journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/jes

Fine and ultrafine particle- and gas-polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons affecting southern
Thailand air quality during transboundary haze
and potential health effects

Napawan Mahasakpan 1,2, Phatsarakorn Chaisongkaew 1,2,

Muanfun Inerb 3, Nobchonnee Nim 1,2, Worradorn Phairuang 4,
Surajit Tekasakul 5, Masami Furuuchi 3,6, Mitsuhiko Hata 6,
Thaniya Kaosol 1,7, Perapong Tekasakul 1,8, Racha Dejchanchaiwong 1,9,∗
1 Air Pollution and Health Effect Research Center, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
2 Energy Technology Program, Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110,
Thailand
3 Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
4 Department of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Muang, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
5 Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand
6 Faculty of Geoscience and Civil Engineering, Institute of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University,

Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan

7 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai,

Songkhla 90110, Thailand

8 Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla University, Hat

Yai, Songkhla 90110, Thailand

9 Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla

90110, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Distribution of PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 particle- and gas-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Received 28 June 2021 (PAHs) during the 2019 normal, partial and strong haze periods at a background location in
Revised 9 October 2021 southern Thailand were investigated to understand the behaviors and carcinogenic risks.
Accepted 2 November 2021 PM1 was the predominant component, during partial and strong haze periods, accounting
for 45.1% and 52.9% of total suspended particulate matter, respectively, while during nor-
mal period the contribution was only 34.0%. PM0.1 concentrations, during the strong haze
Keywords: period, were approximately 2 times higher than those during the normal period. Substan-
Particle-PAH tially increased levels of particle-PAHs for PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 were observed during strong
Gas-PAH haze period, about 3, 5 and 6 times higher than those during normal period. Gas-PAH con-
Ultrafine particle centrations were 10 to 36 times higher than those of particle-PAHs for PM2.5 . Average total
Health risk Benzo[a]Pyrene Toxic Equivalency Quotients (BaP-TEQ) in PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 during haze
Source identification periods were about 2–6 times higher than in the normal period. The total accumulated Incre-
mental Lifetime Cancer Risks (ILCRs) in PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 for all the age-specific groups

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail: racha.d@psu.ac.th (R. Dejchanchaiwong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.11.005
1001-0742/© 2022 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.
254 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267

during the haze effected scenario were approximately 1.5 times higher than those in non-
haze scenario, indicating a higher potential carcinogenic risk. These observations suggest
PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 were the significant sources of carcinogenic aerosols and were signifi-
cantly affected by transboundary haze from peatland fires. This leads to an increase in the
volume of smoke aerosol, exerting a significant impact on air quality in southern Thailand,
as well as many other countries in lower southeast Asia.
© 2022 The Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of
Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V.

(particle-PAHs) and more carcinogenic (Ravindra et al., 2008;

