Science of the Total Environment 569–570 (2016) 46–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Identification and quantification of indoor air pollutant sources within a

residential academic campus
Shalini Suryawanshi a, Amit Singh Chauhan a, Ritika Verma a, Tarun Gupta a,b,⁎
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India
b
APTL, Centre for Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, India

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Average PM0.6 concentration indoor

was about 94.44 μg/m3.
• PMF used to identify the strength of in-
door air pollution sources.
• Eight metals Ba, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Ni
and Pb were quantified
• Identified sources: Coal combustion, To-
bacco smoking, Wall dust, Soil particles
& Wooden furniture.

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

Article history: There is a growing concern regarding the adverse health effects due to indoor air pollution in developing coun-
Received 23 March 2016 tries including India. Hence, it becomes important to study the causes and sources of indoor air pollutants. This
Received in revised form 23 May 2016 study presents the indoor concentrations of PM0.6 (particles with aerodynamic diameter less than 0.6 μm) and
Accepted 10 June 2016
identifies sources leading to indoor air pollution. Indoor air samples were collected at IIT Kanpur campus. Nine-
Available online 18 June 2016
ty-eight PM0.6 samples were collected during November 2013 to September 2014. PM0.6 concentration was mea-
Editor: D. Barcelo sured using a single stage impactor type PM0.6 sampler. The average PM0.6 concentration indoor was about
94.44 μg/m3. Samples collected were then analysed for metal concentrations using ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled
Keywords: Plasma – Optical Emission Spectrometer). Eight metals Ba, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Ni and Pb were quantified from PM
Source apportionment samples using ICP-OES. Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) was used for source apportionment of indoor air pol-
ICP-OES lution. PMF is a factor analysis tool which helps in resolving the profile and contribution of the sources from an
PMF unknown mixture. Five possible sources of indoor pollutants were identified by factor analysis – (1) Coal com-
Indoor air pollution bustion (21.8%) (2) Tobacco smoking (9.8%) (3) Wall dust (25.7%) (4) Soil particles (17.5%) (5) Wooden furni-
Metals
ture/paper products (25.2%).
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tarun@iitk.ac.in (T. Gupta).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.061
0048-9697/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S. Suryawanshi et al. / Science of the Total Environment 569–570 (2016) 46–52
1. Introduction
Indoor air pollution started back in the primitive times when people
settled at one place in community and started using fire for warmth,
cooking and light. In India about 32% of the primary energy needs are
still derived from the use of biomass and about 70% of the India's popu-
lation depends on biomass for energy needs (http://mnre.gov.in/
schemes/grid-connected/biomass-powercogen/). Biomass fuel burning
is one of the major sources of indoor air pollution.
Indoor air pollution refers to the poor quality of air within and
around the structures and buildings. It leads to the health problems
and discomfort for the occupants of the building. Most of the indoor
air pollutants are produced within the building whereas some of the
pollutants might enter from outside due to improper ventilation. Health
effects due to poor indoor air quality generally occurs after years of ex-
posure to pollutants but some health effects like irritation in throat, eyes
and nose, dizziness and headache might occur even after a short term
exposure to the pollutants. A debate is still going on whether the size,
chemical composition or surface area is most relevant in predicting
the health effects due to particulate matter (Lighty et al., 2000).
Studies have shown that increased amount of particulate matter
present in the air have a huge impact on the health of the exposed pop-
ulation (Dockery et al., 1993; Koenig et al., 2005). A survey showed that
employed persons in U.S. spend only about 2% of their time outdoors, 6%
of their time in transit, and 92% of their time indoors (Klepeis et al.,
2001). Since people spend most of their time indoor so indoor air pollut-
ants have a huge impact on the health of the people. Personal exposure
to pollutants depends on the time spent indoor and concentration of
particulate matter in air. Since women and children spend most of
their time indoor, they are more exposed to indoor pollutants. Accord-
ing to WHO about 4.3 million people die every year due to household
air pollutants (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/).
Indoor air pollutants concentrations are higher than outdoor. Approx-
imately 76% of the particulate matter are present indoor in the developing
countries (Smith, 1993). Children below five years who spend a lot of
time indoor have high risk of lower respiratory disorders (Smith et al.,
2000) like pneumonia (Dherani et al., 2008). More than 50% of the deaths
of children below 5 years of age from acute lower respiratory infection are
due to the household indoor air pollutants from solid fuel burning (http://
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/). Lung and cardiovascu-
lar diseases are common among the people living in places having high
concentration of indoor pollutants (Perez-Padilla et al., 2010; Uzoigwe
Fig. 1. Variation of PM0.6 and metal concentrations with time.
47
et al., 2013). About 17% of deaths among adults due to lung cancer are be-
cause of the carcinogens present in air due to household air pollution
(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs292/en/).
India has the highest negative impact of indoor air pollution in the
households. According to statistics, India alone is responsible for 28%
deaths due to indoor air pollution in the developing countries (Rohra
and Taneja, 2016). India ranks second in the world for per capita burden
of the respiratory illness (Smith, 2000). This makes it necessary to study
the sources of indoor pollutants and implement effective control
measures.
96 PM0.6 samples were collected from different indoor microenvi-
ronments in this study. The collected samples were further subjected
to chemical analysis. The metals analysed in this study are Fe, Pb, Ba,
Ca, Cr, Cu, Mg and Ni. The objective of this study is source apportion-
ment of the sources of indoor air pollutants. Source apportionment
was carried out using Positive Matrix Factorization (Norris and Duvall,
2014). PMF is a factor analysis tool which resolves the contributions
and profiles of the sources in an unknown mixture. PMF does not ana-
lyse on sample by sample basis like many other factor analysis tools
and so has less chances of error in source contribution due to variations
that might occur in the source profiles due to various reasons. PMF uses
all the data together and gives the average source profile over the time
period of collection of samples (Hopke, 2014).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Site location
The study was conducted in IIT Kanpur campus (26.5114° N, 80.2349°
E, and 142 m above the mean sea level). IIT Kanpur is situated beside the
Grand Trunk road. Since it is situated on the outskirts of Kanpur city, it has
a cleaner environment as compared to the rest of the city (Devi et al.,
2009). Indoor air sampling was done at three places, Hall 4 room, Atmo-
spheric Particle Technology laboratory (APTL) and Western laboratories.
2.2. Sampling procedure
Particulate matter was collected using a single stage impactor type
PM0.6 sampler (standardized against Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, APS).
Flow rate of sampler was 12 LPM which was controlled by the rotameter
(calibrated using a mass flow meter). Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) or
Teflon filter papers with 47 mm diameter and 2 μm pore size were used
48 S. Suryawanshi et al. / Science of the Total Environment 569–570 (2016) 46–52

