nearby environment 215 . of floors Ventilation No. Baez Table 1 Characteristics of the sampling sites Variables House in ´ Satelite 2 Natural 0 Propane–butane gas Residential area with high traffic density House in Tlalnepantla 2 Natural 0 Propane–butane gas Residential and industrial areas with high traffic density Universum museum 3 Natural 0 No Green area with moderate traffic density Templo Mayor museum 2 Natural 0 No Commercial area with high traffic density Anthropology museum in Xalapa 2 Natural 0 No Urban area with low traffic density Office in Mexico City downtown 2 Natural 15 No Commercial area with high traffic density Office at research center 2 Natural 5 No Green area with moderate traffic density No.
Baez Table 2 Sampling variables of the indoor and outdoor sites Variables House in ´ Satelite 1-Hall Roof March 1997 8:00–18:00 5 25 House in Tlalnepantla Universum museum Templo Mayor museum 1-Hall Roof March 1998 9:00–17:00 5 20 Anthropology Xalapa Office in museum in Mexico City Xalapa downtown 1-Hall Garden July 1997 9:00–17:00 5 20 1-Hall Roof October 1996 8:00–14:00 5 15 Office at research center 1-Hall and offices Roof February 1997 8:00–16:00 5 20 Indoor floor-sampling place Outdoor sampling place Date Sampling timea Sampling days No. of samples a 1-Hall 3-Hall Window at 3 m above street level Roof November 1996 April 1997 8:00–18:00 9:00–17:00 5 5 25 20 2 h sampling time intervals. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A.216 ´ et al. .
Acetaldehyde concentrations followed acetone and formaldehyde concentrations in all sites. Therefore. At Tlalnepantla house (Fig. and March 1998. Relatively little variations in indoor and outdoor air were observed in all sites (Figs. half the LOD was used for statistical calculations for these compounds. whereas formaldehyde presented the highest mean concentrations at the downtown office where most of the employees smoke. February 1997. This must have been due to differences in meteorological conditions observed in October 1996. possibly because their concentrations were close to the detection limit. 3. the highest indoor and outdoor concentrations were from 13:00 to 17:00 h. the highest indoor and outdoor mean concentrations were observed from 12:00 to 14:00 h. formaldehyde concentration was lower than in the other sampling sites.2. 4b and e). the maximum concentrations were observed from 8:00 to 12:00 h with a decrease from 12:00 to 14:00 h. the highest indoor and outdoor mean concentrations were observed from 10:00 to 12:00 h. No definite differences between indoor and outdoor air were noticed in any place. respectively. However. At the Templo Mayor museum (Fig. 3. 3c and d). Although the Templo Mayor museum is in the downtown area. and the downtown office. the highest indoor and outdoor concentrations were observed from 13:00 to 15:00 h.1. 4c and f). the maximum indoor and outdoor mean concentrations were from 9:00 to 13:00 h and from 13:00 to 15:00. Therefore. Diurnal variation The carbonyl variations followed a similar pattern in almost all sites. the office in the research center. 3. ´ At Satelite house (Fig. the acetone mean concentration was highest at the downtown office. and range of concentrations measured in indoor and outdoor air at the 7 sampling sites. 5a–d). it is uncertain that the high carbonyl concentrations observed at the downtown office can be attributed to vehicles. Formaldehyde also presented higher levels at the Tlalnepantla house and in the Universum museum. Carbonyl levels were consistently higher in indoor air at all sampling sites. 3. At the offices (Fig. At the Anthropology museum (Fig. Outdoor concentrations Carbonyl concentrations are alike at all sampling sites except at the offices. for computing the correlation between indoors and outdoors concentrations for each carbonyl the Spearman’s rank correlation was applied. Acetone presented higher levels at the ´ Satelite house and in the Templo Mayor museum. neither in hourly data nor in the overall data. Indoor and outdoor mean concentrations of carbonyls decreased toward the evening in all the . standard deviation. only the formaldehyde and acetone plots are shown. It is important to mention that the highest level of formaldehyde was found in the downtown office. Among the carbonyls. Baez 217 air followed a lognormal distribution. 4a and d). 3a and b). especially at the downtown office. followed by formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. therefore. except for acetone in indoor air. Results and discussion Table 3 shows the mean. Indoor concentrations Among the sites studied acetone presented the highest mean concentration at the office at the research center. 3–5). in general. At the Universum museum (Fig. the concentrations are even lower than those measured at the office in the research center. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. Propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde concentrations were often below the limit of detection (LOD). it is not easy to establish a definite comparison among the different sites because samplings were not made simultaneously. when sampling was performed at the Templo Mayor museum. where they were higher. Although smoking was allowed at the office at the research center. respectively. which is surrounded by avenues with a lower transit density. Tobacco smoke seems to be the main contributor to formaldehyde levels as Guerin et al. (1992) found.´ et al. A similar behavior was observed for the other sites.3. In these cases.