Introduction
Regional haze episodes in lower Southeast Asian (SEA) coun-
tries are mainly caused by anthropogenic sources, especially
forest fires and agricultural waste burning (Wiriya et al., 2013;
Jamhari et al., 2014; Wiriya et al., 2016; Urbancok et al., 2017;
Sulong et al. 2019; Dejchanchaiwong and Tekasakul, 2021).
Transboundary haze is generated by air pollutants, in the form
of particulate matter, usually emitted from biomass burning
over a large area, and transported across borders to neighbor-
ing countries (Adam et al., 2020; Sresawasd et al., 2021). PM2.5
concentration emitted from peatland fires in Riau, Suma-
tra, Indonesia in 2012 was as high as 7120 μg/m3 , about 300
times the background concentrations. (Fujii et al, 2014). Also,
PM2.5 concentrations in Malaysia in 2013 and 2015 were 14.5–
160.9 μg/m3 and 191.07 μg/m3 during the haze periods and
backward trajectories indicated sources from biomass burn-
ing in Indonesia. (Jaafar et al, 2018; Samsuddin et al., 2018).
Chomanee et al. (2020) reported that the PM0.1 concentration
in Hat Yai City, southern Thailand during the 2015 haze pe-
riod was about 6–30 times higher than in the 2017 non-haze
period. This confirms that the atmospheric aerosol in south-
ern Thailand has been constantly affected by transboundary
haze resulting from peatland fires in Sumatra, Indonesia. Ex-
posure to PM2.5 has long been associated with adverse health
effects (Paoin, et al., 2022), but more recently PM1 and PM0.1
or ultrafine particles have become a concern, because they
are more carcinogenic and more harmful to human health
than larger particles, but only a few studies were attempted
(Lavigne et al., 2020; Mikuška et al., 2018). PM1 was the pre-
dominant component of PM2.5 , as high as 92% of PM2.5 mass
in atmospheric air (Li et al., 2015). This is consistent to pre-
vious study of Chomanee et al. (2020) who reported that the
mass fractions of fine particles (<1 μm) were 54.6–59.1% and
nanoparticles (< 100 nm) were 3.1–14.8% of total suspended
particulates (TSP).
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are signif-
icant components of atmospheric pollution and some
PAHs are known to be mutagenic and carcinogenic
(Dejchanhchaiwong et al., 2020). Most PAH emissions come
from both natural and anthropogenic sources. i.e., incomplete
combustion, pyrolysis of fossil fuels and biomass burning
(Wiriya et al., 2013; Dejchanhchaiwong et al., 2020). PAHs
are significant fractions of total semi-volatile organic com-
pounds: low molecular weight PAHs (LMW-PAHs, 2–3 rings)
are the most abundant in gas phase (gas-PAHs), because
of low boiling points, while high molecular weight PAHs
(HMW-PAHs, 4–6 rings) are mostly in the particulate phase
Jin et al., 2018). Hence, particle-PAHs are much more danger-
ous than gas-PAHs. This agreed with Chen et al. (2016) and
Maitre et al. (2018). Total PAH concentrations in PM10 in Klang
Valley and Bangi, Malaysia ranged between 1.35–4.92 ng/m3
and 1.66–5.23 ng/m3 respectively with 5–6 ring-PAHs dominat-
ing the total PAHs (>80%) (Jamhari et al., 2014). PAHs showed
higher levels in Malaysia (3.4 ± 0.7 ng/m3 ) (Sulong et al.,
2019) and in Singapore (5.97 ng/m3 ) (Engling et al., 2014),
during haze episodes. Chomanee et al. (2020) reported that
PAH concentrations during the 2015 haze period were 2–30
times higher than the 2017 non-haze period. Source ap-
portionment methods showed that peat and forest fires in
Indonesia were major sources during haze periods in lower
SEA (Engling et al., 2014; Fujii et al, 2014; Sulong et al., 2019).
Moreover, HMW-PAHs during the haze episode contributed to
about 56.7–88.0% for PM0.1 (Chomanee et al., 2020). Moreover,
Kongpran et al. (2021) studied the particle- and gas-PAHs
in upper northern Thailand during the 2018 haze episode.
Average concentration of total PAHs during that haze episode
was about 26 times higher than those during the normal
period. Gas-PAH concentration was about 2 times higher
than the particle-PAHs. Lu et al. (2017) reported that gas-to-
particle partitioning of PAHs decreased from light haze to
heavy haze episodes, indicating that particle-PAHs played an
important role in the severe haze pollution events. Exposure
to PAHs may result in increased lung cancer risk and acute
respiratory diseases; it may damage pulmonary function,
and cause bronchitis (Ho et al, 2019). PAHs can cause skin
irritation and inflammation (Unwin et al., 2006). Long-term
exposure to PAHs was reported to increase the risk of cell
damage via gene mutation and cardiopulmonary mortality
mechanisms (Sulong et al., 2019). To help understand the
potential adverse health effects of PM2.5 exposure, BaP-TEQ
was used to estimate the health risk associated with PAHs
(Nisbet and LaGoy 1992). BaP-TEQ concentrations in TSP dur-
ing the 2015 haze period (3.3 ± 2.2 ng/m3 ) were approximately
5 times higher than those during the 2017 non-haze period
(0.7 ± 0.6 ng/m3 ) in southern Thailand (Chomanee et al.,
2020). The carcinogenic health risk of PAHs was also calcu-
lated based on toxicity degrees to estimate the Incremental
Lifetime Cancer Risk (ILCR). Sulong et al. (2019) showed that
ILCRs for adult groups (70 years of exposure) in Malaysia,
during the period Jun 2015 to May 2016, was 2.40 × 10−7 ,
indicating it was possible for the population to develop
cancer, due to long term PAH exposure. This was consistent
with the previous study of Jamhari et al. (2014). However,
investigations of the carcinogenic health risk of PAHs in fine
(PM1 ) and ultrafine (PM0.1 ) particulates in lower SEA are few
 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267
(Chomanee et al., 2020) and no effort has been made to
distinguish the cause of health risks from peatland fires from
clean background.
The key contributions of this paper are investigations of
the transboundary ultrafine particles affecting southern Thai-
land atmosphere and the health risks for the population. The
current research aims to distinguish the fine (< 1 μm) and ul-
trafine (<100 nm) particles- and gas-PAH effects to southern
Thailand as a result of transboundary haze from peatland fires
in Indonesia. Samples were collected at the Songkhla Com-
munity College site, Songkhla Province, Thailand (6°49 35.3 N
100°57 59.3 E), where the haze was expected to have strong
influence on an otherwise a relatively clean air background.
Samples were taken in three periods: (a) strong haze (Sep
2019), (b) partial haze (Jun-Aug 2019) and (c) normal (Jan-May,
Oct-Dec 2019). The PAHs in particles and gas phases were an-
alyzed. We wanted to determine the chemical components
and assess elevated risk of human exposure to fine and ultra-
fine particles bound PAHs during the haze period in southern
part of Thailand. Human exposure risk assessments were es-
timated by using BaP-TEQ and ILCR of fine and ultrafine par-
ticle bound PAHs via inhalation. Source identification by di-
agnostic particle-PAHs, chemical mass balance (CMB) model
and air mass backward trajectory were used to confirm the PM
sources. Moreover, these data are important for understand-
ing the behavior of background fine and ultrafine particles and
associated chemical species. They are also valuable in future
planning and actions to control PAH sources to improve air
quality in lower SEA.
1. Methodology
1.1. Sampling site and physical analysis
Samples were collected at Songkhla Community College
(SKTP site), Thepha District, Songkhla Province, Thailand
(6°49 35.3 N 100°57 59.3 E), see Fig. 1. Thepha District is ∼80 km
southeast of Hat Yai, Songkhla Province, which is the major
city in lower southern Thailand. It is a small city, where back-
ground air is generally clean, and industrial, traffic and house-
hold emissions are considered low. There is only one small
9.9 MW biomass power plant, located about 5 km northwest
of the sampling point. It does not significantly influence the
background air, especially during the haze period, when the
wind blows from the southwest. Weather in southern Thai-
land receives influence from the southwest monsoon, during
May-October, and the northeast monsoon, during November-
January. These two seasons are separated by two relatively
short inter-monsoon periods where wind directions vary con-
siderably. Samples were collected on the top floor of a PM
monitoring station, ∼3 m above ground (U.S.EPA, 2011).
A PM0.1 sampler or nanosampler, capable of segregating
particle size to 100 nm, was used to collect samples (Furuuchi
et al., 2010). Operating air flow rate was 40 L/min and sampling
time was 144 h during normal, partial and strong haze periods.
Particles were separated into six size ranges: <0.1 μm (PM<0.1 ),
0.1–0.5 μm (PM0.1-0.5 ), 0.5–1.0 μm (PM0.5-1 ), 1.0–2.5 μm (PM1-2.5 ),
2.5–10 μm (PM2.5-10 ) and >10 μm (PM>10 ). Particle size classifi-
cation on each stage used an impaction mechanism, whereas
255
an inertial filter was used to collect particles in the 0.1–0.5 μm
(PM0.1-0.5 ) range. PM0.1 represents the sample collected from
the last stage, PM1 is a combination of the last 3 stages, and
PM2.5 is the sum of PM1 and another stage upstream. A 55-
mm quartz fiber filter (2500QAT- UP, Pallflex, USA) was used
for collection in each stage. The stage with an inertial filter (IF)
used a stainless-steel filter pack (SUS304, fiber diameter = 9.8
μm) to collect PM0.1-0.5 . The filter samples were treated (dried)
in a controlled desiccator (50±5% RH and 25±2°C for 72 hr).
The temperature was far below the lowest boiling point of the
PAHs (napthalene, 80°C). It was then weighed on an analyt-
ical balance (CP225D, Sartorius, Germany, resolution 0.01mg)
located in the room kept at 25 ± 2°C. The samples were kept in
a plastic bag wrapped by aluminium foil before analysis. This
is an accepted procedure (Tan et al., 2005 and Furuuchi et al.,
2007) and the degradation of PAHs was minimized. Amber-
lite resin XAD-2 (21130-U, Supelco, USA), a gas sampler based
on the adsorption principle, was used to collect the non-polar
gas-phase PAHs from the air at the same site. The XAD-2 resin
adsorbent was contained in a tube cartridge, with inlet and
outlets are closed with polyurethane foam. The operating air
flow rate was 2 L/min and sampling time was 7 hr. In a pre-
liminary test, a suitable time for XAD-2 collection to obtain
sufficient PAHs for analysis was 7 hr, with a 2 L/min air flow.
The cartridges were closed on both ends and wrapped in alu-
minum foil to avoid photodegradation after sampling. Sam-
ples were collected from January-December 2019: six samples,
during the normal period (Jan-May, Oct–Dec 2019), three, dur-
ing the partial haze period (Jun-Aug 2019), and one, during
the strong haze period (Sep 2019), were collected using the
nanosampler for PM sampling and the XAD-2 resin for gas
sampling at the SKTP site. The number of months of each pe-
riod was estimated from the PM2.5 concentration in a nearby
city, Hat Yai, measured by the Pollution Control Department
(PCD, 2021). Details are summarized in Table S1. In the follow-
ing text, ‘normal period’ refers to the reference, normal peri-
ods in Jan-May 2019 and Oct-Dec 2019 and ‘partial haze period’
and ‘strong haze period’refer to periods defined in Table S1.
1.2. PAH analysis
The 16 PAH compounds, classified by the United States En-
vironmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as priority pollu-
tants, because of their potential toxicity in humans and other
organisms and their prevalence and persistence in the en-
vironment (Hussar et al., 2012), were analyzed. The filter
and XAD-2 resin samples were extracted twice in 20 mL
dichloromethane using an ultrasonic bath at a controlled tem-
perature (∼5°C). 50 μL dimethyl sulfoxide was added to the
extract and then dried in a rotary evaporator until nearly dry
(∼50 μL). The residue was dissolved in 450 μL acetonitrile, fol-
lowing Phoungthong et al. (2013). The 16 priority PAHs were
determined using a high-performance liquid chromatograph
(HPLC, Model-1100, Agilent, USA) with coupled diode array and
fluorescence detectors (HLPC-DAD/FLD). The portion of the ex-
tracted (20 μL) was injected into an Inersil ODS-PC-18 reversed
phase column, connected to a 5 μm guard column (particle
size 5 μm, 4.6 mm diameter, 250 mm length).
Extensive quality (QA/QC) controls were used. All field
and laboratory blank filters were analyzed. The recovery of
256 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267
Fig. 1 – Sampling location.
individual PAHs in the spiked samples ranged from 71.0% to
108.4%. The limit of detection was determined from the con-
centration of PAHs required to give a signal to noise ratio
≥ 3. Detection limits of the analytical procedure were 1.9–
40.8 ng/mL for individual PAHs. The detection limits and per-
cent recovery of 16 PAHs in the present study are shown in
Table S2. Similar to the filter treatment and PAHs analysis, the
spiked filters were treated in the desiccator for 72 h and then
extracted and analyzed. The chemical component concentra-
tion in the blank filters (n = 3) was subtracted from the sam-
ples. To calibrate our system, stock solutions of the 16 PAHs
in acetonitrile were prepared by weighing and then diluted
to give concentrations ranging from 0.01 to 20 μg/ml. For all
16 compounds, a linear correlation between known solution
concentrations and peak areas was found with R2 > 0.99.
1.3. Source identification
1.3.1. PAHs diagnostic ratio
The pair - Flu/(Flu+Pyr) and IDP/(IDP+BghiPe) - is com-
monly used to characterize PAH sources. Flu/(Flu+Pyr) and
IDP/(IDP+BghiPe) ratios > 0.5 indicate strong biomass burn-
ing, whereas the ratios < 0.5 indicate strong combustion fuel
as a source (Wiriya et al., 2013). Here, the ratios were used to
identify PAH sources of PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 in southern Thai-
land.
1.3.2. CMB model
The chemical mass balance (CMB) receptor model, developed
by the U.S. EPA, was also used in the present study, because
it can quantitatively identify sources. The CMB model uses
the chemical composition of aerosols to estimate the contri-
butions of different sources to the concentrations at the re-
ceptor. In the present study, CMB analysis, using the CMB8.2
software obtained from the U.S. EPA website, was used to iden-
tify sources (U.S. EPA, 2005). The CMB outputs are acceptable
when the performance indices are all within the target ranges;
R2 ∈ (0.8, 1.0), χ 2 ∈ (0.0, 4.0), percent mass (% mass): 100% ± 20%
(U.S. EPA, 2004a). The CMB receptor model can be expressed as
(U.S.EPA, 2004b):
p