to collect PM0.6 particles (Chauhan and Gupta, 2016). The design and Table 2
performance related details of the sampler are provided in the supple- MDLj and pj values of elements for uncertainity calculation (Kim et al., 2005).

mentary section. The reasons for using Teflon filter paper are: Species MDLj value (ng/m3) pj value (%)

i. Teflon filter paper is chemically inert and has very little impurities Ba 0.11 10
Ca 0.11 22
and thus it is suitable for trace element analysis.
Cr 4.13 10
ii. It has high collection efficiency and very little moisture absorption Cu 10.42 10
capacity. Fe 6.25 10
iii. It can be used in a wide range of weather conditions without any Mg 0.1 10
deformation. Ni 2.08 10
Pb 22.928 10

2.3. Collection and storage of samples

Since the PM mass collected is in very small quantity so utmost care
was taken for filter preparation, sample collection and in weighing filter
papers. Filter paper used in sampling was pre-conditioned in a con-
trolled environment at 25 °C and 50% RH for about 24 h and same pro-
cedure was followed after the completion of sampling so that there is no
error in the PM0.6 mass due to moisture. Each pre-conditioned filer was
then weighed three times using Mettler balance (APM 440, Mettler,
sensitivity 5 μg) and if the difference between any readings was found
to be more than 5 μg then the filter paper was re-conditioned and re-
weighed (Chakraborty and Gupta, 2010). The filter papers were trans-
ferred to sealed plastic containers and then according to the sampling
schedule the filter papers were placed on the sampler using clean for-
ceps. The filter papers were taken out of the samplers using clean for-
ceps after the sampling and were transferred back to the sealed plastic
containers. Collected filter papers were post-conditioned under similar
controlled environment as during pre-conditioning (25 °C, 50% RH)
and weighed to calculate PM0.6 mass. After weighing, the filter papers
were transferred to plastic containers and kept in refrigeration at 5 °C
till further analysis. For every month about 10% of the filter papers
were kept as blank and they were subjected to similar procedure as
the filter papers which were used during sampling.
2.4. Calculation of PM0.6 mass
Ninety-eight PM0.6 samples were collected during November 2013
to September 2014. PM0.6 mass was calculated by the difference in the
mass of the filter papers after and before sampling. PM0.6 concentration
was then calculated by dividing the PM0.6 mass by the volume of air
sampled. PM0.6 concentration was calculated using the following equa-
tion:

