ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357
Aerosol and Air Quality
Research
OPEN ACCESS
Received: October 21, 2022
Revised: March 9, 2023
Accepted: March 17, 2023
* Corresponding Author:
Simeng Ma
masimeng1004@163.com
Bo Han
bhan@cauc.edu.cn
Publisher:
Taiwan Association for Aerosol
Research
ISSN: 1680-8584 print
ISSN: 2071-1409 online
Copyright: The Author(s).
This is an open access article
distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY 4.0), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and
source are cited.
Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org
Impacts of PM on Indoor Air Quality of Airport
Terminal Buildings in a Core City of North China
Plain
Yunting Zhao 1,2, Wenhui Zheng1,2, Simeng Ma1*, Weikai Kong3, Bo Han1*,
Jian Yu1
1
Research Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development of Civil Aviation of China,
School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin,
China
2
College of Air Traffic Management, Civil Aviation University of China, Tianjin, China
3
Air Safety Support Department, Shandong Airlines, Jinan, China
ABSTRACT
With the economic growth and globalization, a great deal of airports are being or planned to
be constructed or retrofitted in China. The air quality in airport terminal buildings has not been
studied as in-depth as airport ambient air quality. Due to its unique architectural and operational
characteristics, the airport terminal buildings have individual performance of indoor air quality.
The contribution of outdoor particulate matter (PM) to indoor environment and passengers’
exposure to indoor PM is not well understood. The indoor (i.e., terminal buildings) and outdoor
PM concentrations with particle sizes from 0.25 to 32 µm of Tianjin Binhai International Airport
(IATA: TSN) were monitored continuously during two cases in winter and summer 2020. Higher
indoor PM concentrations occurred in winter as well as in the arrival halls of TSN. During winter
case, the indoor sources contributed more to the indoor environment than the outdoor sources,
whereas the opposite was found during summer case. Sharp variation of indoor PM number
concentrations existed in particles within the range of 0.25–0.40 µm in size, with a peak number
concentration at particle size of about 0.30 µm. PM with smaller particle sizes were more likely
to enter the indoor environment from outdoor. The comprehensive exposure in the TSN terminal
buildings was higher than those in the transportation microenvironments, residences and other
buildings. Significant diurnal variations of Respiratory deposition dose (RDD) were observed under
various exposure durations. Our results highlight the need for further monitoring and improving
the air quality in the terminal buildings.
Keywords: Airport, Terminal building, Particulate matter, I/O ratio, Respiratory deposition dose
1 INTRODUCTION
In 2019, 11.7 million flights carrying 1.4 billion passengers departed from or landed at airports
in China (CAAC, 2020). As one of the major sources of particulate matter (PM) in urban areas
(Johnson et al., 2008), aviation emissions have received increasing attention in recent decades as
a result of the accelerating growth of air transport volumes and the expected expansion for the next
decade (Amato et al., 2010; Kurniawan and Khardi, 2011; Masiol and Harrison, 2014). Substantial
efforts have been made to illuminate the relationship between PM and human health (Englert,
2004; Valavanidis et al., 2008; Sangiorgi et al., 2013). Both the short-term effects (premature
mortality, hospital admissions, etc.) and the long-term effects (morbidity, lung cancer, cardiovascular
and cardiopulmonary diseases, etc.) of PM have been reported. Kim et al. (2007) attributed
approximately 16,000 premature deaths annually to aviation emissions worldwide, with 87%
attributable to PM with a diameter less than 2.5 µm (PM2.5).
1 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357
 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

The PM generated by airliners not only have a significant impact on the outdoor air quality but
can also move to the indoor environment via multiple pathways. Considerable efforts have been
made to figure out the amount and outdoor environmental effect of PM emissions from aviation
emissions (e.g., Corporan et al., 2008; Whitefield et al., 2008; Herndon et al., 2005; Agrawal et
al., 2008; Westerdahl et al., 2008), nevertheless, the conditions and extent under which aviation
emissions infiltrate indoor (specifically, terminal buildings) and impact indoor air quality still remain
unresolved (Tharwat et al., 2019; Ren et al., 2018; Hudda et al., 2020). Massey et al. (2012) found
that the penetration of particle pollutants and the use of mechanical air conditioning systems in
buildings or aircraft can adversely affect the indoor air quality. The PM in the airport outdoor area
(e.g., stands, aprons, runways) are at a high concentration level (Zhu et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2006),
which can easily enter the indoor environment because of frequently opened doors and HVAC
(heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) system (Ren et al., 2018). Tharwat et al. (2019) dedicated
to the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) pollutants in the maintenance room and found correlation
between aircraft number and the concentration of light aldehydes/ketones.
The terminal buildings usually operate on a 24-h basis throughout the year and interact with a
majority of the airport personnel and the passengers. In China, due to the low on-time performance
of airlines (http://www.flightstats.com/), passengers usually spend one or more hours in terminal
buildings. Therefore, the high level of PM pollution in the indoor microenvironment of the terminal
buildings will seriously affect the health of the airport personnel and the passengers (Takegawa
et al., 2021).
For the research related to indoor air pollution (Jenkins et al., 1992; Robinson and Nelson, 1995;
U.S. EPA, 1996), some studies described the characteristics and impact factors of indoor pollutants
in residences and schools, such as PM (Klepeis et al., 2001; Han et al., 2015; Qi et al., 2017), VOCs
(Ielpo et al., 2021; Sangiorgi et al., 2013), NOx (Derbez et al., 2018; Ruggieri et al., 2019) and metals
(Li et al., 2021). Derbez et al. (2018) found concentration and solubility of PM2.5 elements could
be used to identify the sources of indoor particles. indoor air. An investigation carried out by Ielpo
et al. (2021) in a school suggests the presence of indoor VOCs sources, both in the classrooms
and the bathrooms. Others examined the relationship between indoor and outdoor PM (Abt et
al., 2000; Adgate et al., 2002; Cao et al., 2005; Clayton et al., 1993). For example, Chen and Zhao
(2011) reviewed the widely used parameters for the relationship between indoor and outdoor
particle concentration, such as Indoor/Outdoor (I/O) ratio, penetration factor, and infiltration factor
(Finf). The indoor-outdoor relationship of PM can be affected by ventilation, indoor pollution levels,
building structures, and particle sizes. In a naturally ventilated indoor environment, pollutants are
more likely to enter the room with the ventilation airflow due to the active indoor and outdoor
air circulation and higher air exchange rate. Nevertheless, ventilation mainly relies on indoor air
circulation in a mechanically ventilated environment, resulting in a relatively lower air exchange rate
as well as infiltration factor (Goyal and Kumar, 2013). In general, fine PM has a higher penetration
factor than coarse PM, and coarse PM deposits faster than fine PM in the indoor environment
(Jones et al., 2000; Chen and Zhao, 2011). Studies on relationship between indoor and outdoor
particles and found that I/O very extensively, from 0.02 to 31 (Chen and Zhao, 2011). However,
most studies have shown findings that the indoor air quality is strongly related to ambient air.
Ambient particles have been found to penetrate indoors very efficiently, Hänninen et al. (2004)
found the infiltration efficiency of residential PM2.5 particles ranged from 0.59 to 0.70 in four
European cities. There could be more than 50% of urban PM2.5 particles entering the indoor office
environments in Milan, Italy (Sangiorgi et al., 2013). However, these researches mainly focused
on residences and offices, few on airport terminal buildings. Since airports are equipped with
HVAC systems like most office buildings and shopping malls, there is a certain possibility that similar
situations will arise. As key features which distinguish airport terminals from other commercial
buildings exist (Upham, 2001; Kotopouleas and Nikolopoulou, 2014; Balaras et al., 2003), such as
larger area and different human activity, it is necessary to analyze the impact of those factors on
airport terminal buildings’ indoor air quality.
Existing studies provide different perspectives to understand the variations in PM pollution in the
traffic microenvironments, one of which is the exposure of passengers in those microenvironments.
Pramod and Gupta (2016) investigated the passenger exposure to inhalable, thoracic and alveolic
particles in three transportation modes (bus, car, and auto rickshaw) in Delhi, India. Goel and
Kumar (2016) examined pedestrian exposure to PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 (particulate matter with

