Abstract
In recent years, the use of synthetic materials in building and furnishing, the adoption of new lifestyles, the extensive use of products for environmental cleaning and personal hygiene have contributed to the deterioration of indoor air quality and introduced new sources of risk to humans. Indoor environments include home, workplaces such as offices, public buildings such as hospitals, schools, kindergartens, sports halls, libraries, restaurants and bars, theaters and cinemas and finally cabins of vehicles. Indoor environments in schools have been of particular public concern. According to recent studies, children aged between 3 and 14 spend 90 % of the day indoors both in winter and summer. Moreover, children have greater susceptibility to some environmental pollutants than adults, because they breathe higher volumes of air relative to their body weights, and their tissues and organs are actively growing. In this review, the authors explore the methodological approaches used for the assessment of air quality in schools: monitoring strategies, sampling and analysis techniques and summarizing an overview of main findings from scientific literature concerning the most common pollutants found in school environments.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In recent years, numerous scientific studies highlighted that citizens spend most of their time in indoor environments, e.g., home, offices, schools, hospitals, kindergartens, sports halls, libraries, restaurants, bars, theaters and vehicles. Citizens are more exposed to indoor pollution than outdoor (Blondeau et al. 2005; Bruno et al. 2008; Pegas et al. 2010). Indoor air quality has a considerable impact on public health because indoor exposure may pose harmful health effects such as respiratory and cardiopulmonary pathologies and asthma, especially for children (Yang et al. 2009; Sohn et al. 2012). There is a considerable interest in the assessment of the association between air pollution exposure and health effects in school environments, as shown by more than 70 epidemiological publications currently available (e.g., Guo et al. 1999; Venn et al. 2000). Indoor air pollution is characterized by a large variability in pollutants’ concentration among different indoor environments and may also vary within a specific environment as a function of location and time. The extent of these variations depends on factors such as the emission characteristics of the sources, the occupants’ behavior and the microclimatic and ventilation conditions (Report EUR 16051 EN 1994; UNI EN ISO 16000-1: 2006). Thus, indoor air pollution and human exposure are highly dynamic processes rather than static phenomena.
In this review, the attention will be focused on air quality in school buildings. Children spend large amount of time in these environments and are more sensitive subjects to indoor pollutants (Faustman et al. 2000; Mendell and Health 2005; WHO 2006a, b; Chithra and Shiva Nagendra 2012). Several studies reported that indoor air pollution can increase the chance of long- and short-term health problems for students and teachers in terms of comfort, productivity and academic performance (Daisey et al. 2003; Shendell et al. 2004; Dijken et al. 2005; Mendell and Health 2005; Wargocki et al. 2005; Mi et al. 2006; Shaughnessy et al. 2006; Croome et al. 2008). The indoor pollution observed inside school buildings can be traced back to a variety of causes, such as the use of high emitting materials for building construction and furnishing, minimal landscaping with poor drainage, heating, ventilation and air conditioning units, the lack of preventative maintenance, crowded conditions (Godwin and Batterman 2007) and cleaning products that release chemicals into the air (UBA 2008). Each school environment is uniquely characterized, and thus, each personal exposure is determined by a combination of the outdoor and indoor pollutant levels (Stranger et al. 2007, 2008). In fact, age and location of school buildings, pollutants transport from outdoor, chemical reactions in indoor air and heterogeneous processes at the air–solid interfaces are the other factors that influence the pollutant concentrations (Poupard et al. 2005). In developed countries, many studies were conducted during the past decade in order to assess Air quality in school environments (Seppanen et al. 1999; Daisey et al. 2003; Bartlett et al. 2004; Shendell et al. 2004; Ramachandran et al. 2005; Shaughnessy et al. 2006; Godwin and Batterman 2007) and concentration of a large number of indoor air pollutants were measured including Carbon dioxide (CO2), Ozone (O3), Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Carbon oxide (CO), Sulfur dioxide (SO2) (Lee and Chang1999; Scheff et al. 2000a, b; Bartlett et al. 2004; Shendell et al. 2004; Blondeau et al. 2005; Ramachandran et al. 2005; Godwin and Batterman 2007) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) (Kotzias 2005; Godwin and Batterman 2007; Pegas et al. 2010, 2012) and Particulate Matter (PM) (Koutrakis et al. 1992; Ozkaynak et al. 1996; Daisey et al. 2003). The aim of the present review was to describe the methodological approaches used for the assessment of air quality in schools, according to the main characteristics of school environments. Chemical pollutants and their sources and the monitoring strategies and an overview of the main scientific findings are discussed. This article is an abridged version of the chapter by Dambruoso et al. (2013) published in the book series Environmental Chemistry for a Sustainable Word (http://www.springer.com/series/11480).
Indoor environments and pollutants
The wide range of school building designs leads to large variations in indoor pollutants levels and hence personal exposure (Ashmore and Dimitroulopoulou 2009). Children spend their school hours in different environments: classrooms, laboratories where available, playgrounds and other locations within the school. As a result, individual exposure changes related according to the variation in pollutants levels inside the several school locations (Mejía et al. 2011).
Pollutants emission can occur in many school settings where different activities take place. Surely the most important ones with respect to the time spent by children are the classrooms (Lee and Chang 2000; Hulin et al. 2011; Bertoni et al. 2002; Blondeau et al. 2005; Mi et al. 2006; Ekmekcioglu and Keskin 2007; Fromme et al. 2007; Godwin and Batterman 2007; Diapouli et al. 2008; Weichenthal et al. 2008; Yang et al. 2009; Sofuoglu et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2010; Goyal and Khare 2011; Gul et al. 2011; Mejía et al. 2011; Mullen et al. 2011; Park et al. 2011; Smedje et al. 2011; Szoboszlai et al. 2011; Sohn et al. 2012; Zhang and Zhu 2012); the gyms (Godwin and Batterman 2007; Branis et al. 2009; Branis and Safránek 2011; Hochstetler et al. 2011; Szoboszlai et al. 2011); the science labs (often without fume hoods) (Godwin and Batterman 2007; Yang et al. 2009; Jo and Kim 2010; Goyal and Khare 2011; Park et al. 2011; Szoboszlai et al. 2011); the computer rooms (Yang et al. 2009; Wu et al. 2010; Szoboszlai et al. 2011; Sohn et al. 2012); and the dining halls (Gul et al. 2011). In addition, the exposure that may occur in other school environments such as the arts and crafts labs (Blondeau et al. 2005; Godwin and Batterman 2007); the office rooms (Godwin and Batterman 2007; Goyal and Khare 2011; Zhang and Zhu 2012), the kitchen (MacIntosh et al. 2012); the cafeterias (Godwin and Batterman 2007; Hochstetler et al. 2011; Zhang and Zhu 2012); other miscellaneous use rooms (e.g., music room, library); the swimming pools or stairwells should be taken into account, as demonstrated by numerous scientific papers (Godwin and Batterman 2007; Goyal and Khare 2011; Gul et al. 2011; Zhang and Zhu 2012, Sohn et al. 2012).