 W f −W i −W b
PM0:6 concentration μg=m3 ¼  106
V
Where,
Wf = Mass of filter paper after sampling (grams).
Wi = Mass of filter paper before sampling (grams).
Wb = Mass increase of blank filter (grams).
V = Volume of sampled air (m3)
2.5. Analysis of elements
For the purpose of elemental analysis, Teflon filter paper was cut
using plastic scissors into several small pieces and was placed at the bot-
tom of round bottom glass digestion vessel. 20 ml of concentrated Nitric
acid (65%, GR grade, Merck Suprapure) was poured into the digestion
vessel and for 2 h the digestion vessel was put on hot plate having
180 °C temperature. It was taken care that the digestion vessel did not
completely dry up because of the evaporation of Nitric acid and if re-
quired extra Nitric acid was added during digestion. After digestion
the vessel was allowed to cool down to room temperature. The walls
of the vessel were rinsed with Milli-Q water (resistivity =
18.2 MΩ cm at 25 °C) and kept for 30 min for diffusion of acid from
the filters into the solution, then the solution in the vessel was filtered
through 0.22 μm filters and the final volume was made up to 100 ml
using Milli-Q water. These aqueous samples were then analysed for el-
ements using ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma – Optical Emission
Spectrometer, Thermo Fisher, iCAP 6300 Duo) as per the earlier
established procedures (Chakraborty and Gupta, 2010). Blank filters
were also subjected to the same procedure.
2.6. ICP-OES
ICP-OES is generally used for low to moderate detection limit i.e., 0.1–
100 ppb. The detection limit of elements used in this analysis is shown in
Table 2. In ICP-OES heated Argon plasma is used to excite the concerned
element's atom in the sample and then spectrometer measures the inten-
sity of the emitted electromagnetic radiations during transformation from
higher to lower energy state at a characteristic wavelength for each ele-
ment. The measured intensity is converted into concentration using the
calibration curve of that metal generated using NIST traceable external
multi-element standard solution (Boss and Fredeen, 2004; Gupta and
ð1Þ Mandariya, 2013). Ba, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Ni and Pb concentrations were
quantified in the indoor air samples with ICP-OES.
2.7. Positive matrix factorization
US EPA PMF version 5.0.14 software was used for source apportion-
ment. PMF requires a data set consisting of certain parameters for differ-
ent samples. It also requires uncertainty data for individual parameters

Table 1 Table 3
Statistical analysis of the metal concentrations (μg/m3) measured during the study period. PMF analysis results for PM0.6 (μg/m3).

Species Category Signal/noise Min 25th 50th 75th Max Species Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Ba Strong 6.6 0.009 0.241 0.619 1.176 6.605 Ba 1.137 0.000 0.000 0.175 0.000
Ca Strong 6.5 0.385 3.930 6.021 7.955 16.800 Ca 1.095 0.693 2.036 0.000 1.481
Cr Strong 4.8 0.015 0.522 0.745 0.877 5.574 Cr 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.230 0.963
Cu Strong 5.0 0.009 0.675 0.989 1.284 5.320 Cu 0.000 0.043 1.580 0.178 0.000
Fe Strong 5.0 0.055 2.707 2.823 3.576 9.869 Fe 1.453 0.000 0.481 0.000 1.087
Mg Strong 6.3 0.054 1.834 2.685 3.303 12.558 Mg 0.005 0.301 0.080 2.304 0.353
Ni Strong 6.5 0.004 0.219 0.410 0.699 4.500 Ni 0.000 0.613 0.022 0.076 0.000
Pb Weak 3.6 0.018 0.699 0.699 0.699 18.408 Pb 0.000 0.000 0.137 0.000 0.373
 S. Suryawanshi et al. / Science of the Total Environment 569–570 (2016) 46–52 49

Fig. 2. Percentage contribution of elements to different factors (Factor fingerprints).

in samples. Uncertainty is calculated using the following formula (Kim uij = uncertainty.
et al., 2005) - pj = parameter proportional of uncertainty.
xij = concentration of specie j in sample i.
 MDLj = Minimum Detection Limit.
uij ¼ p j  xij þ MDL j 3
ð2Þ
Positive Matrix Factorization is based on multivariate factor
analysis which breaks down a matrix having species data into two
Where, matrices; factor contribution and factor profile. The factor profile

Fig. 3. Factor profiles.