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 2 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

aerodynamic diameters smaller than 10, 2.5, and 1 µm, respectively) on a roadside by estimating
the total respiratory deposition dose (RDD) from data collection at traffic intersections. However,
the key issue of passenger exposure to PM at the airport, especially in terminal buildings, has
seldom been the focus of those studies. It is valuable to carry out an in-depth investigation of
passengers’ exposure at terminal buildings since they always spend a relatively long time (more
than 1 h) waiting aboard.
In this study, the characteristics of indoor PM pollution in the TSN (Tianjin Binhai International
Airport, IATA: TSN) terminal buildings were explored and the sources of indoor particles were
quantified through the on-site monitoring of PM in 31-size bins from 0.25 to 32 µm. Moreover,
combined with the standard parameters of the population breathing zone, the PM exposure of
passengers and employees staying in the terminal buildings was quantitatively evaluated. We would
(1) analyze the characteristics of indoor and outdoor particle concentrations. (2) acknowledge the
relationship between indoor and outdoor particle concentrations. (3) conduct source identification
of indoor particle pollution. (4) calculate particle pollution exposure and RDD of passengers in the
airport terminal buildings.

2 MATERIAL AND METHODS

2.1 Sampling Method

Measurements were conducted at TSN (Tianjin Binhai International Airport, IATA: TSN, ICAO:
ZBTJ), which is one of the major air traffic centers in China. In 2019, the passenger throughput in
TSN was 23.81 million (http://www.tbia.cn/). TSN extends 364000 m2 with two terminal buildings.
Terminal 1 (T1) extends 116,000 m2 with 19 stands and a single runway; Terminal 2 (T2), located
eastside of T1, extends 248,000 m2 with 40 stands and dual parallel runways (Fig. 1). Both of the
terminal buildings have two floors with the upper floor being the departure hall and the lower
floor being the arrival hall.
The measurements were performed simultaneously in the indoor and outdoor environments
using 21 instruments. The sampling locations are shown in Fig. 1. One instrument was set up on
the first floor between the T1 and T2 terminal buildings, and others were set up in the departure
halls and arrival halls of the T1 and T2 terminal buildings. 4 instruments were placed in the arrival
hall (first floor) of T1 terminal building, 4 instruments were placed in the departure hall (second
floor) of T1 terminal building; 6 instruments were placed in the arrival hall (first floor) of T2
terminal building, 6 instruments were placed in the departure hall (second floor) of T2 terminal
building. The indoor sampling sites were away from the dining area and gathering area, and the
outdoor site was located away from vehicle emissions. All sites were away from entrances and
exits, as is recommended by GB/T18204.6-2013 ("Examination methods for public places—Part 6:
Technical specifications of health monitoring"), more than 3 sampling sites in public place whose
surface area is more than 1000 m2. The sampling height was set to ~1.3 m above ground, which
is close to the breathing zone for adults (~1.6 m) and children (~1 m). The Portable Laser Aerosol
spectrometer and Dust Monitors (Model 11A, Grimm Corporation, Germany) combined with an
optical particle sensor were used to measure the concentrations of PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 at 1-min
counting interval. The Grimm 11-A quantifies particles in 31-size bins from 0.25 to 32 µm with a
maximum mass concentration detection limit of 105 µg m–3. The C-factor of 1 was set as the default
value. The sampling parameter settings are shown in Table 1. Two sampling periods were selected
to represent the winter (January 6–12, 2020) and summer (August 25–31, 2020). The HVAC system
was on during the whole sampling periods. The daily sampling started from 8:00 am to 7:00 pm,
covering the peak periods of airport flights.

2.2 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)

In this study, we collected both indoor and outdoor samples using the same types of equipment
so that the results were readily comparable thus I/O ratios could be reliably estimated. The
comparability of the indoor and outdoor samplers had been tested before the sampling campaigns,
and the substantial similarity of the measurements had been confirmed. To verify the accuracy
of the data recorded by the instruments, we compared it with the data measured by a sampling
station (117°21′54.84′′, 39°8′35.08′′), which is around Tianjin Airport Traffic Station (TATS).

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 3 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

(a)
(b)
39°54′N

(c)

T1
T2
39°12′N

0 200m

116°98′E 117°34′E

(d) T1 Terminal Building T2 Terminal Building

Departure Check-in Departure Check-in

23m Hall islands Hall islands 20.2m

8m Arrival Arrival Luggage

Elevator 9m
Hall Hall Claim
165m 315m Area
Fig. 1. (a) Locations of the indoor and outdoor sampling sites in the TSN terminal buildings. Blue dot: outdoor sampling site; red
dot: indoor sampling sites (ten sampling sites on each floor). (b) The Outdoor sampling site. (c) Sampling device No. 4 in departure
hall of T1 terminal building. (d) Vertical layers of T1 and T2 terminal buildings.

Table 1. Grimm11-A sampling parameter settings.

parameter Value or range
Sampling flow (L min–1) 1.2
PTFE Filter membrane (mm) 47
Sampling interval () 60
Operating temperature (°C) 4-40
Mass concentration range (µg m–3) 0.1–1 × 105
Particle number concentration range 1–2 × 106

The station is located on the northeast side of the airport runway, about 200 m away from the
nearest runway as shown in Fig. S1. The area around the sampling site is open with no other
pollution sources but aircraft emissions. The temperature, relative humidity (RH), wind speed

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 4 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

(WS), and wind direction (WD) at the sampling station during the measuring periods are shown
in Fig. S2. The comparability between the hourly concentrations outdoor instrument and the
sampling site passed correlation check.