In order to give an as complete as possible assessment of air quality in schools, many authors have considered in their experimental activities several aspects that may affect the air quality and so the levels of people exposure (Stranger et al. 2008; Pegas et al. 2012). Among these, the most relevant ones appear on the school sites such as industrial (Scheepers et al. 2010; Tran et al. 2012), rural (Blondeau et al. 2005; Fromme et al. 2007; Hulin et al. 2011; Tran et al. 2012; Zhang and Zhu 2012), traffic (Blondeau et al. 2005; Hochstetler et al. 2011; Raysoni et al. 2011; Szoboszlai et al. 2011; Chithra and Shiva Nagendra 2012), suburban (Branis and Safránek 2011), urban (Fromme et al. 2007; Hulin et al. 2011; Mullen et al. 2011; Tran et al. 2012; Zhang and Zhu 2012) or background site because of the proximity of outdoor relevant sources (Janssen et al. 1997, 2001; Green et al. 2004; Wu and Batterman 2006; Van Roosbroeck et al. 2007; Appatova et al. 2008; Branis and Safránek 2011; Hochstetler et al. 2011; Mejía et al. 2011; De Giuli et al. 2012); the age of the buildings (Godwin and Batterman 2007; Ashmore and Dimitroulopoulou 2009; Yang et al. 2009; Hochstetler et al. 2011; Mullen et al. 2011; Zhang and Zhu 2012) in respect of the type of heating systems (MacIntosh et al. 2012; Park et al. 2011; De Giuli et al. 2012; Corgnati et al. 2007); the quality of the used materials, the capacity to accumulate or disperse pollutants; the room design (floor area and room volume) and the level of occupancy (Daisey et al. 2003; Godwin and Batterman 2007; Theodosiou and Ordoumpozanis 2008; Weichenthal et al. 2008; Mumovic et al. 2009; Mejía et al. 2011; Goyal and Khare 2011; Mullen et al. 2011; Chithra and Shiva Nagendra 2012), measured by indoor CO2 levels used as a surrogate of the rate of outside supply air per occupant (Daisey et al. 2003); the type and quality of ventilation in terms of number of doors and windows or the presence of natural or mechanical ventilation systems (Ashmore and Dimitroulopoulou 2009; Goyal and Khare 2011; Mullen et al. 2011, Mejía et al. 2011, Grimsrud et al. 2006; Lee and Chang 2000; Mumovic et al. 2009; Wåhlinder et al. 1997; Theodosiou and Ordoumpozanis 2008; Blondeau et al. 2005), very important for the removal of pollutants (Sohn et al. 2012; UBA 2008; Yang et al. 2009).
Many authors emphasized also the decisive role played by the micrometeorological parameters such as mean temperature and relative air humidity (Godwin and Batterman 2007, Park et al. 2011; Smedje et al. 2011; Weichenthal et al. 2008; Zhang and Zhu 2012; Fraga et al. 2008; Yang et al. 2009; De Giuli et al. 2012), fundamental in the emissive process of indoor pollutants, by the choice of materials of board, desks, chairs, floor, because of their different emission capacity (Pegas et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2009; Goyal and Khare 2011; Chithra and Shiva Nagendra 2012) and by the activities carried out by the occupants like the use of cleaning products or collage and painting activities (Chithra and Shiva Nagendra 2012).
The most common pollutants found in schools and childcare facilities are the following: PM, VOCs, Formaldehyde and Carbonyl compounds, other Inorganic Gases: NOx, CO, SO2, CO2 and O3, deeply described in following paragraphs. Their sources can be classified as: continuous (with a uniform or irregular pattern) and intermittent sources (with a periodic or variable pattern) respect to the duration of their emission activity (UNI EN ISO 16000-1:2006).
Particulate matter
Among the indoor air pollutants, nowadays there is a growing interest in PM. The aerosol exposure via the inhalation route represents a major potential source of hazard for human health, depending on the duration of exposure and concentrations, size and chemical composition of airborne particles (Abdel-Salam 2006). In several papers, in fact, the exposure to high PM10 concentrations has been associated to increased risk of death for cardiovascular or respiratory causes (Englert 2004; Zanobetti and Schwartz 2005; Forbes et al. 2009; Pope et al. 2009). These effects may be largely caused also by finer particles that, as a consequence of their greater surface area, could be an effective media to transport different kinds of pollutants (PAHs, heavy metals, asbestos, etc.) deeply into the lung (Nadadur et al. 2007; Sager and Castranova 2009; Reich et al. 2009). In particular, the exposure to these finer particles can cause short- and long-term effects such as increased respiratory symptoms, decreased lung function, alterations in tissue and structure lung, in respiratory tract and premature death (Prieditis and Adamson 2002; Damek-Poprawa and Sawicka-Kapusta 2003; Wahab and Basma 2004; Huang and Ghio 2006; Hong et al. 2007; Wild et al. 2009; Daresta et al. 2010; Liuzzi et al. 2011).