6 17 9 6 15 0.4 0.6 2.4 0. Min Max Arith.7 0. and maximum (Max) concentrations (mg m ) of the carbonyls determined in indoor and outdoor air over the sampling period for each site Sampling site Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde Acetone Propionaldehyde Butyraldehyde ´ et al.7 1.2 5.7 9. 2 . mean S. mean).4 4.D.8 3. Min Max Arith.9 0.7 1.8 7. Min Max ´ House in Satelite County Indoor Outdoor House in Tlalnepantla County Indoor Outdoor Universum museum Indoor Outdoor Templo Mayor museum Indoor Outdoor 37 11 47 17 34 14 27 15 9 5 17 13 9 5 8 7 4 1 19 2 12 5 20 6 14 6 4 3 50 20 81 50 59 26 43 32 20 6 122 63 36 38 19 9 27 14 12 12 17 15 5 6 47 28 19 17 5 5 12 12 5 5 7 7 1 3 16 15 7 8 7 2 8 2 4 6 7 8 4 4 27 6 8 5 28 18 52 47 22 23 34 30 8 16 74 60 38 32 51 23 33 19 27 14 43 22 17 12 73 28 89 14 27 7 12 13 14 7 21 10 5 4 13 11 76 7 27 8 11 3 4 3 19 8 7 5 52 10 16 1 155 44 66 56 63 30 93 50 24 18 104 46 243 28 5.9 0.2 2 1.4 8 1.218 Table 3 y3 Arithmetic mean (Arith.1 4.D.6 1.4 1.4 6.).1 3.4 43 2.2a 8.2a 12 0.6 79 17 7 4.8 1.2 1.4 1.6 17 17 Anthropology museum in Xalapa Indoor 11 Outdoor 4 Office in Mexico city downtown Indoor Outdoor Office at research center Indoor Outdoor a 97 32 26 22 11.2a 15 0.2 4. mean S.3 1 3.4 0. mean S.5 1 2. minimum (Min).1 2.2a 5 1. mean S.7 5.5 3.1 5.D.2 0.7 17 11 15 16 2.4 3.8 6.2a 0.D.5 12 4.5 3.7 2.5 5.1 2.2 4.1 14 3.6 1.4 0. Min Max Arith.6 7.4 3.2 2.5 3.5 0.5 7.4 4 1.6 4 4.3 6.4 4.9 3.2a 2.2a 10 1 — LOD.3 5.1 2.D. Min Max Arith.9 10 2 0.2a 10 2.8 6.5 12 7.3 18 16 2.6 0.1 2.2a 1.8 4.8 6.6 0.D.5 3.2a 1.1 7. mean S.2 4. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A.2 14 0.3 3.6 12 9. standard deviation (S. Baez Arith.