xi j = gik fk j + ei j (1)
k=1
where xi j is the ambient concentration of chemical species
( j) measured in sample (i), gik is the concentration contributed
by source (k) to sample (i), fk j is the fractional concentration
of chemical species ( j) in the emission from source (k) and ei j
is the residual concentration of chemical species ( j) measured
in sample (i).
1.3.3. Backward trajectory
72-h backward trajectories (BT) of air and aerosol particles
from possible external sources was simulated using the
Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model
(Air Resources Laboratory, 2021). Backward trajectory simula-
tion of wind direction at 1000 m altitude (AGL) was overlaid
with hotspots in lower southeast Asia, obtained from the
NASA VIIRS 375 m active fire data (Earthdata, 2021). More
details of the analytical methods for BT can be found
 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267
elsewhere (Dejchanchaiwong et al., 2020,
Dejchanchaiwong and Tekasakul, 2021). Backward trajec-
tory results at the sampling site (6°49 35.3 N 100°57 59.3 E)
were simulated during strong haze (6–9 Sep 2019), partial
haze (9–12 Aug 2019) and normal (25–28 Jan 2019) periods.
1.4. Health risk assessment
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommend the use
of B[a]P as the indicator for the carcinogenic assessment
of PAHs in air (WHO, 1987). One approach, that has been
taken to evaluate the health risk of PAH exposure, is
the Benzo[a]pyrene toxic equivalency quotient or BaP-TEQ
(Nisbet and LaGoy, 1992):
⎞