Although the school environment normally lacks typical indoor PM sources such as smoking and cooking, many children are present in a limited space over a period of several hours. The use of cleaning products and floor polish can also temporarily affect the air quality determining an increase in chemical pollutants in school environments. On the other hand, the floor surface type and level of cleaning are important factors in maintaining low dust levels. The presence of PM can be related to: (1) insufficient ventilation in schools (especially in winter), (2) infrequently and unthoroughly cleaned indoor surfaces, (3) a large number of pupils in relation to room area and volume, (4) low class level related to floor numbers of school buildings and (5) resuspension of particles from room surfaces (Sexton and Ryan 1988), which is related to physical activity of the pupils. Moreover, numerous studies showed that gas-phase reactions between O3 and terpenes (for example used in cleaning products) can contribute significantly to the growth of indoor secondary organic aerosols (Weschler and Shields 1999; Long et al. 2000; Wainman et al. 2000; Li et al. 2002; Fan et al. 2003; Sarwar et al. 2003).
Recent studies report levels, behaviors and chemical composition of PM in different indoor environment (e.g., Chao and Wong 2002; Gemenetzis et al. 2006; Martuzevicius et al. 2008; Olson et al. 2008; Smolík et al. 2008 Lai et al. 2010; Saraga et al. 2010; Zhu et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2012) and, in particular, in elementary schools (Fromme et al. 2008; Almeida et al. 2011; Oeder et al. 2012; Pegas et al. 2012; Smolík et al. 2008).
Chithra and Shiva Nagendra (2012) monitored the PM10, PM2.5 and PM1 concentrations by means of an environmental dust monitor in order to study the relationship between outdoor and indoor air quality in eight French schools. The indoor–outdoor (I/O) ratios of PM were higher than two for coarse fraction and minor than one for finer fraction. The high I/O value of PM10 concentration and its behavior indicated significant contribution from the activities of occupants inside classroom and thus from dust resuspension. On the contrary, the lower I/O values for PM1 and CO suggested that no indoor source of finer particles were in classrooms and confirmed their intrusion from the nearby road and due to vehicular emissions (Fig. 1). This evidence was confirmed by a strong seasonal variability of finer PM fraction. Moreover, investigating the influence of classroom occupancy, the authors found that higher particulate matter concentrations were detected for classroom during the periods when the classroom was occupied.
In same way Yang et al. (2009), evaluating indoor air quality inside three different school environments in Korea found that the mean I/O PM10 ratios (gravimetric measurements) were higher in the classrooms than in laboratories and computers rooms, respectively. In addition, Diapouli et al. (2008) showed higher I/O ratio for PM10 and PM2.5 inside gymnasium, where intense activity took place, smoking office and classrooms and the I/O ratio smaller than one for ultrafine particles (UFP) in all investigated indoor environments (Fig. 2). These evidences confirmed that the most important contribution to PM concentrations in school classroom is the resuspension of particles due to pupil’s activity.
The presence of carpets in schools building also contributed to poor indoor air quality. Stranger et al. (2007), in a study regarding Belgium schools, found a significant difference between I/O ratios calculated for the classrooms with and without the presence of carpets, and in particular, the authors reported a mean I/O ratio equal to 2.63 in the classrooms where carpets were present and mean I/O ratio equal to 1.03 in the classroom where tiles or linoleum floor coverage were present.
The more recent study conducted by the same authors in 2008 (Stranger et al. 2008) focused the attention on the chemical composition of PM collected in 27 primary schools in the urban and suburban areas of Antwerp (Belgium). The authors showed the elemental composition of indoor particulate matter (PM2.5) collected in classroom and analyzed by the energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (ED-XRF) was different than that evaluated in outdoor air. In particular, they found that the elements such traffic markers (V, Pb, Cr), S and Fe were the highest contributions to local outdoor PM, while high contributions to indoor PM in schools were determined by markers of crustal resuspension (Si, Ti, Al), Ca and Cl. The higher I/O ratios were determined for Cl, Ca and crustal species. Chloride could derive by detergents used for cleaning activities inside the classroom, while Ca concentrations could probably be determined by the chalk (mainly CaSO4) used on the blackboards and/or the gypsum walls and plasters used as construction materials. Finally, crustal species were probably due to resuspension of dust because of room occupation. Fromme et al. (2008) also reported the elemental composition of PM collected by gravimetric sampling system at two classrooms in Munich. The scanning electron microscopy and the energy dispersive microanalysis (EDX) on PM filters showed that the indoor PM consisted mainly of earth crustal materials, detritions of the building materials and chalk (CaSO4). These findings suggested that increase of PM10 concentrations in classrooms were due to a physical activity of the pupils and to resuspension of mainly indoor coarse particles, and thus, indoor-generated PM was less toxic than PM in outdoor air.
The measurements of the microclimatic parameters (ventilation, temperature and air humidity), which can influence directly or indirectly the indoor pollutant levels, result very important in the assessment of air quality in the school. Fromme et al. (2007) found that PM2.5 indoor concentrations, gravimetrically measured in several schools in Munich, increased by 1.7 μg/m3 per 10 % increase in humidity and by 0.5 μg/m3 per increase in CO2 indoor concentration by 100 ppm. The higher PM concentrations in winter and their correlation with CO2 concentrations suggested that inadequate ventilation plays a major role in the establishment of poor indoor air quality. In addition, high PM10 concentration measured in low-level classes and in rooms with high number of pupils suggested that the physical activity of pupils contribute to a constant process of resuspension of sedimented particles (Lee and Chang 1999, 2000; Blondeau et al. 2005). Furthermore, Sohn et al. (2012) evaluated the influence of mechanical ventilation systems on indoor air quality in school buildings in Korea. The results showed remarkable difference in indoor air pollutants’ level according to the operation of mechanical ventilation system and in particular showed that the ventilation systems decreased the levels of indoor pollutants in the all selected classrooms. Therefore, use of mechanical ventilation system can play key roles in improving the air quality within schools.