it is important to consider that the number of samples is not large enough to establish well-defined differences among sampling sites with confidence. vertical lines indicate maximum and minimum values. The concentration variations and the statistically significant correlation observed in all sites suggest that. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. Baez 219 Fig.05) existed for all the carbonyls was the Templo Mayor museum. Motor vehicle exhaust and com- bustion source emissions are possible common anthropogenic sources in these sites. In general. in general. sites. Dots indicate mean values. which decreased continuously from morning to afternoon hours. it is difficult to infer a possible common origin of these aldehydes from correlation values alone. except for propionaldehyde in outdoor air. Diurnal carbonyl mean concentration variations for indoor and outdoor air: (a) and (c) formaldehyde corresponding to ´ Satelite and Tlalnepantla houses. Table 5 shows the mean of indoor y outdoor (I y O) ratios. Outdoor sources It is well known that the most important outdoor sources of carbonyls are motor vehicles. In the Tlanepantla house. 3. there are approximately 3. Templo Mayor museum. both photochemical reactions and primary aldehyde emissions from automobile exhaust contributed to the formaldehyde and acetaldehyde concentrations measured in outdoor air. they were above 1. except in the Anthropology museum where concentrations remained fairly constant.´ et al. Also. and in downtown and research center offices. propionaldehyde.4. 3. outdoor sources seemed to contribute to the statistically significant correlation observed between indoor and outdoor air concentrations in most carbonyls (Table 4). ´ acetone and VOC (precursors of aldehydes) (Baez . In the metropolitan area of Mexico City at present. acetaldehyde. 3.5. for the houses mentioned above.5 million gasoline and diesel powered vehicles that emit substantial mounts of formaldehyde. respectively. (b) and (d) acetone. However. Correlation between indoor and outdoor concentrations and indoor y outdoor ratios The only site in which a statistically significant correlation (P-0. Indoor concentrations of carbonyls were generally 1–5 times higher than outdoor concentrations.
1. and boilers are indoor formaldehyde . synthetic fabrics and petrochemical plants emit carbonyls into the atmosphere. 3. 1993). 2000). Indoor sources 3. diesel fuel. cookstoves cleaning items. gasoline. and polyethylene (US DHHS. for the museums mentioned above. Houses Wood products. and Anthropology (Xalapa city) museums. isopentane and higher isoalkanes (Chatfield et al. it is expected to have an important outdoor carbonyl contribution to indoor ambient air since all of the sampling sites lacked air-conditioned systems. 2000). because liquefied petroleum gas is the most commonly used fuel in hotels. Baez Fig. vertical lines indicate maximum and minimum values. 4.6. thus. polyurethane. municipal waste incinerators. and it is the major ultimate product of OH radical oxidation of propanone. and from combustion of wood. Acetone is formed by the reaction of ozone with some alkenes. Templo Mayor. and many small industries in the ´ et al... et al. houses. respectively. ventilation was made through windows and doors. Dots indicate mean values. (d). This suggests that the oxidation of propane is the main source of acetone. isobutane. chemical industries like paints and solvent production. 1987). Diurnal carbonyl mean concentration variations for indoor and outdoor air: (a). (b). / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. Also.. Propionaldehyde is MCMZ (Baez released to the atmosphere from manufacturing facilities. corresponding to Universum. (c) and (e) formaldehyde.6. Consequently.220 ´ et al. and (f) acetone. carpets.
102 0.05. there are carpets and furniture lined with synthetic fabrics.439* 0.710* 0.3. vertical lines indicate maximum and minimum values.150 0. Furniture can also generate significant formaldehyde levels.6. Baez 221 Fig.606* 0. carved stones. and other materials for museum conservation are some indoor emission sources at the Templo Mayor museum.427* 0.105 0.225 0. fabrics.502* 0. possible sources include carpets and wood-varnished panels. Dots indicate mean values.688* 0.879* 0. varnishes.197 0. woods. and a maintenance workshop that uses paints.613* 0.202 0. Museums Ceramics. respectively.297 Butyraldehyde 0.404 0. . Also. Diurnal carbonyl mean concentration variations for indoor and outdoor air: (a) and (c) formaldehyde. solvents and other materials used for conservation of pre-Hispanic objects.615* * Propionaldehyde 0.2. acetone. At the Universum museum.833* 0.786* Correlation is significant at P-0.636* 0. acetaldehyde.431 0. and propionaldehyde. 3.762* 0. Offices Tobacco smoke contains formaldehyde. At the anthropology museum in Xalapa. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. sources.650* 0.611* 0.213 0. and vinyltiled floors and walls covered with vinyl paints.516* y0. 3. paintings. cleaning items.820* 0.841* 0. preHispanic objects. varnishes.508* 0.290 Acetaldehyde 0. sources include waxed ceramic-tiled floors and a maintenance workshop that uses paints.6.695* 0.´ et al.517 0.579* 0. among oth- Table 4 Spearman’s correlation between indoor and outdoor carbonyls at the 7 sampling sites Site ´ Home in Satelite (Ns25) Home in Tlalnepantla (Ns25) Templo Mayor museum Universum museum Office in Mexico City downtown Office at research center Anthropology museum in Xalapa * Formaldehyde 0. 5. (b) and (d) acetone. for the offices mentioned above. corresponding to downtown Mexico City and research center offices.217 * Acetone 0.544* 0.