2.3 Indoor-outdoor Relationship Methods

Indoor measurements reflect contributions from both particles generated indoors and particles
of outdoor sources that infiltrate indoors. The research on the indoor-outdoor relationship methods
of PM began in the 1990s by means of measuring the mass concentration of PM. Correlation
analysis, I/O ratio and Finf are three commonly used methods to analyze the indoor-outdoor
relationship methods of PM (Chen and Zhao, 2011).
I/O ratio is a simple and useful parameter to qualitatively analyze the level of indoor PM
affected by outdoor sources. I/O ratio is calculated as follows:

I
= C in C out (1)
O

where Cin is the indoor PM mass concentration, Cout is the outdoor PM mass concentration.
Finf is the equilibrium fraction of ambient particles that penetrate indoors and remains suspended
which avoids the mixture with indoor particle sources. Eq. (2) is derived from a more complex
mass-balance model including parameters taking the indoor-outdoor air exchange rate, penetration
efficiency, and particle deposition rate into account (Chen and Zhao, 2011; Hänninen et al., 2004).
After measuring the indoor and outdoor particle concentrations under different conditions, Finf
(the slope) and Cs (the intercept) can be calculated using the regression of indoor concentration
against the outdoor concentration (Ott et al., 2000; Hoek et al., 2008).

p ⋅α SV
C in = C out + =F × C + C s (2)
α + kd α + kd inf out

where p denotes the particle penetration factor, α denotes the air exchange rate due to infiltration;
kd denotes the particle deposition rate; S denotes the indoor particle emission rate; Cin denotes
the indoor particle concentration; V denotes the volume of the room; Cout denotes the outdoor
particle concentration; Finf denotes the infiltration factor; Cs denotes the indoor particle concentration
which is contributed by indoor sources.

2.4 Exposure Assessment Method

Comprehensive exposure refers to the total exposure of humans to PM in different environments
over a given period. The PM concentrations in the environment and the duration of exposure
have a significant impact on the amount of exposure. Considering longer wait-times (usually 1 hour
or more) of the passengers in the terminal buildings and the premature death problems due to PM
exposure, the potential health risks are supposed to be quantified. In this study, the comprehensive
exposures of PM (EP) in different indoor microenvironments (arrival halls and departure halls)
were estimated using a modified version of the previous approach (Boisa et al., 2014; Liu et al.,
2019):

t2
=EP ∫ PM (t ) dt × TR (3)
t1

where PM is the concentration of airborne particles in the indoor microenvironment, and PM2.5
concentrations in TSN terminal buildings were used for calculation; TR is the tracheobronchial
retention, and a value of 75% (SFT, 1999) was used in this research; t2 – t1 is the exposure duration,
and a value of 2 h was applied according to passengers’ waiting time on average in terminal
buildings (Hafizogullari et al., 2002).
Respiratory deposition dose (RDD) has been intensively used to assess the health risks of
human exposure to PM ambient atmosphere. Here we used RDD to examine the level of exposure

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 5 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

of passengers to PM during waiting for the plane. RDD is an integrated exposure-risk function of
the exposure concentration, deposition fraction (DF), and duration time (T) spent in each activity
as well as breathing frequency (f) and tidal volume (TV) for the different activities. Calculation of
RDD is as follows:

RDD = PMi × DFi × VT × f × T (4)

 0.911 0.943 
DF =
IF × 0.058 + +  (5)
 1 + exp ( 4.77 + lndp ) 1 + ( exp ( 0.508 − 2.58lndp ) ) 

  1 
IF =−
1 0.5 1 − 2.8  
(6)
  1 + 1.00076dp  

where PMi represents the mass concentration of PM with particle size < i µm (i = 1, 2.5, 10); DFi
represents the deposition fraction of PMi, which is calculated as the median particle size (dp) of the
particulate matter of interest (He and Gao, 2021), the mean dp diameter is 0.4, 0.45, and 4 µm;
VT is the tidal volume of people, which is set as 1250 cm3 per breath for adults (Sánchez-Soberón
et al., 2015); the breath frequency; f, is set as 20 breaths per minute for adults, respectively; T is
the duration of exposure.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Pollution Characteristics

The average indoor and outdoor concentrations of PM measured at the TSN terminal buildings
in winter and summer are illustrated in Fig. 2. The indoor average concentrations and standard
deviations (SD) of PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 during the whole sampling periods were 22.0 ± 13.9, 25.3
± 16.2 and 33.6 ± 22.4 µg m–3, respectively. The PM2.5 (25.3 µg m–3) and PM10 (33.6 µg m–3)
concentrations on average exceeded the limit values set by the World Health Organization (WHO,
2021), which are 5 and 15 µg m–3, respectively, by 5.03 and 2.24 times. The averaged concentrations
of outdoor PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 were 38.9 ± 25.6 µg m–3, 45.8 ± 28.1 µg m–3 and 67.5 ± 32.1 µg m–3,
respectively, about 2 times more than the indoor concentrations. The outdoor PM concentrations
in winter were generally higher than those in summer, which can be observed in Table S1. This
depends on many factors, such as heating and unfavorable meteorological conditions (referring
to meteorological conditions that were not conducive to the diffusion of pollutants, and were

（a）Winter （b）Summer
80 30
Mass Concentration(μg m-3)

Mass Concentration(μg m-3)

25
60
20

40 15

10
20
5

0 0
AH PM1 DH PM1 AH PM2.5 DH PM2.5 AH PM10 DH PM10 AH PM1 DH PM1 AH PM2.5 DH PM2.5 AH PM10 DH PM10

Fig. 2. Mass concentration for PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 in the arrival halls and departure halls in (a) winter and (b) summer. AH: arrival
halls; DH: departure halls.

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 6 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

Number Concentration

Number Concentration
Outdoor Indoor
200000

（particles cm-3）

（particles cm-3）
400000
(a) Arrival Hall (b) Departure Hall

300000 300000

200000 200000

100000 100000

0 0
0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10
Dp (μm) Dp (μm)

Fig. 3. Particle size distribution in the terminal buildings and outdoors. (a) Arrival halls; (b) Departure
halls.