n
BaP − TEQ = (TE F j x PAH j ⎠ (2)
j=1
where the index j runs over then n PAHs, PAHj is the concen-
tration of PAH j (ng/m3 ), and TEF j is the corresponding toxic
equivalent factor for PAHj i.e., 0.001 for Nap, Act, Ace+Fle, Flu,
Phe and Pyr; 0.01 for Ant, Chr and BghiPe; 0.1 for BbF, BkF
and BaA and 1 for BaP, DBA and IDP (Nisbet and LaGoy, 1992;
Chen and Liao, 2006).
The incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) method was
used to quantitatively assess the exposure risk of PAHs
through inhalation in six age groups: infant (0–1 years),
toddler (1–6 years), children (6–12 years), adolescent (12–18
years) adults (18–30 years) and adults (30–70 years). This ap-
proach was based on the reference model, established by
U.S. EPA (2005). Several studies (Chen and Liao, 2006; Lu et al.,
2016, Gao et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019) estimated the cancer
risk using
C × IRinhalation ×EF × ED
ILCR = CSFinhalation × (3)
BW × ALT
where C (ng/m3 ) is the total BaP-TEQ concentration and
CSFinhalation (mg/(kg day))−1 is the cancer slope factor ,
IRinhalation (m3 /day) is the inhalation rate, EF (days/year) is the
exposure frequency (days/year), ED (year) is the exposure du-
ration, BW (kg) is the body mass and ALT (year) is the average
life span. A CSF value for the inhalation of BaP was assumed
to be 3.14 (mg/(kg day))−1 (Chen and Liao 2006). An exposure
frequency was assumed to be 350 days/year in the scenario-
specific exposure pathway. This assumption was based on the
reasonable estimate that all receptors spend at most 2 weeks
away from the exposure location (U.S. EPA, 2011). Details of the
exposure factors are shown in Table S3. In this study, two sce-
narios were analyzed and compared; haze affected and non-
haze scenarios. The haze effected scenario is the sum of ILCR
values, assuming the exposed group inhaled PAHs in air for
230 days in a year, during a normal situation, for 90 days, par-
tial haze period and for 30 days strong haze period, while the
non-haze scenario assumed the exposed group inhaled PAHs
for 350 days in a year, in a normal situation, as described in
Table 1. Health risk of the haze affected scenario was used to
evaluate how severe the annual haze affected people living in
the area.
257
Table 1 – Description of the haze affected and non-haze
scenario.
Scenario Months covered Number of
days per year
Haze affected Strong: Sep 2019 30
Partial: Jun-Aug 2019 90
Normal: Other months 230
Non-haze Normal: All months 350
2. Results and discussion
2.1. PM concentration and particle size distribution
The PM mass concentrations for each particle size during
normal, partial and strong haze periods at the SKTP site are
shown in Fig. 2. The concentrations during strong haze pe-
riod were PM0.1 at 2.8 μg/m3 , PM1 at 21.8 μg/m3 and PM2.5 at
31.4 μg/m3 , while during partial haze vs normal periods, val-
ues were 2.0 ± 1.0 vs 1.4 ± 0.9 μg/m3 for PM0.1 , 15.9 ± 2.4 vs
7.8 ± 2.2 μg/m3 for PM1 and 21.6 ± 2.4 vs 10.7 ± 3.5 μg/m3 for
PM2.5 . PM1 and PM2.5 during strong haze period were approx-
imately 3 times higher than those during the normal period,
while PM0.1 was approximately 2 times higher. PM1 and PM2.5
during partial haze were approximately 2 times higher than
those during normal period. However, PM0.1 during partial
haze period was only slightly higher than normal period. The
highest PM mass contributions during partial and strong haze
periods were found in the PM0.5-1.0 size range (23.8 vs 39.7%
of the TSP mass concentrations), while during the normal pe-
riod, the largest fraction was PM2.5-10 (38.2% of TSP mass con-
centrations). The maximum PM1 , during strong haze period
(September), was 21.8 μg/m3 , when large amounts of smoke
particles were carried by strong southwest monsoon winds
through peatland fires (Sulong et al., 2019; Urbancok et al.,
2017). PM1 was the predominant component during partial
and strong haze periods, accounting for 45.1% vs 52.9% of the
TSP mass concentrations, respectively, while during the nor-
mal period, the contribution was only 34.0%. An increment
of PM1.0 /TSP portion during haze periods implies the influ-
ence of biomass burning (Engling et al., 2014;Fujii et al, 2014).
Contribution of PM0.1 during the normal, partial and strong
haze periods were 6.4%, 6.0% and 6.9% of the TSP mass con-
centrations, respectively. No clear difference of PM0.1 mass
fractions during all periods was observed. This is because
sources of PM0.1 are generally mixed (Phairuang et al., 2020).
Note that the PM mass concentrations, during the haze pe-
riods in the present study, was not as high as reported by
Chomanee et al. (2020), because our sampling time was long
(144 hr) and covered some days, when haze was not present.
The only days in southern Thailand, that were affected by
haze were 7, 11 and 19 September 2019.
2.2. PAHs in particle and gas phases
2.2.1. Particle- and gas-PAH concentrations
Average concentrations of particle- and gas-PAHs, divided into
low molecular weight (LMW-PAHs, 2–3 rings) and high molec-
258 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267
Fig. 2 – PM concentrations and PM mass fraction at SKTP site during three periods in the present study.
ular weight (HMW-PAHs, 4–6 rings) groups, during normal, par-
tial and strong haze periods, are shown in Fig. 3. The aver-
age total PAH concentrations during the strong haze period
were - PM0.1 0.28 ± 0.02 ng/m3 , PM1 1.75 ± 0.13 ng/m3 , and
PM2.5 2.52 ± 0.19 ng/m3 , while during partial haze and nor-
mal periods, they were 0.15 ± 0.03 and 0.11 ± 0.01 ng/m3 for
PM0.1 , 0.70 ± 0.05 and 0.34 ± 0.03 ng/m3 for PM1 , 0.90 ± 0.06
and 0.43 ± 0.04 ng/m3 for PM2.5 , respectively. The total PAH
concentrations in PM1 during partial and strong haze peri-
ods were 5 times higher than those during normal period.
The PAH concentrations in PM1 in these periods were 69.4–
77.9% of PAH concentrations in PM2.5 , revealing that PAHs
were mainly in <1 μm particles. This was consistent with
Dejchanchaiwong et al. (2020), who found that the highest PAH
concentrations, in Bangkok during 2018–2019 haze period, af-
fected by biomass burning, were in the PM0.5–1.0 range. The
PAHs in PM0.1 during strong haze period were 3 times as high
as those in a normal period.
Gas-PAHs in samples contained only 7 PAHs: Nap, Act,
Ace+Fle, Phe and Ant (LMW-PAHs) and Flu and Pyr (HMW-
PAHs). Average gas-PAH concentrations were during normal
15.4 ± 2.6 ng/m3 , partial 10.8 ± 2.6 and strong 26.0 ± 5.2 haze
periods. The gas-PAH concentrations during the strong haze
period increased by 69.4% compared to the normal period. In
contrast, a decrease of 29.3% partial vs normal periods was
observed. In our observations, gas-PAH concentrations were
10 to 36 times higher than PM2.5 particle-PAHs. HMW-PAHs (4-
6 rings) in particles, over the entire period, contributed 66.9–
83.8% to PM0.1 , 70.5–81.4% to PM1 and 68.9–79.7% to PM2.5 .
Moreover, HMW-PAH concentrations, in both PM2.5 and PM1,
during partial and strong haze periods were approximately
2 and 5 times higher than those during the normal period,
respectively. However, HMW-PAH concentrations in PM0.1 in-
creased only slightly during partial and strong haze periods
versus the normal period. This indicated that fine and ul-
trafine particles were the significant source of carcinogenic
aerosols, especially, during haze periods. Conversely, the to-
tal gas-PAH concentrations were dominated by LMW-PAHs,
accounting for 94.4%–98.8%. This is because LMW-PAHs have
low boiling points and can be easily present in the gas phase
(Ho et al., 2009). The predominant compounds were two-ring
(Nap) PAHs (46.6–64.2%) and three-ring ones (Act, Ace+Fle,
Phe and Ant) (34.7%–48.5%) of gas PAHs in three periods. This
agrees with Ho et al. (2009), who reported that LMW-PAHs
were the most abundant gas-PAHs and HMW-PAHs were most
abundant particle-PAHs.
2.2.2. Profiles of PAHs in the particle and gas phases
Individual concentrations of particle- and gas-PAHs are listed
in Fig. 4. Nap, Act, and Phe were dominant for LMW particle-
PAHs (2-3 ring), while BbF, BkF, and DBA were the most abun-
dant for HMW particle-PAHs (4-6 ring) in every period. More-
over, BaP and IDP also dominated in the HMW particle-PAHs,
during partial and strong haze periods. Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP)
is a significant carcinogen and mainly present in the par-
ticle phase, consistent with the study of Jiang et al. (2014).
 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267
Fig. 3 – Particle- and gas-PAH concentrations during normal, partial and strong haze periods.
The average BaP (particle phase) concentrations during par-
tial and strong haze periods were 0.052 and 0.095 ng/m3
in PM2.5 , or 6 and 11 times higher than in the normal pe-
riod (0.009 ng/m3 ), indicating more damage to human health.
BaP in PM1 contributed to 74.0–91.1% of BaP-PM2.5 . For gas-
PAHs, Nap (7.1 ± 4.8 ng/m3 ), Act (4.4 ± 2.5 ng/m3 ) and Phe
(1.9 ± 1.5 ng/m3 ) were dominant, during normal period,
whereas in partial and strong haze periods, they were: Nap
(7.0 ± 2.0 and 14.7 ng/m3 ), Act (2.9 ± 2.3 and 5.6 ng/m3 ) and
Ace+Fle (0.7 ± 0.7 and 3.2 ng/m3 ), i.e. higher by two orders
of magnitude than in the particle phase, similar to reports by
Ho et al. (2009).
2.3. Health risk assessment
2.3.1. BaP-TEQ size distribution of PAHs in particles
The BaP-TEQ concentrations for each particle size range dur-
ing all periods calculated by Eq. (2) are shown in Fig. 5. Average
BaP-TEQ concentrations during partial and strong haze peri-
ods were 0.03 ± 0.02 and 0.07 μg/m3 for PM0.1 , 0.15 ± 0.11 and
0.43 μg/m3 for PM1 and 0.16 ± 0.11 and 0.62 μg/m3 for PM2.5 ,
while during normal period, the values were 0.03 ± 0.02 μg/m3
for PM0.1 , 0.09 ± 0.03 μg/m3 for PM1 and 0.10 ± 0.04 μg/m3 for
PM2.5 . A large increase of BaP-TEQ concentrations in PM1 and
PM2.5 , during the strong haze period, was found - 5 and 6 times
higher than the normal period. Also, the average BaP-TEQ con-
centrations in PM0.1 during partial and strong periods were
slightly higher than those in normal period. The BaP-TEQ con-
centrations in PM1 occupied from 68.7- to 91.3%, while PM0.1
contributed to 10.5- to 28.9% of BaP-TEQ in PM2.5 . Moreover,
while the BaP-TEQ PM0.1 concentration was 10.5% to 28.9%,
the mass fraction was only 6.0–6.9%. This clearly indicated
that the health risk caused by exposure to fine (< 1 μm) and
ultrafine (<100 nm) was significantly elevated, when haze oc-
curred for a prolonged period. Moreover, the highest BaP-TEQ
contributions were found in PM0.5-1.0 particles during normal
259
(0.04 ± 0.01 ng/m3 ), partial (0.08 ± 0.05 ng/m3 ) and strong haze
periods (0.25 ng/m3 ). It is important to note, that fine and ul-
trafine particles are a more significant source of carcinogens
and cause more health effects, than larger particles, due to
their higher surface areas.
2.3.2. ILCR Values of PAHs in PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5
The ILCR of inhalation by exposure to PM-bound PAHs ob-
tained from Eq. (3) and total accumulated ILCR risks for PM0.1 ,
PM1 , and PM2.5 during the haze effected and non-haze scenar-
ios are shown in Fig S1. An ILCR ≤ 10−6 is considered safe, ILCR
from 10−6 to 10−4 indicates a potential risk, and ILCR ≥ 10−4 is
considered high risk (Fang et al., 2020). ILCR values increased
with age from infant (0–1 year old) to adult (30–70 years old)
for both haze affected and non-haze scenarios, except for the
toddler age group (1–6 years). This was mainly attributed to
the relatively shorter exposure duration (5 years) and lower
body mass for the toddler group. This suggested that toxic
PAHs can accumulate in the human body. The highest ILCRs
were 6.7 × 10−8 (haze affected scenario) and 4.3 × 10−8 (non-
haze scenario) in the adult group (30–70 years) for PM2.5 , sug-
gesting that adults over 30 years old may be at higher risk of
developing cancer in haze affected than non-haze scenarios
(Chen and Liao, 2006).
The total accumulated ILCRs for all the age-specific groups
during the haze effected and non-haze scenarios are shown
in Table 2. The risks during the haze effected scenario were
approximately 1.5 times higher than those for non-haze
scenario. This was consistent with previous studies which
showed that total ILCRs under the biomass burning conditions
were higher than those under clean conditions (Lu et al., 2016;
Zhang et al., 2019). Contribution of PM0.1 in total ILCRs was
28.9% of the PM2.5 in haze effected scenario compared to 20.8%
in non-haze scenario. The influence of PM1 was 83.0% in haze
effected scenario compared to 80.5% in non-haze scenario. It
is clear that PM1 plays an essential role in cancer risks from
260 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267