and similar to those observed in the Templo Mayor museum. an electronic and a mechanical workshop are possible sources of carbonyls since paints and solvents are commonly used. For gaseous compounds in air.6 Acetaldehyde 2. Acetaldehyde mean concentrations in the MCMZ were higher than those observed in other sites.2 1. where different methanol–ethanol–gasoline mixtures are used as light-duty vehicular fuels. Also. Comparison of carbonyl concentrations among different sites Mean indoor carbonyl concentrations in the MCMZ were similar to those measured in ten residences in Boise.3 1.4–5 ppm) at an office on the 13th floor of a skyscraper in Taipei City. 1992. 1995). .7. 16.5 1.5 Propionaldehyde 4. 1999).1 2.2 1. carpets and varnished wood panels are potential sources of carbonyls at this site.0 2.4 2. the average formaldehyde levels in six residence buildings varied from approximately 6 to 60 mg my3 (Lee et al.0 2. At the office at the research center. There are also three big chemical–physical laboratories that use reagents and solvents.2 1.1 1. 3. In Hong Kong.7 2.1 1. ID.0 2. Chuah et al.0 9..4 1. resulting in high emissions of aldehydes to the atmosphere (Miguel et al.4 er compounds (Guerin et al. are common construction materials due to extreme weather conditions.2 5. acetone and propionaldehyde. Brazil. Only indoor exposures were estimated because carbonyl concentrations at different places between homes and offices such as transportation media were not measured. Baez Table 5 Mean of IyO ratios of carbonyls Sampling site ´ House in Satelite County House in Tlanepantla County Universum museum Templo Mayor museum Office in Mexico City downtown Office at research center Anthropology museum in Xalapa Formaldehyde 4. is possibly due to the type of construction materials. Offices and halls have waxed vinyl-tiled floors. It is observed that only formaldehyde mean concentrations in central New Jersey were higher than those observed at the house in Tlalnepantla and in the Universum museum.2. respectively (Lewis and Zweidinger. 1999). whereas in USA and Europe. t is the exposure time (h dayy1).0 1. (1997) reported formaldehyde concentrations from 491 to 6135 mg my3 (0. and j the microenvironment. except in the cities of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro.222 ´ et al.. Exposure and risk The exposure (Ei) for an individual (i) due to intake processes (inhalation and ingestion) can be calculated from the equation of the US EPA (1992): n Eis8CjIRitij js1 where C is the concentration of the pollutant (mg my3). There are many smokers at the downtown office.3 2.1 1. 28.1 3.8. It is important to mention that two copying machines are used at this office.0 Acetone 2.5 and 2.4 2. The large variability of indoor carbonyl concentrations observed among the regions above mentioned. Bricks and concrete are the main construction materials in houses in urban areas in Mexico. 3.1 4. Comparison of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde mean outdoor concentrations obtained in this study with those observed in other sites are shown in Table 6.6 1. acetaldehyde.6 3.3 2. These values are higher than those observed in this study. 1992).5 1.. smoking is allowed. IR is the inhalation rate (m3 hy1). In addition.8 mg my3 for formaldehyde. Lee et al.4 4. PCs and printers are used in every office. wood and insulating materials made of synthetic foams. where they were 16.5 3..2 1. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A.8 Butyraldehyde 1.6 3.