favorable for pollutant accumulation or secondary formation) in winter. Moreover, the seasonal
difference in concentrations was more pronounced indoors, with indoor PM concentrations
approximately doubling in winter than in summer (Table S1). It is worth noting that the averaged
indoor concentrations in summer are relatively low. The reason could be the reduction in the
number of passengers and the closure of catering services in terminal buildings due to the
lockdown during COVID-19 (a 44.2% decrease in passenger turnover and a 31.0% decrease in
take-offs and landings in TSN in 2020 (CAAC, 2021).
The departure halls of T1 and T2 are connected by a gallery and are more available for air
exchange. Thus, the difference in PM concentrations between the two terminal buildings was
smaller in the departure halls (the concentrations in T2 are 0.33–0.41 times higher than in T1)
than in the arrival halls (the concentrations in T2 are 0.43–0.53 times higher than in T1) during
the whole sampling periods. For different halls, the average concentrations of PM1, PM2.5 and
PM10 were higher in arrival halls (25.0 ± 16.5 µg m–3 for PM1, 34.5 ± 21.2 µg m–3 for PM2.5, 35.8 ±
21.4 µg m–3 for PM10) than in departure halls (19.1 ± 15.2 µg m–3 for PM1, 26.5 ± 17.2 µg m–3 for
PM2.5, 31.4 ± 20.9 µg m–3 for PM10) during the whole sampling periods, as the arrival halls are
located in the first floor of the terminal buildings so vehicle and airliner activities contribute to
the air pollution to a larger extent (Fig. 2).
As for number concentration, the particle size distribution less than 1 µm of indoor and outdoor
particle concentrations in the TSN terminal buildings is shown in Fig. 3. Significant differences in
the distribution of particles less than 1 µm in size of indoor and outdoor PM were observed. The
outdoor number concentration decreased with the increasing particle size, with a peak number
concentration at a particle size of about 0.25 µm (the smallest size bin of our instruments). For
indoor terminal buildings, sharp variation of indoor PM number concentrations existed in particles
within the range of 0.25–0.40 µm in size, with a peak number concentration at a particle size of
about 0.30 µm in the departure and arrival halls of the TSN terminal buildings.
In the departure halls, the averaged indoor number concentration was 46.9% higher than
outdoor, the concentration was 26.7% lower in the arrival halls than outdoor. The maximum value
of number concentration (Dp = 0.30 µm) was 1.958 × 105 cm–3 in the departure hall, 46.8% lower
than that in the arrival hall, with the number concentration of 3.685 × 105 cm–3. The minimum
number concentration appeared in particle size around 1.0 µm, suggesting that particles with a
particle size < 1 µm had a more significant impact on indoor air quality. For different halls, the
number concentrations of particles of the same size in the arrival halls were generally higher than
those in the departure halls, providing further evidence of the significant impact of aviation and
vehicle emissions.

3.2 Source Identification in TSN Terminal Buildings

The correlation heatmap of indoor and outdoor concentrations of different particulate matters
in different sampling periods is illustrated in Fig. 4. Indoor and outdoor PM concentrations were
highly correlated, with the Spearman correlation coefficient (r) in the TSN terminal buildings varying
from 0.62 to 0.98 in each sampling period, especially during summer sampling period (r = 0.97

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 7 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

(a) Winter (b) Summer

0.98
AH PM10
0.78
AH PM2.5

AH PM1 0.58

DH PM10
0.39

DH PM2.5
0.20
DH PM1

O O O O O O 0.00
PM1 PM2.5 PM10 PM1 PM2.5 PM10

Fig. 4. Correlation heatmap of indoor and outdoor PM concentrations in (a) winter and (b) summer.
AH: arrival halls; DH: departure halls; O: outdoor.

for PM1 and r = 0.98 for PM2.5, respectively). Furthermore, the correlation coefficient of PM2.5 and
PM10 between the outdoor site and TATS were 0.85 and 0.65 with p value less than 0.01 (Fig. S3),
indicating aircraft activity should be the potential source of pollution. For different halls, the r
between arrival/departure halls and outdoor PM concentrations were generally above 0.5 with
p value less than 0.05, except for those involving PM1 and PM2.5 concentrations between arrival
halls and outdoors in winter, which showed a relatively poor correlation (PM1: r = 0.42; PM2.5: r =
0.45). Furthermore, higher correlation rates between arrival/departure halls and outdoor PM
concentrations were observed in summer compared to those in winter.
In addition, the I/O ratios and infiltration factors are applied to investigate the indoor-outdoor
relationship in the TSN terminal buildings. During the whole sampling periods, the average values of
I/O ratios were 0.55 ± 0.27, 0.47 ± 0.25, 0.47 ± 0.24 for PM1, PM2.5, and PM10, respectively, indicating
the I/O of PM1 was higher than PM2.5 and PM10. Generally, the I/O ratios of PM10 were always lower
than those of PM1 and PM2.5 during the whole sampling periods, due to the characteristics of
penetration coefficient and deposition rate, which is shown in Table S2. Fig. 5 shows the boxplots
of I/O ratios for PMs in different halls of the TSN terminal buildings in different periods. The I/O
ratios were generally higher in winter than those in summer, which is consistent with previous
findings (Ferrero et al., 2011a, 2011b, 2010). The average I/O ratios of the terminal buildings were
0.48–0.70 in winter and 0.33–0.54 in summer (Fig. 5), indicating that indoor PM concentrations
in the TSN terminal buildings could possibly be affected by the outdoor air pollution sources.
During winter sampling period, the I/O ratio of PM2.5 (0.62 ± 0.28) was slightly higher than that
of PM1 and PM10 (0.59 ± 0.31, 0.59 ± 0.26). However, apparently higher I/O ratios of PM1 compared
with PM2.5 and PM10 emerged during the summer period, as foreseen by previous studies (Hussein
et al., 2005; McAuley et al., 2010). The I/O ratios of PM2.5 were generally higher in the arrival halls
(0.68 and 0.54 on average in winter and summer, respectively) than those in the departure halls
(0.58 and 0.44 on average in winter and summer, respectively) in the TSN terminal buildings, which
is consistent with the mass concentrations discussed in Section 3.1. For the I/O ratios of PM10, a
similar trend was observed, with 0.62 (winter) vs. 0.46 (summer) in the departure halls and 0.56
(winter) vs.0.44 (summer) in the arrival halls.
To further explore the sources of indoor pollutants and quantify the contribution of outdoor
sources to indoor PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations, the infiltration factor (Finf) method was
applied. Fig. 6 illustrates the results of linear regression with the observed concentrations in TSN
terminal buildings. In general, Finf (i.e., the slope of the linear regression line) were 0.85 ± 0.15,
0.62 ± 0.16, and 0.51 ± 0.22 for PM1 PM2.5 and PM10 in the TSN terminal buildings during the
whole sampling periods (Fig. 6(a)). As for another important measure, R2, in determining the degree
of linear correlation of variables (“goodness of fit”), the values are 0.87, 0.87 and 0.71. This means
that 87%, 87%, and 71% of the variation in total indoor PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 concentrations can
be explained by outdoor sources. Generally, PM1 had the highest absolute Finf and PM10 had the
lowest absolute Finf (Fig. 6(a)), indicating that PM with smaller particle sizes were more likely to
enter the indoor environment from the outdoor, which is consistent with the I/O ratios results.

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 8 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

1.6
（a）Winter （b）summer
1.6
I/O Ratio

I/O Ratio
0.8

0.8

0.0
0.0

AH PM1 DH PM1 AH PM2.5 DH PM2.5 AH PM10 DH PM10 AH PM1 DH PM1 AH PM2.5 DH PM2.5 AH PM10 DH PM10

Fig. 5. Box-plots of I/O for PMs in (a) winter and (b) summer. AH: arrival halls; DH: departure halls.