Fig. 4 – Individual particle- and gas-PAH concentrations during the 2019 normal, partial and strong haze periods.

Table 2 – Total accumulated ILCRs for all the age-specific groups during the haze effected and non-haze scenarios.

Particle size
Scenarios
PM0.1 PM1 PM2.5

Haze effected 1.1×10−9– 3.1×10−8 4.2×10−9 –1.2 ×10−7 5.3×10−9– 1.5×10−7

Non-haze 1.0×10−9 –2.7×10−8 2.9×10−9 –7.8×10−8 3.5×10−9 –9.4×10−8
 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267
Fig. 5 – BaP-TEQ concentrations for PM0.1, PM1 and PM2.5 during three periods in the present study.
PM2.5 , but the effect of PM0.1 is also significant. An increment
of total ILCR in PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 for all the age-specific
groups during the haze periods indicated the higher potential
cancer risks. This suggests that the accumulated ILCR risks
during the haze episode had more detrimental health effects
than the normal period, as a result of higher PM and PAH con-
centrations. However, they were still in the ‘safe band’, but the
haze affected period was only short. We note that our conclu-
sion may be limited to conditions in the current work and a
specific location. However, it suggests that stronger and longer
haze periods could be detrimental to health and it is impor-
tant to control or limit the sources of haze, so that the effects
remain within acceptable levels.
2.4. Comparison of particle-PAHs in lower southeast Asia
The PM, PAHs and BaP-TEQ concentrations in this and previ-
ous studies in lower SEA are shown in Table 3. In Malaysia,
PM10 and PAH concentrations during 2010-2011 in Kuala
Lumpur, Petaling Jaya, and Bangi increased during dry seasons
(Jamhari et al., 2014). PM2.5 concentration in Kuala Lumpur
during the year 2015 was enhanced by biomass burning in
Sumatra, Indonesia (Sulong et al., 2019). PAH concentrations
during the 2015 haze period was 3.40 ± 0.68 ng/m3 , ap-
proximately 2 times higher than those during normal period
(1.37 ± 0.09 ng/m3 ). During the 2006 haze period in Singa-
pore, TSP concentration was 94.1 ± 33.4 μg/m3 compared to
24.0 ± 5.2 μg/m3 , during the non-haze period (Engling et al.,
2014). PAH concentrations increased from 2.1 ± 1.3 ng/m3
during the non-haze period to 6.9 ± 2.4 ng/m3 during the
haze period, a threefold rise. In the recent and severe haze
episode of 2015, PAH concentrations on PM10 ranged from
1.07 to 5.97 ng/m3 compared to 0.68 to 3.07 ng/m3 during the
non-haze period (Urbancok et al., 2017). In southern Thai-
land, concentrations in Hat Yai during the 2013 haze period
were as high as 46.0-112.7 μg/m3 for TSP and 11.8–26.6 ng/m3
for PAHs, and very high during the 2015 haze period (322.5
μg/m3 for PM10 and 4.3-35.6 ng/m3 for PAHs) (Chomanee et al.,
2020). PM0.1 and PAH concentrations during the 2015 haze pe-
riod were from 3.7 to 23.6 μg/m3 and 1.1–4.8 ng/m3 , much
261
higher than those during 2017 normal period (1.29-2.31 μg/m3
and 0.3–0.4 ng/m3 ). In this study, total PAH concentrations
in PM2.5 , during the haze period, were 2.5 ± 0.19 ng/m3
(strong haze) and 0.9 ± 0.06 ng/m3 (partial haze), similar
to those measured by Dejchanchaiwong et al. (2020), during
the haze period in Bangkok, Thailand (1.3 ± 0.2-2.4 ± 0.9
ng/m3 ), and Sulong et al. (2019) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
(2.51 ± 0.93-3.40 ± 0.68 ng/m3 ). For PM0.1 , the total PAH
concentration during partial (0.2 ± 0.01 ng/m3 ) and strong
(0.3 ± 0.02 ng/m3 ) haze periods were much lower than those
reported earlier by Chomanee et al. (2020) in Hat Yai, Thai-
land (1.1–4.8 ng/m3 for haze period), but following a simi-
lar trend to Dejchanchaiwong et al. (2020) in Bangkok, Thai-
land (0.3 ± 0.1 ng/m3 and 0.5 ± 0.2 ng/m3 ). This was because
southern Thailand was more severely hit by the transbound-
ary haze in 2015 than the 2019 counterpart. Human expo-
sure to PM-bound PAHs during haze periods showed higher
carcinogenic risks and was similar to those found in central
Thailand (Dejchanchaiwong et al., 2020), southern Thailand
(Chomanee et al., 2020), Malaysia (Jamhari et al., 2014) and
Singapore (Urbancok et al., 2017). The PM0.1 and PAH concen-
tration during the normal period in this study were approxi-
mately 3-10 times lower than the previous studies in Hat Yai
(Chomanee et al., 2020) and Bangkok (Dejchanchaiwong et al.,
2020). This confirmed that the atmosphere in the sampling
site in this study was generally ‘clean’, i.e. industrial, traf-
fic and household emissions were considered low. Hence, the
high values of PM and PAH concentrations during haze peri-
ods can be attributed mainly to transboundary air pollutants
from Sumatra, Indonesia.
2.5. Effect of transboundary haze on air quality in
southern Thailand
2.5.1. PAH diagnostic ratios
The PAHs diagnostic ratios are commonly used as chemical
trackers to identify sources of PAHs. Here, the PAH ratios of
Flu/(Flu+Pyr) and IDP/(IDP+BghiPe) were used to identify the
potential PAH sources of PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 in southern
Thailand, as shown in Fig. S2. The values during the partial
 262
Table 3 – PM, PAHs and BaP-TEQs concentrations reported in this and previous studies in lower SEA

Site Site classification Periods Particle size PM (μg/m3 ) PAHs (ng/m3 ) BaP-TEQ (ng/m3 ) References