8 1. 14c. ID Atlanta (4 locates) Central New Jersey Sao Paulo-Rio de Janeiro Copenhagen MCMZ Xalapa City a b Date Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde 9 2 2.2 15 November 1986–4 February 1987 5 July–August 1989 3. (1997) June 1989–June 1990 2. March 1998 11a. (1993) Zhang et al.8 References Grosjean and Williams (1992) Lewis and Zweidinger (1992) Grosjean et al. 14b. 17f This study 6 This study ´ House in Satelite.5 June 27 to August 5. 28e. e Office in Mexico City downtown.´ et al. c Universum museum. 1992 15. 15d. 223 . Baez Table 6 Comparisons of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde outdoor mean concentrations (mg my3) between MCMZ and Xalapa City. House in Tlalnepantla. 22f July 1997 4. 12c. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. d Templo Mayor museum.2 October and November 1996.4 4–19 January 1993 10. February.2a. 15d.4 9.3 4. CA Boise. March and April 1997. (1995) Granby et al.7 33. f Office at research center. and other sites Site Palm Springs. 32e.7 7–23 February 1994 3. (1994) Miguel et al. 17b.
2 132 4. Although occupational studies have shown a statistically signifi- cant association between exposure to formaldehyde and lung and nasopharyngeal cancer.3 238 19. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A.3 317 73 368 32. WHO. and light-to-moderate activity. 1994). 95th Risk mean percentile Mean ´ Satelite house C (mg my3) E (mg dayy1) Tlalnepantla house C (mg my3) E (mg dayy1) 37 236 46.5=10y3 – – 3. Acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) effects (non-cancer) produced by the exposure to formaldehyde such as eye. The risk might represent the high-end estimates (increased chance of developing cancer) for an individual who works in smoking environments. The mean and the 95th percentile exposure for indoor formaldehyde and acetaldehyde of the residential and office microenvironments (Table 7) were estimated.e. and throat irritation and respiratory symptoms have been reported (US EPA.3 97 28 176 50.8 295 49 310 72. 1991a).. Indoor inhalation rates were estimated for an average person based upon the exposure factor (US EPA.4=10y4 4. .9=10y4 6. 1994b). a mean of 10 h was considered and for the offices.9=10y5 1. transportation media.4 173 Acetaldehyde Arith. and risks from indoor air residences and offices Parameter Formaldehyde Arith.4=10y4 – – 6. Residences and offices were selected to calculate the exposure (E).4 456 119 600 34. A mean residence time of 8 h (official working time) was considered as exposure time (t). the inhalation rate of air was estimated for an average person (IRs0. 1991b). 1990). therefore. Acetaldehyde has been classified as B2. a mean residence time of 8-h (official working time) was considered. work. Cancer risks for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde should be viewed as preliminary because parameters such as the ventilation rate. Cancer risks for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were computed by using the inhalation unit risk.5=10y4 – – 4. 1994a. was higher than at the office in the research center. were Table 7 Carbonyl concentration (C).3=10y5 (mg my3)y1 (US EPA.1=10y4 9.224 ´ et al. The mean exposure for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the house in Tlalnepantla was ´ higher than in the house in Satelite. probable human carcinogen of medium carcinogenic hazard with an inhalation unit risk estimate of 1. mean concentrations and the highest concentrations (95th percentile) (Table 7). if he continuously breathed air containing formaldehyde and acetaldehyde for 78 years (life expectancy for Mexico). Air in the office near downtown Mexico City.2=10y5 – – For exposure calculus. time spent outside and inside houses and offices. which indicates that smoking is an important source of formaldehyde. 95th Risk mean percentile 95th percentile Mean 19 122 27 170 47. the duration and type of physical activity. it is considered that the evidence of cancer risk is still limited (US EPA. IR corresponds to the inhalation rate (Zhang et al. For the residences. 1990). probable human carcinogen of low carcinogenic hazard.63 m3 hy1 ) according to EPA exposure factors (US EPA.2=10y5 7.6=10y4 – Office at Mexico City downtown 97 C (mg my3) E (mg dayy1) 489 Office at research center C (mg my3) E (mg dayy1) 26.7 165 95th percentile 4. Formaldehyde has been classified by the EPA Group as B1. exposure (E). nose.1=10y5 – – 5. where there were more smokers.3=10y5 6. Baez inhalation is considered as the exposure route. rest.2=10y6 (mg my3)y1 (US EPA. The exposure time (t) in both environments was based upon residence time. with an inhalation unit risk estimate of 2. i.1=10y4 – – 1=10y4 – 1.3=10y3 1.4=10y4 – – 1. 2000).