PM10 PM2.5 PM1

80 120 60
R2=0.14 (b)
R2=0.87
2 (a) R2=0.25 R2=0.94 (c)
R =0.87 R2=0.94
R2=0.71 R2=0.30 50
70 R2=0.86
100
Y=0.40X+2.1

Cindoor（mg m-3）
Cindoor（mg m-3）

Cindoor（mg m-3）

60 40 Y=0.48X+2.3
Y=0.46X+18.3
80
50 Y=0.65X+13.1 30 Y=0.54X+2.2

Y=0.85X-3.8 Y=0.51X+11.8
Y=0.58X+13.5
40 60 20
Y=0.62X-0.5

30 10
40

20 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 40 60 80 100
20 40 60 80 100
Coutdoor（mg m-3） Coutdoor（mg m-3） Coutdoor（mg m-3）
80 120 60
R2=0.76 (d) R2=0.10 (e) R2=0.87 (f)
R2=0.71 R2=0.14 R2=0.78
70 R2=0.62 50
R2=0.15 R2=0.94 Y=0.53X-6.0
100
Y=0.70X-2.1
Cindoor（mg m-3）
Cindoor（mg m-3）

Cindoor（mg m-3）

60 40 Y=0.80X-3.4
Y=0.50X+10.9 80
50 Y=0.68X+15.4 30
Y=0.76X+1.0 Y=0.68X+13.6

40 60 20

Y=0.41X+24.9 10
30 Y=0.57X+4.1
40

20 0
20 40 60 80 100 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 40 60 80 100
-3
Coutdoor（mg m-3） Coutdoor（mg m-3） Coutdoor（mg m ）
80 120
R2=0.87 (g) R2=0.12 (h) R2=0.97 (i)
R2=0.85 50
R2=0.26 R2=0.97
70 R2=0.40 100 R2=0.89
R2=0.17
Cindoor（mg m-3）

Cindoor（mg m-3）
Cindoor（mg m-3）

Y=0.71X-3.5
40 Y=0.80X-3.4
60
Y=0.50X+12.8 80
50 Y=0.60X+11.2 30
Y=0.75X-8.6 Y=0.43X+6.1
Y=0.61X-6.9
40 60
20
Y=0.66X-5.0
Y=0.47X+3.7
30
40 10
20
20 40 60 80 100 40 50 60 70 80 90 20 40 60 80 100
-3
Coutdoor（mg m ） Coutdoor（mg m ） -3
Coutdoor（mg m ） -3

Fig. 6. Linear Regression Plots of indoor and outdoor concentrations for PM1, PM2.5, and PM10. The slope of the linear regression
line represents Finf and the intercept of the linear regression line represents Cs; (a, d, g) The whole sampling periods; (b, e,
h) Winter; (c, f, i) Summer; (a, b, c) indoor of TSN terminal buildings; (d, e, f) arrival halls; (g, h, i) departure halls.

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 9 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

Significantly higher R2 were observed in summer than those in winter in the TSN terminal
buildings (Figs. 6(b) and 6(c)), indicating that outdoor sources contributed more to the indoor
environment compared to indoor sources during summer sampling period. This phenomenon
was more pronounced in the departure halls, with R2 (Finf) of 0.97 (0.75 ± 0.12), 0.97 (0.66 ± 0.18),
and 0.89 (0.50 ± 0.26) for PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 (Fig. 6(g)) during summer sampling period. As a
result, more than half of outdoor PM with particle size less than 2.5 µm could enter the departure
halls. Moreover, the negative Cs (i.e., the intercept of the linear regression line, indicating the
indoor-generated particles, with the values of –6.9 ± 5.8, –3.8 ± 3.7, and –3.5 ± 3.2 µg m–3 for
PM1, PM2.5, and PM10, respectively) in the departure halls during summer sampling period (Fig. 6(i))
also indicated that indoor sources had a very limited contribution to the PM mass concentration.
Nevertheless, the R2 were always less than 0.3 in different halls of the TSN terminal buildings
during winter sampling period, suggesting that the indoor sources contributed more to the indoor
environment than the outdoor sources. This was also proved by the higher Cs and lower Finf in
winter than in summer (Figs. 6(b), 6(e), and 6(h)). One of the main reasons for this phenomenon
was the heating and unfavorable ventilation conditions in winter.

3.3 Exposure Assessment

In view of the high PM pollution caused by heating and unfavorable ventilation conditions, the
PM exposure in winter had a greater impact on passengers and employees staying in the terminal
buildings. Therefore, taking winter as an example, the PM2.5 exposure of passengers in the TSN
terminal buildings was derived, and the comprehensive exposure of PM2.5 in the TSN terminal
buildings was compared with other indoor areas investigated in related studies, as shown in Table 2.
The comprehensive exposures of PM2.5 in TSN terminal buildings were 65.3 and 78.8 µg m–3 in the
departure halls and arrival halls during winter sampling period, respectively. The comprehensive
exposures in the TSN terminal buildings are higher than those in the transportation microenvironments
(18.6 µg m–3), residences (20.1–40.4 µg m–3), a research center (45.5 µg m–3), and offices (31.8–
43.8 µg m–3). Moreover, PM2.5 maximum exposure can reach 112.9 µg m–3 in winter, which may
lead to potential respiratory diseases for passengers and employees staying in the terminal buildings
for a long time. Variable ventilation conditions are a direct factor affecting exposure, mainly affecting
indoor PM concentrations by affecting the indoor and outdoor air exchange rates (Morawska et al.,
2001; Cyrys et al., 2004). In a naturally ventilated indoor environment, pollutants are more likely
to enter the room with the ventilation airflow due to the active indoor and outdoor air circulation
and higher air exchange rate (Klinmalee et al., 2009). Nevertheless, ventilation mainly relies on
indoor air circulation in a mechanically ventilated environment, resulting in a relatively lower air
exchange rate and infiltration factor (Ho et al., 2004; Goyal and Kumar, 2013).
To further quantify the health risks of long-time exposure to PM1, PM2.5, and PM10, RDD has
been applied. Given that adults are assumed to breathe a total of 20 times per minute and on
average when waiting aboard. The exposure to PM concentrations will be different when passengers
wait aboard for varied durations. Owing to these parameters, the RDD values for PM1, PM2.5, and
PM10 during five exposure durations (40 min, 60 min, 80 min, 100 min, and 120 min) in winter
and summer periods were collected, as illustrated in Fig. 7. Considerable variation in RDD of PM1,
PM2.5, and PM10 during the longer exposure durations (100 min, 120 min) were observed.