Thepa, Songkhla Sub-urban Normal PM0.1 1.4 ± 0.9 0.1 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.02 This study
PM1 7.8 ± 2.2 0.3 ± 0.03 0.09 ± 0.03
PM2.5 10.7 ± 3.5 0.4 ± 0.04 0.10 ± 0.04
Partial haze PM0.1 2.0 ± 1.0 0.2 ± 0.03 0.03 ± 0.02
PM1 15.9 ± 2.3 0.7 ± 0.05 0.15 ± 0.11
PM2.5 21.6 ± 2.4 0.9 ± 0.06 0.16 ± 0.11

journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267

Strong haze PM0.1 2.8 0.3 ± 0.02 0.07
PM1 21.8 1.8 ± 0.13 0.43
PM2.5 31.4 2.5 ± 0.19 0.62
Bangkok Sub-urban April-June 2017 (Normal) PM0.1 5.1 ± 2.9 0.2 ± 0.1 0.02 ± 0.01 Dejchanchaiwong et al.
(KMUTNB) PM2.5 21.4 ± 5.4 0.9 ± 0.4 0.1 ± 0.05 (2020)
December 2018-January 2019 PM0.1 11.3 ± 0.9 0.3 ± 0.1 0.05 ± 0.02
(Haze) PM2.5 67.8 ± 19.8 2.4 ± 0.9 0.3 ± 0.1
Urban (KU) April-June 2017 (Normal) PM0.1 2.9 ± 2.5 0.2 ± 0.10 0.03 ± 0.03
PM2.5 17.1 ± 10.6 1.0 ± 0.6 0.1 ± 0.1
December 2018-January 2019 PM0.1 11.4 ± 4.5 0.5 ± 0.2 0.1 ± 0.1
(Haze) PM2.5 54.6 ± 17.5 1.3 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.1
Phuket, Thailand Urban March 2017 to February 2018 PM2.5 42.2 ± 13.5 0.4 ± 0.3 - Choochuay et al. (2020)
Hat Yai Songkhla, Urban June 2013 TSP 46.0–112.7 11.8–26.6 - Chomanee et al. (2020)
Thailand September -October 2015 PM0.1 3.7–23.6 1.1–4.8 0.7 ± 0.5
(Haze)
August-October 2017 (Normal) PM0.1 1.29–2.31 0.3–0.4 0.2 ± 0.04
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Urban June – September 2015 PM2.5 – 2.51 ± 0.93 - Sulong et al. (2019)
(Southwest monsoon)
December 2015– March 2016 – 1.37 ± 0.09 -
(Northeast monsoon)
September 2015 - 3.40 ± 0.68 -
(Haze)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Urban, industrial, September 2010 - April 2011 PM10 39.71 ± 7.5 - 51.52 ± 19.9 1.33 ± 0.45 - 2.97 ± 0.94 0.33 Jamhari et al. (2014)
Petaling Jaya, Malaysia semi-urban 26.07 ± 3.7 - 45.66 ± 8.7 2.24 ± 1.20 - 4.84 ± 5.48 0.64
Bangi, Malaysia 20.23 ± 6.5 - 47.95 ± 8.0 1.64 ± 0.5-3.45 ± 1.5 0.39
Singapore Urban May 2015 to May 2016 (Normal) PM10 32–70 0.68–3.07 (mean=1.83) - Urbancok et al. (2017)
September-October 2015 (Haze) 72–322 1.07–5.97 (mean=2.45) -
St. John’s Island, Background September 2006-January 2007 TSP 94.1 ± 33.4 6.9 ± 2.4 - Engling et al. (2014)
Singapore (Haze period)
December 2006–January 2007 24.0 ± 5.2 2.1 ± 1.3 -
(Clear days)
 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267 263

Fig. 6 – CMB results during strong haze, partial haze and normal periods for (a) PM2.5 , (b) PM1 and (c) PM0.1 .

haze and normal periods were in the lower and upper right
quadrant, whereas during the strong haze period, they were
in the upper right quadrant. Hence, the ratios indicated that
the major sources of PM during strong haze period were dom-
inantly from biomass burning. It indicated a clear influence
of peatland fire emission for PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 , though the
PM2.5 influence on was strongest, similar to trends in previ-
ous studies (Chomanee et al., 2020; Phairuang et al., 2020).
This agrees with Phairuang et al. (2020) - those sources of
PM0.1 were a mix of vehicle combustion and biomass burn-
ing, even when biomass burning dominated. The petroleum
and biomass combustions were the leading sources of PM
during partial haze and normal periods. This is because the
industries in the southern part of Thailand were mainly
connected to agriculture, especially natural rubber plants
(Tekasakul et al., 2008; Dejchanchaiwong et al., 2017, 2019).
The residues from rubber plants were used as the main fuel in
many industries in this area as well as agricultural activities
which releases environmental pollutants, especially PM and
PAHs (Chomanee et al., 2018; Phairuang et al., 2019).
2.5.2. CMB analysis
The CMB model using Eq. (1) was applied to determine the pri-
mary source contributions to PAH components in PM. Here,
the primary categories of local sources were bituminous,
palm fiber, palm kernel, rubber wood, biomass burning, diesel
264 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267

(Samae et al., 2021), and transboundary source from peatland

fire in Indonesia, sampled ∼100 m away from source burn-
ing (See et al., 2007), were included in the CMB model. These
source profiles were selected on the basis of primary surveys
around the receptor site. Source contributions of PM2.5 , PM1
and PM0.1 during the strong haze, partial haze and normal pe-
riods are shown in Fig. 6. PM2.5 during strong haze period was
dominated by peatland fires (52%), followed by diesel combus-
tion, local biomass burning, and unidentified sources. During
the partial haze period, peatland fires played a reduced role
and the dominant source was local biomass burning, e.g., rub-
berwood, rice stubble and rice straw. During the normal pe-
riod, the leading sources were a mix of local biomass burning
and diesel combustion. These are the regular sources of PM in
southern Thailand.
Peatland fires still had a significant effect on PM1 (40%) dur-
ing the strong haze period, with a similar profile to PM2.5 . How-
ever, the effect of the peatland fires was lower in PM0.1 (34%),
whereas diesel engine exhaust played a more significant role
(58%), resulting in comparably mixed sources. During the par-
tial haze period, PM1 and PM0.1 patterns were similar to the
strong haze period. The contribution from local biomass burn-
ing was significant in PM2.5 and PM1 during the normal period,
whereas diesel engine exhaust completely dominated PM0.1 .
This agrees with Phairuang et al (2019), who found that PM0.1
was a key identifier of diesel exhaust and it was sensitive to
open biomass burning. Results from the present study sug-
gests that peatland fires strongly influenced southern Thai-
land air quality in term of fine and ultrafine particles.