Volatile organic compounds
Volatile organic compounds are widely present in school environments as they are emitted from multiple both internal and outdoor sources. Among the VOC, the high priority pollutants that are regulated in indoor environments and that significantly affect children health are Benzene, Naphthalene, Formaldehyde, Toluene, Xylenes, Styrene, Limonene, Alpha-pinene and Dichloromethane. Benzene, Toluene, Xylenes and Styrene can be emitted from solvent-based paints and consumer products, such as collage and painting materials, used in the art and craft rooms, from Poly Vinyl Chloride flooring and adhesive used for gyms covering and from printed materials (Kotzias 2005). Dichloromethane is found in adhesives, spray paints, while the presence of Limonene and Alpha-pinene is more related to the emission from cleaning products (aerosol and liquid) (Priscilla et al. 2010). Polymeric materials that are used for construction, decoration and furnishing of schools are high VOC emitters due to their composition and large surface areas. Moreover, wood-based products used for construction of writing desks and cabinets are important sources of these pollutants in these environments. Some VOC are associated with a variety of serious health effects (Shendell et al. 2004) and symptoms such as asthma and allergic reactions (Sofuoglu et al. 2011). Moreover, several studies reported a strong association between mucous membrane irritation, central nervous system symptoms and total exposure to VOC; these symptoms are similar to those that are frequently attributed as a cause of sick building syndrome (Mølhave et al. 1986; Hodgson et al. 1991). In case of extreme concentrations, some VOC may result in impaired neurobehavioral function (Burton 1997). Exposure to high concentrations of several VOC commonly found in indoor air is associated with cancers in laboratory animals (Jones 1999). A preliminary screening monitoring of the sum of the VOC in a school environment can be conducted by direct measurements with automatic instruments as flame ionization detector (FID) or photo ionization detector (Hodgson 1995; Pegas et al. 2010). Short-term or long-term measurement methods allow obtaining information about the single pollutants present in the investigated indoor environment (UNI EN ISO 16000-5: 2007). Short-term measurements were conducted by active sampling on stainless steel tube packed with specific adsorbent beds using low-flow sample pumps (UNI EN ISO 16017-1: 2007; Fraga et al. 2008; Jo and Kim 2010; Pegas et al. 2010; Scheepers et al. 2010; ISO 16000-6: 2000). Diffusive sampling is the recommended method to perform long-term measurements (usually from few days to several days or weeks) (UNI EN ISO 16017-2: 2007; Bruno et al. 2005; Angiuli et al. 2003; Pennequin-Cardinal et al. 2005). VOCs collected onto adsorbent cartridges were thermally or chemically desorbed and analyzed by gas chromatography coupled to a flame ionization detector or to a mass spectrometer (Bruno et al. 2005; Angiuli et al. 2003; Pennequin-Cardinal et al. 2005). Stainless steel canisters were also used to collect VOC in indoor environments (Meininghaus et al. 2003; Guo et al. 2004).
Volatile organic compounds monitoring campaigns conducted in different school environments of several cities (Michigan, Catania, Athens, Arnhem and Nijmegen, Brussels, Milan, Thessaloniki, Nicosia) highlighted that indoor sources, micrometeorological parameters and building conditions might have negative effects on indoor air quality (Kotzias 2005; Godwin and Batterman 2007; Pegas et al. 2010, 2012). Moreover, it was found that increasing ventilation rates and using low-emission materials improve indoor air quality (Pegas et al. 2010). Godwin and Batterman 2007, monitoring VOC concentrations over one workweek in 64 elementary and middle school classrooms in Michigan, found that most VOC had low concentrations (mean of individual species <4.5 μg/m3) also if they were higher than outdoor air concentrations (mean of individual species <0.51 μg/m3). For example, benzene and toluene concentrations in indoor air were 0.09 and 2.81 μg/m3, respectively, while their outdoor concentrations were 0.06 and 0.52 μg/m3, respectively; the total concentration of chlorinated compounds was 0.24 μg/m3 in indoor air and <0.07 μg/m3 in outdoor air. These findings suggested that none of the sampled rooms were contaminated and that no building-wide relevant contamination sources were present. Otherwise, higher indoor levels of many VOC were registered in two studies involving 14 elementary schools in Lisbon, Portugal (Pegas et al. 2010, 2012). Almost all identified VOC (up to 40 compounds) showed I/O ratios higher than one. The same results were found by Kotzias (2005) in schools and kindergartens of several cities in Southern and Central Europe: the sum of indoor concentrations ranged from a few micrograms (ca. 8) to 281 μg/m3, while outdoor levels ranged from 7 to 153 μg/m3. VOC concentrations two to four times higher than the outdoor concentrations were detected in kindergartens and schools of Arnhem and Nijmegen and in Izmir (Turkey) (Shendell et al. 2004; Sofuoglu et al. 2011; Stranger et al. 2008). Among monitored VOC, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes were most abundant compounds with I/O ratios exceeding unity.
A huge increase in indoor VOC concentrations was also observed when art works or science activities were undertaken concurrently or just prior to the measurements (Shendell et al. 2004; Godwin and Batterman 2007; Pegas et al. 2010). In particular, Pegas et al. (2010) found that there was an increase in VOC concentrations reaching 13 ppm, when glue and paints were used in pupil’s art class.
Formaldehyde and carbonyl compounds
The most relevant carbonyl compounds detected in indoor environments are Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Acetone, Benzaldehyde, Butyraldehyde, Capronaldehyde, 2,5-Dimethylbenzaldehyde, Isovaleraldehyde, Propionaldehyde, m-Tolualdehyde, o-Tolualdehyde, p-Tolualdehyde and Valeraldehyde. As a result of the several industrial uses in the manufacture of sheet and insulation materials, paints, cleaning agents and cosmetics, the carbonyl compounds can usually be detected in school environments. Wood-based materials made for indoor use are the following ones: (1) Particleboard (PB) used as sub-flooring and shelving and in cabinetry and furniture; (2) hardwood plywood paneling used for decorative wall covering and used in cabinets and furniture; (3) medium density fiberboard (MDF) used for drawer fronts, cabinets and furniture tops. Therefore, articles produced from wood-based materials such as furniture, doors and paneling are still the most important sources of these compounds in schools. Formaldehyde (HCHO) is the most abundant airborne indoor carbonyl and represents an important constituent of adhesives in the sheet material industry (Urea–Formaldehyde resins, Phenol–Formaldehyde resins, Melamine–Formaldehyde resins and Melamine–Urea–Formaldehyde resins). MDF material contains a high resin-to-wood ratio and is generally recognized as being the highest formaldehyde-emitting pressed wood product. Several studies showed that indoor HCHO concentrations in schools constructed within 1 year were significantly higher, indicating that school buildings are characterized by several indoor HCHO sources such as furnishings made of PB and MDF. Several carbonyls, such as Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde and Propionaldehyde, are included in the list of air toxics in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (USEPA 1991). More specifically, HCHO is defined as a human carcinogen on the basis of a sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in animals and humans and of supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. In recent years, scientific findings led an increasing interest in HCHO detection inside school buildings due to the high risk of children exposure (WHO 2010; NIOSH/IPCS 2004; IARC 2012). California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) set an 8-h chronic and acute inhalation reference exposure level (REL) for HCHO equal to 9, 9 and 55 μg/m3, respectively (OEHHA 2008). Acetaldehyde, an abundant carbonyl in indoor air, has been classified as probable human carcinogen by USEPA (2003). Acrolein is a severe lung irritant that, in condition of high acute exposure, can induce oxidative stress and delayed-onset lung injury, including asthma, congestion and decreased pulmonary function. Because of concerns about adverse human health effects posed by Acrolein, OEHHA set an 8-h chronic and acute inhalation REL equal to 0.70, 0.35 and 2.5 μg/m3, respectively (OEHHA 2008).