50 S. Suryawanshi et al. / Science of the Total Environment 569–570 (2016) 46–52

Fig. 4. Source apportionment of indoor air pollutants.

needs interpretation by the user to identify the sources of pollutants j - specie.

which are contributing to the measured data by comparing the factor Factor profile and contributions are obtained in PMF by minimising
profile data with emissions and discharges from inventories/other the objective function Q.
sources.
" p
#2
p n m xij − ∑k¼1 g ij f kj
xij ¼ ∑ g ik f kj þ eij ð3Þ Q ¼ ∑∑ ð4Þ
k¼1 i¼1 j¼1 uij

Where,
Where, uij is uncertainty of specie j in sample i.
xij - concentration of a species. There are two types of Q displayed by the model results, Q robust and
eij - residual matrix. Q true. Q true is calculated using all the points whereas Q robust is calcu-
fkj - factor profile. lated by excluding the points which are not fit by the model, having un-
gik - factor contributions. certainty scaled residual greater than 4. The difference between Q
p - factor number. robust and Q true shows the effect of inconsistencies from sources
i - sample number. which are present during the sampling period (Norris and Duvall, 2014).

Fig. 5. Factor contributions (μg/m3) to the PM0.6 mass.

 S. Suryawanshi et al. / Science of the Total Environment 569–570 (2016) 46–52
For choosing the number of factors, Q = i ∗ j is a good starting point.
The model interpretation, Q values, the goodness of model fit and post
PMF regression are all considered together to find the optimum number
of factors. PMF require multiple iterations, it starts the search with a
randomly generated factor profile. Since the starting point is random
in nature there is no guarantee that PMF will give a global minimum,
it may instead find a local minimum. So in order to find a global mini-
mum PMF should be run multiple times iteratively.
There can exist a multiple number of F (factor profile) and G (factor
contribution) matrices giving the same minimum value of Q. This is
known as rotational ambiguity. In order to check rotational ambiguity
PMF has FPEAK tool. Five FPEAK runs could be performed in PMF for
the current dataset.
PMF accepts only non-negative values. It does not work with the
missing data in data matrix. In case, if missing values are present then
there are three options – remove the entire sample, remove the species
or replace missing value with mean value. Measurements which are not
relevant to the sources in study are discarded from the PMF analysis.
Data below detection limit (DL) is replaced by DL/2 and its uncertainty
is replaced by (5/6) DL. Species can also be categorised as bad, weak and
strong based on signal to noise ratio and their uncertainties are also
changed accordingly (Hopke, 2014).
3. Results and discussions
PM0.6 and metal concentration varies a lot on different days as
shown in Fig. 1. The maximum and minimum PM0.6 concentration
was found out to be 330.79 μg/m3 and 17.59 μg/m3, respectively. The av-
erage PM0.6 concentration was 94.44 μg/m3. The statistical analysis of
metal concentrations measured during the study period (monthly aver-
age) is shown in Table 1.
PMF analysis was carried out on elemental concentrations taken
over a period of time. The uncertainty values were calculated using Eq.
(2) and values as depicted in Table 2. Several parameters were consid-
ered for obtaining the result. The missing values in the data were re-
placed by species median. Certain species were considered as bad
species in PMF analysis and their uncertainty was replaced by a higher
uncertainty value which was four times of the species-specific median.
PMF was run for different number of factors. Q value decreased as the
number of factors increased. Q theoretical for the data was approxi-
mately 784. Q (robust) for four and five factors was 1158.4 and 482.7,
respectively. Pb was categorised as weak specie after analysing the
base model run. F-peak analysis was also done to consider the rotational
ambiguity. Five sources of indoor air pollutants were identified after
PMF analysis (Table 3). G-Space plots in PMF showed that all the sources
were independent and there was no correlation between them.
Distribution of metal species in different sources shown in factor fin-
gerprints plot (Fig. 2) gives the percentage contribution of metal species
in different sources. It helps in the identification of major pollutant
source releasing these metals.
Factor 1 (Coal combustion) as shown in Fig. 3 had high concentra-
tion of Fe, Ba and Ca. A little amount of Mg was also present. These spe-
cies are good indicator of coal combustion from households and from
the power plants, brick kilns and industries present in and around the
Kanpur city. According to a study Fe is present in the fly ash in coal in
the form of Fe2O3 or Fe3O4 in about 2 to 26.8% (Cincinnati, 1969; Kang
et al., 2011). Studies also shows release of CaO, Mg(OH)2 (Benson,