2.5.3. Backward trajectory

To support the source identification obtained from the PAH
diagnostic ratio and CMB methods, we simulated wind trajec-
tories to analyze the particulate transport by meteorological
factors. 72-h backward trajectories (BT) of air and aerosol par-
ticles from possible external sources arriving at the sampling
site during strong haze (6–9 Sep 2019), partial haze (9–12 Aug
2019) and normal (25–28 Jan 2019) periods are shown in Fig. 7. A
high PM concentration on 6-12 Sep 2019 correlated with a tra-
jectory from south and southwest. South and southwest wind
moved towards Thepha District, Songkhla, southern Thailand,
passing through high concentrations of hotspots from open
biomass burning (peatland fires) in south Sumatra, Indone-
sia, as shown in Fig. 7a. Simulations for the partial period
Fig. 7 – Backward trajectory simulations for Thepha District,
showed the same southwest-bound air mass movement, pass-
Songkhla, southern Thailand during (a) strong haze (b)
ing through some hotspots in northern Sumatra to southern
partial haze and (c) normal periods.
Thailand (Fig 7b). On the other hand, BT simulation during
normal period, when PM2.5 levels in southern Thailand were
low, showed that the northeast wind carried clean air, from the
Gulf of Thailand to southern Thailand, under the effect of the
northeast monsoon (Fig 7c). The BT simulations during strong 3. Conclusions
and partial haze periods clearly indicated that pollutants were
transported from Sumatra, with the south and southwest Physical and chemical characteristics of fine and ultrafine par-
wind, causing transboundary haze to support the analysis of ticles and gas phase of ambient air in southern Thailand dur-
PAH diagnostic ratios and CMB model. This agrees with previ- ing 2019 normal, partial and strong haze periods were in-
ous studies showing significant enhancements in PM2.5 con- vestigated. The study location was selected to have a gener-
centrations over lower SEA during the southwest monsoon - ally clean air background in order to avoid effects of external
in Singapore (Urbancok et al., 2017), Malaysia (Latif et al., 2018; sources. We concluded that PM1 was the predominant com-
Sulong et al., 2019) and southern Thailand (Chomanee et al., ponent during partial and strong haze periods. PM0.1 was also
2020). influenced by the transboundary haze as the concentrations
 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267
during the strong haze period were approximately 2 times
higher than those during the normal period. Levels of PAHs
during the strong haze period for fine and ultrafine particles
were significantly higher than those during the normal period.
Gas-PAHs were dominant by LMW-PAHs (2–3 rings), whereas
HMW-PAHs (4–6 rings) were mainly associated with particles,
indicating that carcinogenic PAHs were mainly found in the
particle phase. PM1 played a major role in toxicity in PM2.5 ,
measured by BaP-TEQ concentrations, accounting for 68.7%–
91.3%, whereas PM0.1 contributed to 10.5%–28.9% of the BaP-
TEQ in PM2.5 . This indicated that smaller particles, <1 μm,
were a more significant source of carcinogenic aerosols and
caused more health detriments than larger particles. The total
accumulated ILCRs for PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 , during the haze
scenario had more health effects than in the non-haze sce-
nario, but they were still in the safety band. The haze affected
period in 2019 at the sampling location was fortunately not
long. A stronger and longer period of haze could be severely
detrimental. The PAH diagnostic ratios and CMB analysis for
PM0.1 , PM1 and PM2.5 during partial haze and normal peri-
ods indicated mixed sources of petroleum combustion and
biomass burning, whereas the major source was peatland fires
during the strong haze period. The contribution from local
biomass burning was significant in PM2.5 and PM1 during the
normal period, whereas diesel exhaust completely dominated
PM0.1 . The identification of the transboundary source as peat-
land fires in Sumatra Island, Indonesia, was supported by the
air mass backward trajectories.
This study provides crucial information for policy makers
to set an achievable and reasonable goal for PM1 and PM0.1
reduction. Comprehensive health risk assessment could give
a better and clearer understanding of the toxicity of fine and
ultrafine particles and hence lead to the enhancement of the
quality of health in lower SEA.
Acknowledgements
This research was financially supported by Thailand Science
Research and Innovation (TSRI) and Electricity Generating Au-
thority of Thailand (EGAT) under grant number RDG60D0002.
This work was also supported by the Interdisciplinary Grad-
uate School of Energy Systems, Prince of Songkla University
via student scholarships under grant number IGS-Energy 1-
2018/09. Equipment support from the East Asia Nanoparticle
Monitoring Network (EA-NanoNet) is acknowledged. We are
also thankful to John Morris for his great English language
editing.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jes.2021.11.005.
references
Adam, M.G., Tran, P.T.M., Bolan, N., Balasubramanian, R., 2020.
Biomass burning-derived airborne particulate matter in
Southeast Asia: a critical review. J. Hazard. Mater., 124760.
265
Chen, S.-C., Liao, C.-M., 2006. Health risk assessment on human
exposed to environmental polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
pollution sources. Sci. Total Environ. 366 (1), 112–123.
Chen, Y.C., Chiang, H.C., Hsu, C.Y., Yang, T.T., Lin, T.Y., Chen, M.J.,
et al., 2016. Ambient PM 2.5-bound polycyclic aromatic
hydrocar-bons (PAHs) in Changhua County, central Taiwan:
Seasonal variation, source apportionment and cancer risk
assessment. Environ. Pollut. 218, 372–382.
Chomanee, J., Tekasakul, S., Tekasakul, P., Furuuchi, M., 2018.
Effect of irradiation energy and residence time on
decomposition efficiency of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) from rubber wood combustion emission using soft
X-rays. Chemosphere 210, 417–423.
Chomanee, J., Thongboon, K., Tekasakul, S., Furuuchi, M.,
Dejchanchaiwong, R., Tekasakul, P., 2020. Physicochemical and
toxicological characteristics of nanoparticles in aerosols in
southern Thailand during recent haze episodes in lower
Southeast Asia. J. Environ. Sci. 94, 72–80.
ChooChuay, C., Pongpiachan, S., Tipmanee, D., Deelaman, W.,
Suttinun, O., Wang, Q., et al., 2020. Long-range transboundary
atmospheric transport of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
carbonaceous compositions, and water-soluble ionic species
in southern Thailand. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 20, 1591–1606.
Dejchanchaiwong, R., Tirawanichakul, Y., Tirawanichakul, S.,
Kumar, A., Tekasakul, P., 2017. Techno-economic assessment
of forced-convection rubber smoking room for rubber
cooperatives. Energy 137, 152–159.
Dejchanchaiwong, R., Kumar, A., Tekasakul, P., 2019. Performance
and economic analysis of natural convection based rubber
smoking room for rubber cooperatives in Thailand. Renew.
Energy 132, 233–242.
Dejchanchaiwong, R., Tekasakul, P., Tekasakul, S., Phairuang, W.,
Nim, N., Thongboon, K., et al., 2020. Impact of transport of fine
and ultrafine particles from open biomass burning on air
quality during 2019 Bangkok haze episode. J. Environ. Sci. 97,
149–161.
Dejchanchaiwong, R., Tekasakul, P., 2021. Effects of coronavirus
induced city lockdown on PM2.5 and gaseous pollutant
concentrations in Bangkok. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 21, 200418.
Engling, G., He, J., Betha, R., Balasubramanian, R., 2014. Assessing
the regional impact of indonesian biomass burning emissions
based on organic molecular tracers and chemical mass
balance modeling. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 8043–8054.
Fang, B., Zhang, L., Zeng, H., Liu, J., Yang, Z., Wang, H., et al., 2020.
PM2.5 -bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: sources and
health risk during non-heating and heating periods
(Tangshan, China). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17 (2), 483.
Fujii, Y., Iriana, W., Oda, W., Puriwigati, A., Tohno, S., Lestari, P.,
et al., 2014. Characteristics of carbonaceous aerosols emitted
from peatland fire in Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia. Atmos.
Environ. 87, 164–169.
Furuuchi, M., Murase, T., Tsukawaki, S., Hang, P., Sieng, S.,
Hata, M., 2007. Characteristics of ambient particle-bound
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the Angkor monument
area of Cambodia. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 7, 221–238.
Gao, Y., Yang, L.X., Chen, J.M., Li, Y.Y., Jiang, P., Zhang, J.M., et al.,
2018. Nitro and oxy-PAHs bounded in PM2.5 and PM1.0 under
different weather conditions at Mount Tai in Eastern China:
Sources, long-distance transport, and cancer risk assessment.
Sci. Total Environ. 622–623, 1400–1407.
Ho, A.F.W., Zheng, H., Earnest, A., Cheong, K.H., Pek, P.P., Seok, J.Y.,
et al., 2019. Time-stratified case crossover study of the