Table 2. Indoor comprehensive exposures of PM2.5 in summer in this study and other related studies
Sampling site Exposure (µg m–3) Ventilation Reference
TSN airport Departure Hall 65.3 HVAC This study
Arrival Hall 78.8
6 households in Harbin Residence 40.4 Natural Ventilation Liu et al., 2022
7 buildings in Beijing Commercial Office 43.8 HVAC Deng et al., 2017
Research Center 45.5
Buildings in India Office 32.9 HVAC Massey et al., 2012
Microenvironments in Seoul Residence 20.1 Natural Ventilation Lim et al., 2012
Office 31.8 Standalone VC
Transportation 18.6 Natural Ventilation

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 10 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

120

80
RDD of PM1 in Winter

100

RDD of PM1 in Summer

80 60

60
120 120
40
100 100
40
80 80
60 20 60
20
40 40
0 0
8:00 14:00 19:00
8:00 14:00 19:00
Time Time

140 100

120
RDD of PM2.5 in Winter

80
RDD of PM2.5 in Summer

100
60
80
120 120
60 40
100 100
40 80 80
20 60
60
20
40 40
0 0
8:00 14:00 19:00 8:00 14:00 19:00
Time Time

200
100
RDD of PM10 in Winter

180
RDD of PM10 in Summer

160
80
140
120 60
100 120 120
80 100 40 100
60 80 80
40 60 20 60
20
40 40
0 0
8:00 14:00 19:00 8:00 14:00 19:00
Time Time

Fig. 7. Variations in PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 RDD for different exposure durations in the TSN terminal buildings during the sampling
periods. X-axis: Exposure start time; y-axis: Exposure duration; z-axis: Respiratory deposition dose (RDD).

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 11 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

Nevertheless, the variation of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 during the shorter exposure durations remained
stable. The average RDD in winter (87.5, 105.4, and 145.2 for PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 when waiting
for 120-min) were 67–97% higher than those in summer (50.9, 54.8, and 74.0 for PM1, PM2.5, and
PM10 when waiting for 120-min). In addition, significant diurnal variations of RDD were observed
under various exposure durations. In winter, the maximal RDD for PM2.5 and PM1 appeared at
8:00 LST, while the maximal RDD for PM10 appeared at 16:00 when passengers’ exposure duration
reached 120 min. In summer, the maximal RDD for PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 appeared at 9:00 LST. It
is suggested that passengers could reduce their waiting duration to reduce the PM exposure if
possible. Moreover, passengers could choose to take flights at noon in winter and at night in
summer when the RDD reached the minimum.

4 CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the characteristics of indoor PM pollution in the TSN terminal buildings were
explored and the indoor particles were quantified through the on-site monitoring of PM. Combined
with the standard parameters of the population breathing zone, the PM exposure of passengers
and employees staying in the terminal buildings was quantitatively evaluated during two cases in
winter and summer 2020. Our conclusions are as follows. During the whole sampling period, the
indoor PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations on average exceeded the WHO limit values by 5.03 and
2.24 times. Higher indoor PM concentrations occurred were observed in winter than in summer.
During winter sampling period, the indoor sources contributed more to the indoor environment
than the outdoor sources with relative higher Cs and lower Finf, whereas the opposite was found
during summer case. Sharp variation of indoor PM number concentrations existed in particles
within the range of 0.25–0.40 µm in size, with a peak number concentration at particle size of
about 0.30 µm. PM with smaller particle sizes (less than 2.5 µm) were more likely to enter the
indoor environment from outdoors. The comprehensive exposure in the TSN terminal buildings
was higher than those in the transportation microenvironments, residences, and other buildings.
Moreover, considerable variation in RDD of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 during the longer exposure
durations existed. The averaged RDD in winter were 67—97% higher than those in summer. The
maximal RDD for PM2.5 and PM1 appeared at 8:00 LST, while the maximal RDD for PM10 appeared
at 16:00 when passengers’ exposure duration reached 2h in winter, however, the maximal RDD
for PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 appeared at 9:00 LST in summer.
Several suggestions are offered in this study. First, passengers should select to take flights at
noon in winter and at night in summer when the RDD reached the minimum, and reduce the waiting
duration if possible. Secondly, due to the impact of COVID-19, the passenger flow is significantly
lower than in other years (especially in T1), so that greater uncertainty existed during the summer
sampling period. Moreover, additional episodes are required for statistical significance. Nevertheless,
this study still provides valuable information on the impacts of PM on indoor air quality in airport
terminal buildings, which is helpful for decision-making in heavy pollution emergencies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(No. U2133206, U1933110) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
(No. 3122022PT04).

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Supplementary material for this article can be found in the online version at https://doi.org/
10.4209/aaqr.220357

REFERENCES
Abt, E., Suh, H.H., Catalano, P., Koutrakis, P. (2000). Relative contribution of outdoor and indoor

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 12 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

particle sources to indoor concentrations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34, 3579–3587. http://doi.org/
10.1021/es990348y
Adgate, J.L., Ramachandran, G., Pratt, G.C., Waller, L.A., Sexton, K. (2002). Spatial and temporal
variability in outdoor, indoor, and personal PM2.5 exposure. Atmos. Environ. 36, 3255–3265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00326-6
Agrawal, H., Sawant, A.A., Jansen, K., Miller, J.W., Cocker III, D.R. (2008). Characterization of
chemical and particulate emissions from aircraft engines. Atmos. Environ. 42, 4380–4392.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.01.069
Amato, F., Moreno, T., Pandolfi, M., Querol, X., Alastuey, A., Delgado, A., Pedrero, M., Cots, N.
(2010). Concentrations, sources and geochemistry of airborne particulate matter at a major
European airport. J. Environ. Monit. 12, 854–862. https://doi.org/10.1039/B925439K
Balaras, C.A., Dascalaki, E., Gaglia, A., Drousta, K. (2003). Energy conservation potential, HVAC
installations and operational issues in Hellenic airports. Energy Build. 35, 1105–1120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2003.09.006
Boisa, N., Elom, N., Dean, J.R., Deary, M.E., Bird, G., Entwistle, J.A. (2014). Development and
application of an inhalation bio-accessibility method (IBM) for lead in the PM10 size fraction of
soil. Environ. Int. 70, 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.05.021
Cao, J.J., Lee, S.C., Chow, J.C.L., Cheng, Y., Ho, K.F., Fung, K., Liu, S.X., Watson, J.G. (2005).
Indoor/outdoor relationships for PM2.5 and associated carbonaceous pollutants at residential
homes in Hong Kong case study. Indoor Air 15, 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-
0668.2005.00336.x
Chen, C., Zhao, B. (2011). Review of relationship between indoor and outdoor particles: I/O ratio,
infiltration factor and penetration factor. Atmos. Environ. 45, 275–288. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.09.048
Chen, Y., Lee, W., Uang, S., Lee, S., Tsai, P. (2006). Characteristics of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions from a UH-1H helicopter engine and its impact on the ambient
environment. Atmos. Environ. 40, 7589–7597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.06.054
Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) (2020). Statistical Data on Civil Aviation of China
2019. China Aviation Press, Beijing. http://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/TJSJ/202003/t2020
0309_201358.html (in Chinese)
Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) (2021). Statistical Data on Civil Aviation of China
2020. China Aviation Press, Beijing. http://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/TJSJ/202104/t2021
0409_207119.html (in Chinese)
Clayton, C.A., Perritt, R.L., Pellizzari, E.D., Thomas, K.W., Whitmore, R.W., Wallace, L.A., Zkaynak,
H.O., Spengler, J.D. (1993). Particle total exposure assessment methodology (PTEAM) study:
distribution of aerosol and elemental concentrations in personal, indoor and outdoor air
samples in a southern California community. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 3, 227–250.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es981122i
Corporan, E., Quick, A., DeWitt, M.J. (2008). Characterization of particulate matter and gaseous
emissions of a C-130H aircraft. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 58, 474–483. https://doi.org/
10.3155/1047-3289.58.4.474
Cyrys, J., Pitz, M. (2004). Relationship between indoor and outdoor levels of fine particle mass,
particle number concentrations and black smoke under different ventilation conditions. J.
Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 144, 275–283. http://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500317
Deng, G., Li, Z., Wang, Z., Gao, J., Xu, Z., Li, J., Wang, Z. (2017). Indoor/outdoor relationship of
PM2.5 concentration in typical buildings with and without air cleaning in Beijing. Indoor Built
Environ. 26, 60–68. https://10.1177/1420326x15604349
Derbez, M., Wyart, G., Le Ponner, E., Ramalho, O., Ribéron, J., Mandin, C. (2018). Indoor air quality
in energy-efficient dwellings: Levels and sources of pollutants. Indoor Air 28, 318–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12431
Englert, N. (2004). Fine particles and human health-a review of epidemiological studies. Toxicol.
Lett. 149, 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2003.12.035
Ferrero, L., Perrone, M.G., Petraccone, S., Sangiorgi, G., Ferrini, B.S., Lo Porto, C., Lazzati, Z.,
Cocchi, D., Bruno, F., Greco, F., Riccio, A., Bolzacchini, E. (2010). Vertically-resolved particle size
distribution within and above the mixing layer over the Milan metropolitan area. Atmos. Chem.
Phys. 10, 3915–3932. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-3915-2010