2006) and Ba (Kim and Kazonich, 1999; Kang et al., 2011) in coal com-
bustion. Ba occurs in coal in different amount depending upon the type
of coal (Zhao et al., 2014). Iron in coal is primarily associated with sul-
phur in minerals jarosite and pyrite, while other iron containing min-
erals like illite, ankerite and kaolinite also occurs in coal (Waanders et
al., 2003). Calcium is generally present in coal as calcite (CaCO3)
(Aladdin et al., 2013). A study showed that the ash deposits from coal
fired power plant consists of CaO, MgO, Fe2O3 and other chemical com-
pounds (Fernandez-Turiel et al., 2004). So this source indicates coal
51
combustion. The pollutants from industries are carried to the experi-
mental site along with wind and enter the indoor environment through
doors and windows.
Factor 2 (Tobacco smoking) as shown in Fig. 3 had high concentra-
tion of Ca, Ni and significant amount of Mg, Cu. These pollutants are
good indicators of tobacco smoking within indoor microenvironments.
A study shows the effect of some important metals like Ca, Ni, Cu, Mg
which are related to tobacco smoking (Chiba and Masironi, 1992). A
study in China showed that both Chinese and imported cigarette papers
had a significant amount of calcium and magnesium (Peng et al., 2011).
Ni and Cu are toxic metals present in tobacco leaves (Bernhard et al.,
2005). So this source indicates tobacco smoking.
Factor 3 (Wall dust) as shown in Fig. 3 had high concentration of Ca,
Cu and significant amount of Fe, Pb, Mg and Ni. Ca in the form of calcium
carbonate is the main ingredient of wall putty used for finishing before
painting the walls. According to studies, wall paints and construction
materials are made up of metals like Pb, Zn, Cd, Cu, Mn, Ni, Co, Cr, Fe,
etc. (Abagale and Campus, 2013; Mielke et al., 2001). So wall dust
should be the source for this factor.
Factor 4 (Soil particles) as shown in Fig. 3 had high concentration of
Mg and significant amount of Cr, Cu, Ba and Ni. An USEPA study of 1983
shows the concentration of metals in the natural soil. Cr, Cu, Ba and Ni
are present in the soil dust in approximately the same ratio as they
are present in this factor (Lindsay, 1979). According to a study, soil con-
sists of high concentration of Mg and a significant amount of Ba, Cu, Cr
and Ni (Zeiner et al., 2015). So the source for factor 3 should be soil par-
ticles coming indoor along with wind or physical contact with people.
Factor 5 (Wooden furniture/paper products) as shown in Fig. 3 had
high concentration of Ca, Cr, Fe and significant amount of Mg and Pb. Ac-
cording to studies, wood has heavy metals like Ca, Mg, Al, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe,
Mn, Pb which may vary according to the climate and forest type (Arthur
et al., 1999; Meier, 2013; Nicewicz and Szczepkowski, 2008). So the
source of factor 5 could be the wooden furniture/paper products present
indoor.
The percentage share of different sources in PM0.6 (Fig. 4) shows that
the maximum indoor pollution was caused due to wall dust (factor 3).
Wall dust causes about 25.7% of indoor pollution. Wooden furniture/
paper products (factor 5) was the second highest pollutant source
with a share of about 25.2%. Minimum indoor pollution was caused
due to tobacco smoking (factor 2) with share of about 9.8%. Coal com-
bustion (factor 1) and soil particles (factor 4) contributed about 21.8%
and 17.5% respectively to indoor air pollution.
Factor contributions of the sources were not constant and they
changed with time (Fig. 5). This change in contribution of factors with
time might be due to change in temperature, humidity and other
influences.
4. Conclusions
Sampling was done to collect PM0.6 concentrations at indoor sites in
IIT Kanpur campus. Eight elements namely Ba, Ca, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mg, Ni and
Pb were quantified using ICP-OES. A total of 98 samples were collected
from November 2013 to September 2014 at suitable intervals.
During this study it was found that there were large variations in
PM0.6 concentrations with time PM0.6 concentration varies from mini-
mum 17.59 μg/m3 to maximum 330.79 μg/m3. The average indoor
PM0.6 concentration was 94.44 μg/m3.
Source apportionment for the indoor air pollutants was done using
PMF. PMF results gave source profile and source contributions of indoor
air pollution. The analysis shows that five sources were responsible for
the indoor pollution. The sources were independent of each other and
there was no correlation between them. The source contribution showed
variations with time. The five sources identified for indoor pollution were
coal combustion (21.8%), tobacco smoking (9.8%), wall dust (25.7%), soil
particles (17.5%) and wooden furniture/paper products (25.2%).
52 S. Suryawanshi et al. / Science of the Total Environment 569–570 (2016) 46–52