association of outdoor ambient air pollution with the risk of
acute myocardial infarction in the context of seasonal
exposure to the southeast asian haze problem. J. Am. Heart
Assoc. 8, 1–10.
Ho, K.F., Ho, S.S.H., Lee, S.C., Cheng, Y., Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G.,
et al., 2009. Emissions of gas- and particle-phase polycyclic
266 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the Shing Mun Tunnel, Hong
Kong. Atmos. Environ. 43, 6343–6351.
Hussar, E., Richards, S., Lin, Z.Q., Dixon, R.P., Johnson, K.A., 2012.
Human health risk assessment of 16 priority polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in soils of chattanooga, tennessee,
USA. Water Air Soil Pollut. 223 (9), 5535–5548.
Jaafar, S.A., Latif, M.T., Razak, I.S., Wahid, N.B., Khan, A., M, F.,
Srithawirat, T., 2018. Composition of carbohydrates,
surfactants, major elements and anions in PM2.5 during the
2013 Southeast Asia high pollution episode in Malaysia.
Particuology 37, 119–126.
Jamhari, A.A., Sahani, M., Latif, M.T., Chan, K.M., Tan, H.S.,
Khan, M.F., et al., 2014. Concentration and source
identification of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
PM10 of urban, industrial and semi-urban areas in Malaysia.
Atmos. Environ. 86, 16–27.
Jiang, Y., Status, Hu, X., Yves, U.J., Zhan, H., Wu, Y., 2014. Status,
source and health risk assessment of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in street dust of an industrial city, NW China.
Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 106, 11–18.
Jin, T., Han, M., Han, K., Fu, X., Xu, L., Xu, X., 2018. Health risk of
ambient PM10-bound PAHs at bus stops in spring and autumn
in Tianjin, China. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 18, 1828–1838.
Kongpran, J., Kliengchuay, W., Niampradit, S., Sahanavin, N.,
Siriratruengsuk, W., Tantrakarnapa, K., 2021. The health risks
of airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): upper
north Thailand. Geo Health 5, e2020GH000352.
Latif, M.T., Othman, M., Idris, N., Juneng, L., Abdullah, A.M.,
Hamzah, W.P., Jaafar, A.B., 2018. Impact of regional haze
towards air quality in Malaysia: a review. Atmos. Environ. 177,
28–44.
Lavigne, E., Lima, I., Hatzopoulou, M., Van Ryswyk, K., van
Donkelaar, A., Martin, R. V., et al., 2020. Ambient ultrafine
particle concentrations and incidence of childhood cancers.
Environ. Int. 145, 106135.
Li, Y., Chen, Q., Zhao, H., Wang, L., Tao, R., 2015. Variations in
PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0 in an urban area of the Sichuan Basin
and their relation to meteorological factors. Atmosphere 6 (1),
150–163.
Lu, H., Wang, S., Wu, Z., Yao, S., Han, J., Tang, X., Jiang, B., 2017.
Variations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air
during haze and non-haze episodes in warm seasons in
Hangzhou, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24, 135–145.
Lu, W., Yang, L.X., Chen, J.M., Wang, X.F., Li, H., Zhu, Y.H., et al.,
2016. Identification of concentrations and sources of
PM2.5-bound PAHs in North China during haze episodes in
2013. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 9, 823–833.
Maitre, A., Petit, P., Marques, M., Hervé, C., Montlevier, S.,
Persoons, R., et al., 2018. Exporisq-HAP database: 20 years of
monitoring French occupational exposure to polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures and identification of exposure
determinants. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 221 (2), 334–346.
Mikuška, P., Čapka, L., Večeřa, Z., 2018. Aerosol sampler for
analysis of fine and ultrafine aerosols. Anal. Chim. Acta 1020,
123–133.
Nisbet, I.C.T., LaGoy, P., 1992. Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Regul. Toxicol.
Pharmacol. 16 (3), 290–300.
Earthdata, 2021. NRT VIIRS 375 m Active Fire product VNP14IMGT.
Available: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/firms. Accessed July 15,
2021.
PCD, 2021. Air quality standards in the atmosphere in Thailand.
Available:
http://air4thai.pcd.go.th/webV2/download.php?grpIndex=1.
Accessed: August 18, 2021.
Phairuang, W., Suwattiga, P., Chetiyanukornkul, T., Hongtieab, S.,
Limpaseni, W., Ikemori, F., Hata, M., Furuuchi, M., 2019. The
influence of the open burning of agricultural biomass and
forest fires in Thailand on the carbonaceous components in
size-fractionated particles. Environ. Pollut. 247, 238–247.
Phairuang, W., Inerb, M., Furuuchi, M., Hata, M., Tekasakul, S.,
Tekasakul, P., 2020. Size-fractionated carbonaceous aerosols
down to PM0.1 in southern Thailand: Local and long-range
transport effects. Environ. Pollut. 260, 114031.
Phoungthong, K., Tekasakul, S., Tekasakul, P., Hata, M., 2013.
Emissions of particulate matter and associated polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons from agricultural diesel engine fueled
with degummed, deacidified mixed crude palm oil blends. J.
Environ. Sci. 25 (4), 751–757.
Paoin, K., Ueda, K., Vathesatogki, P., Ingviya, T., Buya, S.,
Dejchanchaiwong, R., et al., 2022. Long-term air pollution
exposure and decreased kidney function: A longitudinal
cohort study in Bangkok Metropolitan Region, Thailand from
2002 to 2012. Chemosphere 287, 132117.
Ravindra, K., Sokhi, R., Grieken, R.V., 2008. Atmospheric polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons: Source attribution, emission factors
and regulation. Atmos. Environ. 42 (13), 2895–2921.
Samsuddin, N.A.C., Khan, M.F., Maulud, K.N.A., Hamid, A.H.,
Munna, F.T., Rahim, M.A.A., et al., 2018. Local and
transboundary factors’ impacts on trace gases and aerosol
during haze episode in 2015 El Niño in Malaysia. Sci. Total
Environ. 630, 1502–1514.
Sresawasd, C., Chetiyanukornkul, T., Suriyawong, P., Tekasakul, S.,
Furuuchi, M., Hata, M., et al., 2021. Influence of meteorological
conditions and fire hotspots on PM0.1 in northern Thailand
during strong haze episodes and carbonaceous aerosol
characterization. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 21, 210069.
Sulong, N.A., Latif, M.T., Sahani, M., Khan, M.F., Fadzil, M.F.,
Tahir, N.M., et al., 2019. Distribution, sources and potential
health risks of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
PM2.5 collected during different monsoon seasons and haze
episode in Kuala Lumpur. Chemosphere 219, 1–14.
Tang, N., Hattori, T., Taga, R., Igarashi, K., Yang, X., Tamura, K.,
et al., 2005. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
nitropolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban air
particulates and their relationship to emission sources in the
Pan-Japan Sea Countries. Atmos. Environ. 39, 5817–5826.
Tekasakul, P., Furuuchi, M., Tekasakul, S., Chomanee, J., Otani, Y.,
2008. Characteristics of PAHs in particulates in the
atmospheric environment of Hat Yai City, Thailand, and
relationship with rubber-wood burning in rubber sheet
production. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 8 (3), 265–278.
U.S.EPA, 2004a. Protocol for Applying and Validating the CMB
Model for PM2.5 and VOC Report No. EPA-451/R-04-001
Prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
U.S.EPA, 2004b. EPA-CMB8.2 User’s Manual Report No.
EPA-452/R-04-011 prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
U.S.EPA, 2005. EPA-CMB8.2 Model Code. Available https:
//www.epa.gov/scram/chemical- mass- balance- cmb- model
Accessed: August 20, 2021.
U.S.EPA, 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook Report No.
EPA/600/R-09/052F. prepared by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Unwin, J., Cocker, J., Scobbie, E., Chambers, H., 2006. An
assessment of occupational exposure to polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in the UK. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 50 (4), 395–403.
Urbancok, D., Payne, A.J.R., Webster, R.D., 2017. Regional transport,
source apportionment and health impact of PM10 bound
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Singapore’s atmosphere.
Environ. Pollut. 229, 984–993.
WHO, 1987. Air quality guidelines for Europe WHO Regional
Publications, 23. European Series.
Wiriya, W., Chantara, S., Sillapapiromsuk, S., Lin, N.H., 2016.
Emission Profiles of PM10-bound polycyclic aromatic
 journal of environmental sciences 124 (2023) 253–267 267

hydrocarbons from biomass burning determined in chamber
for assessment of air pollutants from open burning. Aerosol
Air Qual. Res. 16 (11), 2716–2727.
Wiriya, W., Prapamontol, T., Chantara, S., 2013. PM10-bound
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Chiang Mai (Thailand):
Seasonal variations, source identification, health risk
assessment and their relationship to air-mass movement.
Atmos. Res. 124, 109–122.
Zhang, Y., Yang, L., Gao, Y., Chen, J., Li, Y., Jiang, P., et al., 2019.
Comparative study of PAHs in PM1 and PM2.5 at a background
site in the North China plain. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 19 (10),
2281–2293.
Air Resources Laboratory, 2021. HYSPLIT model. Available: https:
//ready.arl.noaa.gov/hypub-bin/trajtype.pl?runtype=archive.
Accessed: July 31, 2021.