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 13 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

Ferrero, L., Mocnik, G., Ferrini, B.S., Perrone, M.G., Sangiorgi, G., Bolzacchini, E. (2011a). Vertical
profiles of aerosol absorption coefficient from micro-Aethalometer data and Mie calculation
over Milan. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 2824–2837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.04.022
Ferrero, L., Riccio, A., Perrone, M.G., Sangiorgi, G., Ferrini, B.S., Bolzacchini, E. (2011b). Mixing
height determination by tethered balloon-based particle soundings and modeling simulations.
Atmos. Res. 102, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.06.016
Goel, A., Kumar, P. (2016). Vertical and horizontal variability in airborne nanoparticles and their
exposure around signalised traffic intersections. Environ. Pollut. 214, 54–69. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.envpol.2016.03.033
Goyal, R., Kumar, P. (2013). Indoor–outdoor concentrations of particulate matter in nine
microenvironments of a mix-use commercial building in megacity Delhi. Air Qual. Atmos.
Health 6, 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-013-0212-0
Hafizogullari, S., Chinnusamy, P., Tunasar, C. (2002). Simulation reduces airline misconnections: a
case study, in: Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, IEEE, San Diego, CA, USA, pp.
1192–1198. https://doi.org/10.1109/WSC.2002.1166377
Han, Y., Qi, M., Chen, Y., Shen, H., Liu, J., Huang, Y., Chen, H., Liu, W., Wang, X., Liu, J., Xing, B., Tao,
S. (2015). Influences of ambient air PM2.5 concentration and meteorological condition on the
indoor PM2.5 concentrations in a residential apartment in Beijing using a new approach.
Environ. Pollut. 205, 307–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2015.04.026
Hänninen, O.O., Lebret, E., Ilacqua, V., Katsouyanni, K., Kunzli, N., Sram, R.J., Jantunen, M. (2004).
Infiltration of ambient PM2.5 and levels of indoor generated non-ETS PM2.5 in residences of four
European cities. Atmos. Environ. 38, 6411–6423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.
07.015
He, H., Gao, H.O. (2021) Particulate matter exposure at a densely populated urban traffic intersection
and crosswalk. Environ. Pollut. 268, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115931
Herndon, S.C., Onasch, T.B., Frank, B.P., Marr, L.C., Jayne, J.T., Canagaratna, M.R., Grygas, J., Lanni,
T., Anderson, B.E., Worsnop, D., Miake-Lye, R.C. (2005). Particulate emissions from in-use
commercial aircraft. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 39, 799–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/027868205
00247363
Ho, K.F., Cao, J.J., Harrison, R.M., Lee, S.C., Bau, K.K. (2004). Indoor/outdoor relationships of
organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) in PM2.5 in roadside environment of Hong Kong.
Atmos. Environ. 38, 6327–6335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.08.007
Hoek, G., Gerard, K., Harrison, R., Hartog, J., Meliefste, K., Brink, H., Katsouyanni, K., Karakatsani,
A., Lianou, M., Kotronarou, A., Kavouras, I., Pekkanen, J., Vallius, M., Kulmala, M., Puustinen,
A., Thomas, S., Meddings, C., Ayres, J., Wijnen, J., Hameri, K. (2008). Indoor-outdoor relationships
of particle number and mass in four European cities. Atmos. Environ. 42, 156–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.09.026
Hudda, N., Durant, L.W., Fruin, S.A., Durant, J.L. (2020). Impacts of aviation emissions on near-
airport residential air quality. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 8580–8588. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acs.est.0c01859
Hussein, T., Hameri, K., Heikkinen, M.S.A., Kulmala, M. (2005). Indoor and outdoor particle size
characterization at a family house in Espoo-Finland. Atmos. Environ. 39, 3697–3709.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.03.011
Ielpo, P., Mangia, C., De Gennaro, G., Di Gilio, A., Palmisani, J., Dinoi, A., Bergomi, A., Comite, V.,
Fermo, P. (2021). Air quality assessment of a school in an industrialized area of Southern Italy.
Appl. Sci. 11, 8870. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11198870
Jenkins, P.L., Phillips, T.J., Mulberg, E.J., Hui, S.P. (1992). Activity patterns of Californians: use of
and proximity to indoor pollutant sources. Atmos. Environ. 26A, 2141–2148. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0960-1686(92)90402-7
Johnson, G.R., Mazaheri, M., Ristovski, Z.D., Morawska, L.A. (2008). Plume capture technique for
the remote characterization of aircraft engine emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 4850–4856.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es702581m
Jones, N.C., Thornton, C.A., Mark, D., Harrison, R.M. (2000). Indoor/outdoor relationships of
particulate matter in domestic homes with roadside, urban and rural locations. Atmos. Environ.
34, 2603–2612. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00489-6
Kim, B.Y., Fleming, G.G., Lee, J.J., Waitz, I.A., Clarke, J., Balasubramanian, S., Malwitz, A., Klima, K.,

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 14 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