Acknowledgement Kang, C.M., Gupta, T., Ruiz, P.A., Wolfson, J.M., Ferguson, S.T., Lawrence, J.E., Rohr, A.C.,
Goldleski, J., Koutrakis, P., 2011. Aged particles derived from emissions of coal-fired
power plants: The TERESA field results. Inhal. Toxicol. 23, 11–30.
This study was supported by the research fund from IIT Kanpur. Kim, A.G., Kazonich, G., 1999. Mass Release of Trace Elements from Coal Combustion By-
Products.
Kim, E., Hopke, P.K., Qin, Y., 2005. Estimation of organic carbon blank values and error
References structures of the speciation trends network data for source apportionment. J. Air
Waste Manage. Assoc. 55, 1190–1199.
Abagale, S.A., Campus, N., 2013. Chemical Studies on the Composition of Natural Paint Pig-
Klepeis, N.E., Nelson, W.C., Ott, W.R., Robinson, J.P., Tsang, a.M., Switzer, P., Behar, J.V.,
ment Materials from the Kassena-Nankana District of the Upper East region of Ghana.
Hern, S.C., Engelmann, W.H., 2001. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey
3 pp. 13–23.
(NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J. Expo.
Aladdin, M., Jian, J., Yang, Q., Chen, L.-C., Finkelman, R.B., Huang, X., 2013. Laboratory stud-
Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 11, 231–252.
ies of the impact of calcite on in vitro and in vivo effects of coal dust: a potential pre-
Koenig, J.Q., Mar, T.F., Allen, R.W., Jansen, K., Lumley, T., Sullivan, J.H., Trenga, C.A., Larson,
ventive agent for coal workers' pneumoconiosis? Am. J. Ind. Med. 56, 292–299.
T.V., Liu, L.J.S., 2005. Pulmonary effects of indoor- and outdoor-generated particles in
Arthur, M.A., Siccama, T.G., Yanai, R.D., 1999. Calcium and magnesium in wood of north-
children with asthma. Environ. Health Perspect. 113, 499–503.
ern hardwood forest species: relations to site characteristics. Can. J. For. Res. 29,
Lighty, J.S., Veranth, J.M., Sarofim, A.F., 2000. Combustion aerosols: factors governing their
339–346.
size and composition and implications to human health. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc.
Benson, L.B., 2006. Use of Magnesium Hydroxide for Reduction of Plume Visibility in Coal-
50, 1522–1565.
Fired Power Plants. Measurement.
Lindsay, W.L., 1979. Chemical Equilibria in Soils. Wiley-Interscience Publication, Wiley.
Bernhard, D., Rossmann, A., Wick, G., 2005. Metals in cigarette smoke. IUBMB Life 57,
Meier, S., 2013. Elemental analysis of wood fuels NYSERDA's promise to New Yorkers :
805–809.
NYSERDA provides resources, expertise and objective information so New Yorkers
Boss, C., Fredeen, K., 2004. Concepts, Instrumentation and Techniques in Inductively
can make confident, informed energy decisions. NYSERDA Rep. 13–13.
Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry. PerkinElmer.
Mielke, H.W., Powell, E.T., Shah, A., Gonzales, C.R., Mielke, P.W., 2001. Multiple metal con-
Chakraborty, A., Gupta, T., 2010. Chemical Characterization and Source Apportionment of
tamination from house paints: consequences of power sanding and paint scraping in
Submicron (PM1) Aerosol in Kanpur Region. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 10, 433–445.
New Orleans. Environ. Health Perspect. 109, 973–978.
Chauhan, Gupta, 2016. Development of a novel PM0.6 sampler (under review).
Nicewicz, D., Szczepkowski, A., 2008. The content of heavy metals in the wood of healthy
Chiba, M., Masironi, R., 1992. Reviews/Analyses Toxic and trace elements in tobacco and
and dying beech trees (Fagus sylvatica L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Silv. Colendar. Rat. Ind. Lignar.
tobacco smoke *. 70 pp. 269–275.
7 (4), 35–44.