Scientific papers published during the last 10 years reported experimental results obtained from investigation of HCHO and other carbonyl compounds in school buildings (Lee and Chang 2000; Righi et al. 2002; Kotzias 2005; Mentese and Gullu 2006; Vaizoglu et al. 2003; Hanoune et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2009; Sofuoglu et al. 2011; Yamashita et al. 2012; Pegas et al. 2011a, b; Barro et al. 2009). The measurement of HCHO and other carbonyl compounds was performed according to the requirements of existing international standard (ISO 16000-3: 2011). The method is suitable for determination of these compounds in the approximate concentration range from 1 µg/m3 to 1 mg/m3 and involves drawing air through a cartridge containing silica gel coated with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) reagent. The principle of the method is based on the specific reaction of the carbonyl group with DNPH in the presence of an acid, to form stable 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazones. The DNPH derivatives are analyzed with High performance liquid chromatography and Ultraviolet (UV) absorption detector operating at 360 nm (Lee and Chang 2000; Daisey et al. 2003; Meininghaus et al. 2003; Yang et al. 2009; Pegas et al. 2010; Park et al. 2011; Sohn et al. 2012).
Pegas et al. (2011a) measured indoor and outdoor concentrations of HCHO and other carbonyls in 14 elementary schools in Lisbon, Portugal. In all the investigated environments, indoor aldehydes’ levels were higher than those observed outdoors, especially for HCHO. Pegas et al. (2011b) carried out a further measuring campaign in school buildings in order to evaluate seasonal variation in indoor and outdoor levels. Most of the assessed carbonyls occurred at I/O ratios above unity in all the seasons, and this evidence showed the influence of indoor sources and building conditions on indoor air quality. However, it was observed that carbonyls’ levels were higher during the warm months.
Yang et al. (2009) characterized HCHO concentrations within 55 school buildings in Korea, selected on the basis of the year of construction, in order to relate indoor levels to the age of school buildings. HCHO levels were measured inside three different school building environments: classrooms, laboratories and computer rooms. Experimental results showed that mean HCHO concentrations inside classrooms and computer rooms exceeded the acute REL established by OEHHA. Moreover, HCHO concentrations inside schools constructed within 1 year were significantly higher than the Korean Indoor Air Standard, suggesting that renovated schools have important indoor HCHO sources, such as furnishings principally made of PB and MDF. Therefore, in order to improve air quality within schools, especially within renovated schools, the authors suggest the implementation of increased ventilation rates by means of mechanical systems and the use of low-emitting materials.
Kotzias (2005) reported the experimental results deriving from measuring campaigns performed in several cities in Southern and Central Europe in the frame of the AIRMEX project (Indoor Air Monitoring and Exposure Assessment Study). This study highlighted that HCHO and carbonyls’ concentrations (Acetaldehyde, Propanal and Hexanal) inside the buildings/kindergartens were up to 7–8 times higher than outdoor, confirming that strong HCHO indoor sources exist.
Lee and Chang (2000) showed the results of a study carried out to characterize HCHO levels inside selected classrooms in Hong Kong in order to compare the measured concentrations with the established standards and to suggest policy interventions to improve air quality. HCHO concentrations (ranging from undetectable to 27 μg/m3) were substantially lower than Honk Kong Indoor Air Quality standard, indicating that there were no apparent HCHO indoor sources and that classroom furnishing did not add a remarkable contribution.
Sofuoglu et al. (2011) reported HCHO levels measured in primary school classrooms and kindergartens in Turkey. Experimental data revealed that HCHO was one of the most abundant indoor pollutants and that concentrations were related to both spatial and seasonal variability. Similar HCHO levels between urban and suburban schools, but different HCHO levels between two urban schools can be explained by the relative strength of the indoor HCHO sources compared with the outdoor ones. The HCHO concentrations measured in classrooms were in the literature range (10–400 µg/m3) although they resulted high if compared with data related to schools in Sweden (Smedje et al. 1997a, 1997b) China (Lee et al. 2004) and Australia (Zhang et al. 2006). Furthermore, HCHO levels in classrooms were lower than the concentrations measured in homes and offices (Mentese and Gullu 2006; Vaizoglu et al. 2003) but similar to those in libraries (Righi et al. 2002; Hanoune et al. 2006). Regarding kindergartens, HCHO levels were higher than those measured in classrooms and difference in urban and suburban concentrations was not significant. It can be asserted that there were consistent sources of HCHO inside kindergartens because neither seasonal nor spatial differences were significant. The overall average of the concentrations measured in this study (85 µg/m3) was clearly higher than the Dutch kindergartens (from ca. 6 to 11 µg/m3) (Kotzias 2005) and in the range of the Danish and Korean kindergartens (Yang et al. 2009).
N Gases, carbon oxide and sulfur dioxide
Inorganic gases commonly found in school indoor air are CO, SO2 and NO2. Sometimes, high H2S and NH3 concentrations are determined inside school buildings near industrial plants such as water treatment plants, waste treatment, desulfurization plants.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx sum both nitrogen monoxide (NO) and dioxide (NO2)) enter in indoor air mainly from outside, arising from the vehicular traffic, but several studies showed that the most important factors in increased exposures to NOx, over that the position of school buildings in the city center, where the use of gas appliances for heating is more (Oie et al. 1993; Alm 1999; Coward et al. 2001; Dimitroulopoulou et al. 2005; WHO 2006a, b). In particular, long-term exposure to high NO2 concentrations promotes the onset of diseases of the respiratory tracts: epidemiological studies suggested that NO2 represents a modest risk factor for respiratory illnesses compared with the use of electric stoves (Basu and Samet 1999).