Mean of I y O ratios for formaldehyde. Viala A. edicion Kraenzmer M.43:469 –474. Wilfrido ´ ´ Gutierrez. Toxicol Lett 1996. Hannachi H. Canada. Christensen CS. e Infor´ ´ matica ). Belmont R. .. Torres JG. Grosjean D. Granby K. Torres MC. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de ´ Mexico.25:541 –551. Baez 225 not determined. p.5:222. Calvert JG. ´ Estadıstica ´ INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Geografıa. Atmos Environ 1997.13:121 –131. Tarhan U.20:2079 –2099. Sosa ER. DeKalb. Williams EL II.14:429 –454. Carlier P.25:770 –777. Axelrad DA. However. Environ Int 1999. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 1993. Atmos Environ 1986. there are other limitations such as uncertainties in the estimation of unit risks and reference concentrations (Caldwell et al. Project No. Evaluation of vapor-phase nicotine respirable suspended particle mass as markers for environmental tobacco smoke.88:74. IN112100. These results showed that indoor concentrations are significantly greater than outdoor concentrations.42:805 –809. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. The mean and the 95th percentile risk estimates were higher for formaldehyde than for acetaldehyde in houses and offices. 4. Chuah YK. References ´ AP. Lohse C. Urban and semi-rural observations of carboxylic acids and carbonyls. acetaldehyde and acetone were above 1 in most occasions. Boca Raton. We thank Victor Zarraluqui.32:535 –540. Gardner EP. Hammond SK. Indoor air research series. Bravo AH. Application of health information to hazardous air pollutants modeled in EPA’s cumulative exposure project. 1992. Timon-David P. Acknowledgments ´ This study was partially supported by Direccion ´ General de Asuntos del Personal Academico ´ (PAPIIT). In: Eisenberg M. Cuaderno estadıstico de la Zona Metropolitana de ´ ´ ´ 2000. research-professor of the Northern Illinois University. Camacho CR. Karakaya AE. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. London. at the research center. Besides. furthermore. Bongrand P. USA. Taibi R. Concentration variations of pollutants in a work week period of an office. Propionaldehyde and butyraldehyde concentrations were always the lowest. an I y O ratio value of 11 was obtained in the office where heavy smokers were present.92(D4):4208 –4216. Indoors formaldehyde concentrations in two office buildings in Mexico City. In: Indoor Air ’90. Conclusions In general. Mouvier G. la Ciudad de Mexico. Ambient levels of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in Atlanta. 1990. The formaldehyde risk was the highest at the downtown office where there are more smokers. the results suggest that tobacco smoke seems to be the main source of formaldehyde in offices. Morello-Frosch R. Georgia. Sardas ¸ ¸ Erdem N. Jorge Escalante. 29 July–3 August 1990. since there are no complete hazard data for the other carbonyls. Grimaldi F.2:689–94. The authors are indebted to Dr Eugene Perry. Eduardo Orta and Alfredo Rodrıguez for his collaboration in the construction of the automatic sampler. Grosjean E. Caldwell JC. Woodruff TJ. Padilla H. Risk estimates were based on the mean and highest concentrations (95th percentiles) and were only calculated for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde for indoor environments. Ann Arbor. Guerin MR. Photochemical pollution at two southern California smog receptor sites. Atmosfera 2000. Effect of formaldehyde and wood dust exposure on pulmonary function. who is in his sabbatical year in the University of Mexico. editor. Modeling and continuous monitoring of indoor air pollutants for identification of sources and sinks. S. Chatfield RB. Grosjean D. 330. Tomkins BA. Indoor sources of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde were not identified. Hung CC. Sabir HU. The chemistry of carbonyl compounds in the atmosphere—a review. Torres JR. A higher acetone concentration was found in the office. and because of insufficient data. J Geophys Res 1987. Tseng PC. for the review of the English paper.´ et al. Fu YM. ¨ Bilgic ¸ S. 1998). Risk assessment of exposure to aldehidic compounds in a hospital environment. Environ Sci Technol 1991. IL. Leaderer BP. carbonyl concentrations were higher in indoor air than in outdoor air in all sampling sites. Tokyo: Lewis Publishers. Sources and sinks of acetone in the troposphere: behavior of reactive hydrocarbons and a stable product. Build Environ 1997. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 1992. The chemistry of environmental tobacco smoke: composition and measurement. Toxicol Ind Health 1998.31:1403 –1415. Toxicol Lett 1998. Mexico. Jenkins RA. Williams II EL. and it may represent highend estimates applicable to individuals in smoking environments. Toronto. Ambient levels Baez ´ of carbonyls in Mexico City.