Cincinnati, O., 1969. NEPIS document display. (URL:) http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.
Norris, G., Duvall, R., 2014. EPA Positive M atrix Factorization (PM F) 5.0 Fundamentals
exe/9100808I.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=
and User Guide.
Prior+to+1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=
Peng, W., Jun, S., Xiangmin, L., Lijun, Z., Li, L., 2011. Determination of calcium and magne-
1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=
sium in cigarette paper with autoanalyzer. Tob. Sci. Technol. 52–55.
&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%
Perez-Padilla, R., Schilmann, A., Riojas-Rodriguez, H., 2010. Respiratory health effects of
3A\zyfiles\Index%20Data\70thru75\Txt\00000008\9100808I.txt&User=
indoor air pollution. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 14, 1079–1086.
ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h|-&MaximumDocuments=
Rohra, H., Taneja, A., 2016. Indoor air quality scenario in India—an outline of household
1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=
fuel combustion. Atmos. Environ. 129, 243–255.
p|f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=
Smith, K., 1993. Fuel combustion, air pollution exposure, and health: the situation in de-
Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL (accessed
veloping countries. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 18, 529–566.
1.29.16).
Smith, K.R., 2000. National Burden of Disease in India From Indoor air Pollution.
Devi, J.J., Gupta, T., Tripathi, S.N., Ujinwal, K., 2009. Assessment of Personal Exposure to In-
Smith, K.R., Samet, J.M., Romieu, I., Bruce, N., 2000. Indoor air pollution in developing
door and Outdoor Particulate Matter for Residents of an Academic Campus (IIT-Kan-
countries and acute lower respiratory infections in children. Thorax 55, 518–532.
pur). Inhal. Toxicol. 21 (14), 1208–1222.
Uzoigwe, J.C., Prum, T., Bresnahan, E., Garelnabi, M., 2013. The emerging role of outdoor
Dherani, M., Pope, D., Mascarenhas, M., Smith, K.R., Weber, M., Bruce, N., 2008. Indoor air
and indoor air pollution in cardiovascular disease. N. Am. J. Med. Sci. 5, 445–453.
pollution from unprocessed solid fuel use and pneumonia risk in children aged under
Waanders, F.B., Vinken, E., Mans, A., Mulaba-Bafubiandi, A.F., 2003. Iron minerals in coal,
five years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull. World Health Organ. 86,
weathered coal and coal ash - SEM and Mossbauer results. Hyperfine Interact. 148-
390–394.
149, 21–29.
Dockery, D.W., Pope 3rd, C.A., Xu, X., Spengler, J.D., Ware, J.H., Fay, M.E., Ferris, B.G.J.,
Zeiner, M., Juranovic Cindric, I., Pozgaj, M., Pirkl, R., Silic, T., Stingeder, G., 2015. Influence
Speizer, F.E., 1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cit-
of soil composition on the major, minor and trace metal content of Velebit biomedical
ies. N. Engl. J. Med. 329, 1753–1759.
plants. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 106, 153–158.
Fernandez-Turiel, J.L., Georgakopoulos, A., Gimeno, D., Papastergios, G., Kolovos, N., 2004.
Zhao, C.L., Sun, Y.Z., Xiao, L., Qin, S.J., Wang, J.X., Duan, D.J., 2014. The occurrence of barium
Ash deposition in a pulverized coal-fired power plant after high-calcium lignite com-
in a Jurassic coal in the Huangling 2 mine, Ordos Basin, northern China. Fuel 128,
bustion. Energy Fuel 18, 1512–1518.
428–432.
Gupta, T., Mandariya, A., 2013. Sources of Submicron Aerosol during Fog Dominated Win-
tertime at Kanpur. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 20 (8), 5615–5629.
Hopke, P.K., 2014. A Guide to Positive Matrix Factorization. pp. 1–16.