Suitable methods for measuring NOx in indoor environments can be divided into short-term measurement methods and long-term measurement methods UNI EN ISO 16000-15: 2008. Short-term measurements can be performed by continuous analytical monitoring instrument and by manual methods. The continuous monitoring instruments are based on principle of Chemiluminescence and are characterized by high time resolution (10–20 s). By the manual methods, instead, NO2 is enriched actively onto a sorbent medium by means of suction pumps, and the concentrations obtained by these methods are average concentrations for the duration of sampling. Long-term measurements are generally carried out using diffusive sampler (manual methods) since the noise produced by continuous analytical monitoring instrument could discourage their use inside confined environments (Lee and Chang 1999, 2000; Blondeau et al. 2005; Poupard et al. 2005; Pegas et al. 2010, 2012; Gul et al. 2011; Raysoni et al. 2011; Sohn et al. 2012; Stranger et al. 2008).
Nitrogen oxides determination in French schools (Blondeau et al. 2005; Poupard et al. 2005) showed that vehicular exhaust emission from nearby traffic was the most important contribute to indoor concentrations. In fact, I/O ratios of calculated NO2 varied in a narrow range from 0.88 to 1 as shown by the positive correlation between indoor and outdoor NO2 concentrations, since indoor concentrations reflected the outdoor ones despite varying of building air-tightness. On the contrary, I/O of NO lied in a wider range (0.5 < I/O < 1), and there was no apparent correlation with the airtightness of the buildings. The authors suggested that this evidence was probably related to differences in the contribution of indoor homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions that NO undergoes. Similar considerations were elaborated by Stranger et al. (2008) in Belgium, by Pegas et al. (2012) in Lisbon and by Lee and Chang (2000) in Hong Kong.
Gul et al. (2011), confirming the results reported in previous study, showed that I/O ratios for NO2 at high schools located in Eskisehir (Turkey) were >1 in dining hall or teacher’s room where cooking and smoking activities took place (1.8 < I/O < 3). Moreover, Sohn et al. (2012) studied the relationship between NO2 concentrations with indoor ventilation rate and showed that a direct correlation existed.
CO is a vehicular pollutant; therefore, vehicle exhaust from roads and parking areas nearby school buildings represents the most important contributor to CO indoor exposure. CO levels are generally very low inside schools since the emissive indoor sources influencing long-term CO levels can be gas cooking, unflued heaters and smoking (Alm et al. 1994; Coward et al. 2001). Exposure to high CO concentrations can cause acute intoxication since this compound combined with the hemoglobin of human blood produces carboxy-hemoglobin and therefore disrupts the transfer of oxygen to human tissues. Various symptoms of neuropsychological impairment were associated with acute low-level exposure of CO concentration (Raub et al. 2000). Epidemiological studies reported increased relative risks of daily mortality and morbidity of the population by 0.9–4.7 % in prevailing urban air (Touloumi et al. 1994; Burnett et al. 1997, 1998).
Both indoor and outdoor measurements of carbon oxides (CO and CO2) were conducted using a non-dispersive infrared analyzers (NDIR) (Lee and Chang 1999; Chaloulakoua and Mavroidisb 2002; Yang et al. 2009; Pegas et al. 2010, 2012; Park et al. 2011; Smedje et al. 2011; Sohn et al. 2012). Continuous measurements of CO2 and CO can be performed with specific automatic portable sensors (Pegas et al. 2012). Diffusive portable probes reveal CO2 concentrations based on its ability to absorb infrared radiation at a certain wavelength (2.3–4.6 μm) such as CO2 above cited devices, whereas CO concentrations on the basis of electrochemical reactions. Moreover, CO is a purely outdoor pollutant; therefore, few studies have been conducted to evaluate the incidence of carbon monoxide on indoor environments. Chaloulakoua and Mavroidisb (2002) measured indoor and outdoor CO concentrations at a school near the center city of Athens. Authors found that the indoor and outdoor diurnal concentration cycles followed similar patterns and indoor concentrations showed a mild and slightly delayed response respect to outdoor concentration changes. In addition, they observed that CO concentrations measured during winter were higher than the respective concentrations measured during summer (3.96 and 1.92 ppm, respectively). These results were linked to the higher traffic volume and to winter meteorological conditions that favor the accumulation of pollutants. Similar results and considerations were obtained by Chithra and Shiva Nagendra (2012) in a study conducted in a school building located close to an urban roadway in India. Finally Yang et al. (2009) showed that renovation works had negative effects on the air quality, as significantly higher concentrations of CO were registered at schools constructed within 1 year (1.03 ppm) with respect to those built in previous years (0.59 ppm). These results might be caused by the new electric heating systems.
Sulfur dioxide is the main oxide of sulfur found in indoor air; however, the indoor concentrations determined inside school buildings are generally lower than those outdoors (Weschler 2009). The most important sources of SO2 are located outdoors, and they can impact the indoor air of buildings near open coal fires, but the key problem is that SO2 is readily absorbed onto indoor material surfaces, such as emulsion paints, the most important sink for SO2 (Ashmore and Dimitroulopoulou 2009). Epidemiological studies on health effects by exposure to SO2 are complicated by a paucity of representative exposure data and by confounding factors such as exposure to other indoor pollutants. Ho1wever, several studies provided some useful data concerning exposure-effect relationships showing that mortality was observed in populations exposed to 24-h pollution episodes in which SO2 concentrations exceeded 300–400 μg/m3 (0.12–0.15 ppm) (Health Canada 1995).