Hu HS. Washington. Milford. July–September 1983.17:258 – 279. Office of Research Development. Butyraldehyde Fact Sheet: Support Document (CAS No. Bethesda. Cohen JP. Environ Int 1999. Lioy PJ. NC. Characteristics of rural indoor formaldehyde pollution in China. ´ Roussel A. Characteristics of aldehydes: concentrations. 1994. Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/N-98/ 002. Toronto. Indoor and outdoor air quality investigation at six residential buildings in Hong Kong. In: Indoor Air ’90. Baez National Toxicology Information Program. On-line IRIS 1991b. He Q. National estimates of outdoor air toxics concentrations. MD. Muramatsu S.2:561–64. Rosenbaum AS. Marquez KSG. WHO Regional Publications. DC. Canada.29:338 –345. ࠻ 2. 1994a. Lee SC. 1990. An update on formaldehyde: 1997 Revision. US DHHS (US Department of Health and Human Services. European Series. US EPA. OPPT Chemical Fact Sheets. EPA’s Indoor Air Quality Research Update. Lewis WC.33:2311 –2320. Impact medical des pollutions d’origine automobile ´ (Rapport) Revue Pollution Atmospherique 99. DC. On-line IRIS 1991a. National Library of Medicine.226 ´ et al. US EPA. In: Indoor Air ’90. CASRN 50-00-0. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Zhang J. Atmos Environ 1992.28:146 –152. In: Inside IAQ. . Vasconcellos PC. Cardoso JN. Guidelines for exposure assessment. Pereira AS. Denmark. 1998. Aquino Neto FR. Chan KY. US EPA. Waters Sep-Pak DNPH-Silica cartridge: care and use Manual. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on acetaldehyde. Free Pocket Guide 2002.91:87–91. 1994b. CPSC Document ࠻ 725. 1993.26A:2179 –2184. A comparison of indoor and outdoor concentrations of hazardous air pollutants.2:725–30. Tips de Xalapa. 1990. 123-72-8). Health effects notebook for hazardous air pollutants. US EPA. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate.49:1138 – 1152. EPA 749-F-95005a. Smith KR. Office of Research and Development. Okamoto S. online database). 1990. Emissions of carbonyl compounds from various cookstoves in China. 2000. Woodruff TJ. US CPSC (US Consumer Product Safety Commission). Ligocki MP. Copenhagen. Air Toxics Website.25:489 –496. Washington. EPA-452yD-95-003. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 1999. Characterization of indoor air ˜ Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. VOC and aldehydes species to indoor and outdoor sources. The ratio of indoor and outdoor measurements of nitrogen dioxide and formaldehyde. and exposures for indoor and outdoor residential microenvironments. US EPA. Wei YH. Research Triangle Park. Formaldehyde Fact Sheet 50-00-0. and their source strengths. Environ Health Perspect 1976. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on formaldehyde. Apportionment of residential indoor aerosol. Miguel AH. TTNWeb. CASRN 75-07-0. 29 July–3 August 1990. Recent advances in investigations of toxicity of automotive exhaust. Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. Environ Sci Technol 1999. Matsumara T. Axeirad DA. US EPA. Hao IY. Zhang J. Liu YC. Washington. Liu JZ. EPA 600y8-89 y043. quality in the cities of Sao Environ Sci Technol 1995. 1992. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Brazil. Hazardous substances data bank (HSDB. / The Science of the Total Environment 302 (2003) 211–226 A. Canada. Zweidinger RB. Waters Corporation. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. WHO. Toronto. Environ Sci Technol 1994. EPA 600Z-92y001. US EPA. DC. Chang M. MA. sources. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Stupfel M.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.