Locke, M., Holsclaw, C.A., Maurice, L.Q., Gupta, M.L. (2007). System for assessing Aviation’s
Global Emissions (SAGE), Part 1: Model description and inventory results. Transp. Res. Part D
12, 325–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2007.03.007
Klepeis, N.E., Neilson, W.C., Ott, W.R., Robinson, J.P., Tsang, A.M., Switzer, P., Behar, J.V., Hern, S.C.,
Englemann, W.H. (2001). The national human activity pattern survey (NHAPS): a resource for
assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J. Exposure Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 11, 231–
252. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500165
Klinmalee, A., Srimongkol, K., Oanh, N.T.K. (2009). Indoor air pollution levels in public buildings in
Thailand and exposure assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 156, 581–594. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10661-008-0507-z
Kotopouleas, A., Nikolopoulou, M. (2014). Understanding thermal comfort conditions in airport
terminal buildings. in Proceedings of 8th Windsor Conference: Counting the Cost of Comfort in
a changing world. Cumberland Lodge, Windsor, UK. https://www.researchgate.net/publica
tion/273441140_Understanding_thermal_comfort_conditions_in_airport_terminal_buildings
Kurniawan, J.S., Khardi, S. (2011). Comparison of methodologies estimating emissions of aircraft
pollutants, environmental impact assessment around airports. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31,
240–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.09.001
Li, X., Sierra C., Emily, F., Jill B., Tami, B., Ellison, C. (2021). Personal exposure to PM2.5 of indoor
and outdoor origin in two neighboring Chinese communities with contrasting household fuel
use patterns. Sci. Total Environ. 800, 149421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149421
Lim, S., Kim, J., Kim, T., Lee, K., Yang, W., Jun, S., Yu, S. (2012). Personal exposures to PM2.5 and
their relationships with microenvironmental concentrations. Atmos. Environ. 47, 407–412.
https://10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.10.043
Liu, X., Ji, R., Shi, Y., Wang, F., Chen, W. (2019). Release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from
biochar fine particles in simulated lung fluids: Implications for bioavailability and risks of
airborne aromatics. Sci. Total Environ. 655, 1159–1168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.
2018.11.294
Liu, Y., Dong, J., Ma, H., Jiang, Y., Zheng, W., Luo, X. (2022). An overview: PM2.5 concentration levels
in urban residential buildings during the past two decades. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 22, 220174.
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220174
Masiol, M., Harrison, R.M. (2014). Aircraft engine exhaust emissions and other airport-related
contributions to ambient air pollution: A review. Atmos. Environ. 95, 409–455. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.05.070
Massey, D., Kulshrestha, A., Masih, J., Taneja, A. (2012). Seasonal trends of PM10, PM5.0, PM2.5 &
PM1.0 in indoor and outdoor environments of residential homes located in North-Central India.
Build. Environ. 47, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.07.018
McAuley, T.R., Fisher, R., Zhou, X., Jaques, P.A., Ferro, A.R. (2010). Relationships of outdoor and
indoor ultrafine particles at residences downwind of a major international border crossing in
Buffalo, NY. Indoor Air 20, 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00654.x
Morawska, L., He, C., Hitchin,s J., Gilbert, D., Parappukkaran, S. (2001). The relationship between
indoor and outdoor airborne particles in the residential environment. Atmos. Environ. 35,
3463–3473. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00097-8
Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) (1999). Guidelines on Risk Assessment of Contaminated
Sites. SFT Report 99.06. Norwegian Pollution Control Authority SFT, Norway. https://www.milj
odirektoratet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/klif2/publikasjoner/andre/1691/ta1691.pdf
Ott, W., Wallace, L., Mage, D. (2000). Predicting particulate (PM10) personal exposure distributions
using a random component superposition statistical model. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 50,
1390–1406. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2000.10464169
Pramod, K., Gupta, N.C. (2016). Commuter exposure to inhalable, thoracic and alveolic particles
in various transportation modes in Delhi. Sci. Total Environ. 541, 535–541. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.076
Qi, M., Zhu, X., Du, W., Chen, Y., Huang, T., Pan, X., Zhong, Q., Sun, X., Zeng, E., Xing, B., Tao, S.
(2017). Exposure and health impact evaluation based on simultaneous measurement of indoor
and ambient PM2.5 in Haidian, Beijing. Environ. Pollut. 220, 704–712 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.envpol.2016.10.035
Ren, J., Cao, X., Liu, J. (2018). Impact of atmospheric particulate matter pollutants to IAQ of airport

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 15 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357

 ORIGINAL RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220357

terminal buildings: A first field study at Tianjin Airport, China. Atmos. Environ. 179, 222–226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.02.019
Robinson, J., Nelson, W.C. (1995). National Human Activity Pattern Survey Data Base. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Ruggieri, S., Longo, V., Perrino, C., Canepari, S., Drago, G., L’Abbate, L., Balzan, M., Cuttitta, G.,
Scaccianoce, G., Minardi, R. (2019). Indoor air quality in schools of a highly polluted south
Mediterranean area. Indoor Air 29, 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12529
Sánchez-Soberón, F., Mari, M., Kumar, V., Rovira, J., Nadal, M., Schuhmacher, M. (2015). An
approach to assess the Particulate Matter exposure for the population living around a cement
plant: modelling indoor air and particle deposition in the respiratory tract. Environ. Res. 143,
10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2015.09.008
Sangiorgi, G., Ferrero, L., Ferrini, B.S., Porto, C.L., Perrone, M.G., Zangrando, R., Gambaro, A.,
Lazzati, Z., Bolzacchini, E. (2013). Indoor airborne particle sources and semi-volatile partitioning
effect of outdoor fine PM in offices. Atmos. Environ. 65, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2012.10.050
Takegawa, N., Murashima, Y., Fushimi, A., Misawa, K., Fujitani, Y., Saitoh, K., Sakurai, H. (2021).
Characteristics of sub-10 nm particle emissions from in-use commercial aircraft observed at
Narita International Airport. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 21, 1085–1104. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-
21-1085-2021
Tharwat, M., Jocelyne, A.G., Maher, A., Céline, L., Rouba, N., Stéphane L.C. (2019). An assessment
of indoor air quality in the maintenance room at Beirut-Rafic Hariri International Airport.
Atmos. Pollut. Res. 10, 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2018.11.008
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) (1996). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter,
Volumes I-III. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Upham, P. (2001). A comparison of sustainability theory with UK and European airports policy
and practice. J. Environ. Manage. 63, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0469
Valavanidis, A., Fiotakis, K., Vlachogianni, T. (2008). Airborne particulate matter and human
health: toxicological assessment and importance of size and composition of particles for
oxidative damage and carcinogenic mechanisms. J. Environ. Sci. Health., Part C 26, 339–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10590500802494538
Westerdahl, D., Fruin, S.A., Fine, P.L., Sioutas, C. (2008). The Los Angeles International Airport as
a source of ultrafine particles and other pollutants to nearby communities. Atmos. Environ. 42,
3143–3155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.09.006
World Health Organization (WHO) (2021). WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide: executive
summary. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789
240034228
Zhu, Y., Hinds, W.C., Krudysz, M., Kuhn, T., Froines., J., Sioutas, C. (2005). Penetration of freeway
ultrafine particles into indoor environments. J. Aerosol Sci. 36, 303–322. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.09.007

Aerosol and Air Quality Research | https://aaqr.org 16 of 16 Volume 23 | Issue 6 | 220357