Sulfur dioxide in indoor environments is continuously measured by Electron Pulsed Fluorescence SO2 Analyser. The operating principle of this instrument is based on measuring the fluorescence emitted consequently the absorption of ultraviolet light having wavelength in the range of 190–230 nm. The wavelength emitted in the range from 300 to 390 nm is directly proportional to the SO2 concentration (Lee and Chang 1999; Meininghaus et al. 2003). Moreover, SO2 concentration can also be determined using radial passive samplers (Stranger et al. 2008). Indoor O3 concentrations can be monitored using an UV Absorption Ozone Analyzer (Blondeau et al. 2005; Poupard et al. 2005; Sohn et al. 2012) in order to give a real-time synoptic flow diagram. To perform long-term measurements, instead, it can be used specific diffusive adsorbing cartridges and the extract analyzed by UV–VIS spectrophotometry after chemical desorption (Stranger et al. 2007, 2008).
Sulfur dioxide is the less investigated pollutant for the evaluation of the indoor air quality in schools. Ashmore and Dimitroulopoulou (2009) found higher concentrations inside school buildings near open coal fires. Finally, Spedding (1974) suggested that lower SO2 indoor concentrations could be linked with the capacity of indoor materials to absorb it. Among the wide variety of materials, the emulsion paints were identified as the most important sink for SO2.
Carbon dioxide
Outdoor pollutant properties of CO2 at a global scale are well documented, but in indoor school environments, it cannot be considered a pollutant, but represents an important proxy indicator of air quality. Indoor/outdoor ratio is greater than one in most of the classrooms, indicating the internal source prominent, with low level of outdoor intrusions; levels of 600–800 ppm are normally registered in the literature, indicative of inadequate ventilation rates (Seppanen et al. 1999; Apte et al. 2000), with peaks of 4,000 ppm (Daisey et al. 2003; Clements-Croome 2006). Exposure to this pollutant is associated with asthma (Mi et al. 2006) and values of 1,000 ppm are associated with a 10–20 % increase in student absences (Shendell et al. 2004), thus indicating CO2 concentrations a primary variable in the health risk assessment of people in school (Rudnick and Milton 2003).
ASHRAE Standard 62-1989 (1989) suggested indoor CO2 levels not exceeding 1,000 ppm s in choosing the right ventilation for acceptable air quality. With respect to worker safety, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a permissible exposure limit for CO2 of 5,000 ppm over an 8-h work day, as also stated by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists threshold limit value (TLV) set to 5,000 ppm for an 8-h workday, with a ceiling exposure limit of 30,000 ppm for a 10-min period based on acute inhalation data (OSHA 2014).
Occupants in school are the major sources of CO2 with level that can vary according to occupancy levels, ventilation rate, room structure, air exchange rate (Lee and Chang 1999, 2000; Van Dijken et al. 2006; Fromme et al. 2007; Wåhlinder et al. 1997; Grimsrud et al. 2006; Theodosiou and Ordoumpozanis 2008; Mumovic et al. 2009).
Real-time monitoring (Ajiboye et al. 2006) showed wide variations during the day in CO2 levels registered, with increases in the beginning of the lessons, during physical activities (Almeida et al. 2011), peaking until time breaks started when windows are opened and adequate ventilation assured (Fromme et al. 2007; Yang et al. 2009; De Giuli et al. 2012; Pegas et al. 2012) as shown in Fig. 3.
Moreover, Park et al. (2011) showed higher CO2 concentrations in winter because the classrooms were not well ventilated in this season with respect to summer. Since the 1950s, atmospheric CO2 level measurements have been made on air samples by NDIR for real-time monitoring of CO and CO2 levels with specific automatic and auto-calibrating portable instruments (Lee and Chang 1999; Chaloulakoua and Mavroidisb 2002; Yang et al. 2009; Pegas et al.2010; Park et al. 2011; Smedje et al. 2011; Pegas et al. 2012; Sohn et al. 2012). However, the precision of such real-time measurements decreases rapidly for small air samples, as in the case for air extracted from ice cores that are better analyzed with HRGC/MS.
Ozone
Also outdoor pollutant properties of O3 at a global scale are well documented as its concentration depend on the exchange between upper and lower layers of atmosphere and on photochemical reactions involving nitrogen oxides and VOCs. Indoor/outdoor ratio is much lower than one in school (in the range 0.13–0.8) (Gold et al. 1996; Weschler 2000; Blondeau et al. 2005; Mendell and Health 2005; Poupard et al. 2005; Stranger et al. 2007, 2008; Mejía et al. 2011), for almost two reasons: O3 reacts rapidly with indoor surfaces as well as by gas-phase reactions with some VOCs (Weschler 2006), the internal sources are insignificant, with high level of outdoor intrusions (Weschler 2000) but, generally, O3 indoor concentrations are often below the detection limit (Grøntoft and Raychaudhuri 2004). Indoor sources of O3 are nowadays some office equipment, primarily laser printers and copiers and electrostatic air cleaners (Leovic et al. 1996; Destaillats et al. 2008). Moreover, higher indoor O3 concentrations were found in schools located in areas affected by industrial or urban pollution (Mi et al. 2006; Mejía et al. 2011) and an high correlation between outdoor and indoor concentration there exist as indoor concentrations increased more rapidly when windows/doors were open and outdoor O3 concentrations increased (Gold et al. 1996). These results confirm that O3 in indoor environments mostly comes from outdoor sources and the air exchange rate plays an important role.
Indoor O3 levels are dependent on the generation rate, leakage, ventilation, degree of mixing and air filtration (Gold et al. 1996) and its decomposition rate is dependent on the quantity and type of materials in a building and the presence of organic chemicals characterized by highly reactive unsaturated carbon–carbon bonds VOCs coming from soft woods, carpets, linoleum, paints, polishes, cleaning products and air fresheners, soiled fabrics, soiled ventilation filters and the occupants themselves (Brown et al. 1994; Wolkoff 1995; Hodgson and Levin 2003; Weschler 2006).
Many toxicological and field studies of both adults and children (Tager 1999; Lee et al. 2004) established the short-term reversible effects of O3 on lung function decrements, respiratory-related hospital admissions, school absence, restricted activity days, asthma-related emergency department visits and premature mortality (Gold et al. 1996; Hubbell et al. 2005; Weschler 2006). Moreover, ozone/terpene reactions (as used in cleaning agents) produce strong airway irritants, like formaldehyde, acrolein, peroxyactyl nitrate, hydroperoxides with known adverse health effects (Wolkoff et al. 1999; Clausen et al. 2001; Wilkins et al. 2001; Rohr et al. 2002, 2003; Weschler 2006).
Real-time O3 monitoring can be performed by an UV absorption Ozone Analyzer (Blondeau et al. 2005; Poupard et al. 2005; Sohn et al. 2012), but for long-term measurements, specific diffusive adsorbing cartridges can be used, using chemical desorption and formation of an absorbing molecule quantified by UV–VIS spectrophotometry (Stranger et al. 2007, 2008). This latter technique can achieve lower limit of detection, due to its pre-concentration capacity.
Conclusion
The main goal of this review was to summarize remarkable findings about air quality inside school buildings. More specifically, chemical pollutants, related sources and monitoring methodologies were reported. The outcomes provide suggestive evidence that certain conditions, commonly found in schools, can have adverse effects on the air quality and therefore on occupant’s health. In particular, it was highlighted that the location, the age and air-tightness of school buildings, the room design, the ventilation rate, the building and furnishing materials, the occupant’s activities and outdoor pollution play an important role on the indoor pollutants concentrations. Therefore, in order to safeguard the health of the occupants and in particular of children that are more sensitive to environmental pollutants some good practices should be followed. These actions include the construction of school buildings equipped with adequate ventilation systems to improve air exchange as well as the use of low-emitting building and furniture materials. Moreover, indoor concentrations of many pollutants are strongly influenced by outdoor sources so it is important that schools are not located in areas affected by high traffic or industrial pollution in order to improve air quality and reduce the impact on students’ health. At this regard, several States are nowadays working to define guidelines for suggesting best practices in order to improve air quality inside school buildings, for defining reference values and for regulating the control methodologies. This need arises from the lack of available reference values for most of the pollutants monitored in indoor environments (WHO 2010).
References
Abdel-Salam M (2006) Aerosol sampling methods in workplace and ambient environments. J Aerosol Med 19:434–455
Ajiboye P, White M, Graves H, Ross D (2006) Building research establishment for office of the Deputy Prime Minister: London. Ventilation and indoor air quality in schools—guidance report 202825
Alm S (1999) Personal exposures of pre-school children to carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide in urban air. Dissertation, National Public Health Institute A19/99, Kuopio, Finland
Alm S, Reponen A, Mukala K, Pasanen P, Tuomisto J, Jantunen MJ (1994) Personal exposures of preschool children to carbon monoxide: roles of ambient air quality and gas stoves. Atmos Environ 28:3577–3588
Almeida SM, Canha N, Silva A, Freitas MC, Pegas P, Alves C, Evtyugina M, Pio CA (2011) Children exposure to air particulate matter in indoor of Lisbon primary schools. Atmos Environ 45:7594–7599
Angiuli L, Bruno P, Caputi M, Caselli M, De Gennaro G, De Rienzo M (2003) Radial passive samplers for air quality monitoring in field comparison with a BTEX automatic analyser preliminary results. Fresenius Environ Bull 12(10):1167–1172
Appatova AS, Ryan PH, LeMasters GK, Grinshpun SA (2008) Proximal exposure of public schools and students to major roadways: a nationwide U.S. survey. J Environ Plan Manag 51:631–646
Apte MG, Fisk WJ, Daisey JM (2000) Associations between indoor (CO2) concentrations and sick building syndrome symptoms in US Office Buildings: an analysis of the 1994–1996 BASE Study Data (LBNL 44385). Indoor Air 10:246–257
Ashmore MR, Dimitroulopoulou C (2009) Personal exposure of children to air pollution. Atmos Environ 43:128–141. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.024
ASHRAE Standard 62 (1989) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers. Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality. ASHRAE Standard 62, Atlanta
Barro R, Regueiro J, Llompart M, Garcia-Jares C (2009) Analysis of industrial contaminants in indoor air: Part 1. Volatile organic compounds, carbonyl compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls. J Chromatogr A 1216:540–566
Bartlett KH, Kennedy SM, Brauer M, Netten CV, Dill B (2004) Evaluation and determinants of airborne bacterial concentrations in school classrooms. J Occup Environ Hyg 1:639–647
Basu R, Samet JM (1999) A review of the epidemiological evidence on health effects of nitrogen dioxide exposure from gas stoves. J Environ Med 1:173–187. doi:10.1002/jem.28
Bertoni G, Ciuchini C, Pasini A, Tappa R (2002) Monitoring of ambient BTX at Monterotondo (Rome) and indoor-outdoor evaluation in school and domestic sites. J Environ Monit 4:903–909. doi:10.1039/b206959h
Blondeau P, Iordache V, Poupard O, Genin D, Allard F (2005) Relationship between outdoor and indoor air quality in eight French schools. Indoor Air 15:2–12. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00263.x
Branis M, Safránek J (2011) Characterization of coarse particulate matter in school gyms. Environ Res 111:485–491
Branis M, Safránek J, Hytychová A (2009) Exposure of children to airborne particulate matter of different size fractions during indoor physical education at school. Build Environ 44:1246–1252. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.09.010
Brown S, Sim M, Abramson M, Gray C (1994) Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in indoor air—a review. Indoor Air 4:123–134
Bruno P, Caputi M, Caselli M, de Gennaro G, de Rienzo M (2005) Reliability of a BTEX radial diffusive sampler for thermal desorption: field measurements. Atmos Environ 39:1347–1355
Bruno P, Caselli M, de Gennaro G, Iacobellis S, Tutino M (2008) Monitoring of volatile organic compounds in non-residential indoor environments. Indoor Air 18:250–256
Burnett RT, Dales RE, Brooks JR, Raizenne ME, Krewski D (1997) Association between ambient carbon monoxide levels and hospitalizations for congestive heart failure in the elderly in 10 Canadian cities. Epidemiology 8:162–167
Burnett RT, Cakmak S, Raizenne ME, Stieb D, Vincent R, Krewski D, Brooks JR, Philips O, Ozkayanak H (1998) The association between ambient carbon monoxide levels and daily mortality in Toronto, Canada. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 48:689–700
Burton BT (1997) Volatile organic compounds. In: Bardana EJ, Montanaro A (eds) Indoor air pollution and health. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 127–153
Chaloulakoua A, Mavroidisb I (2002) Comparison of indoor and outdoor concentrations of CO at a public school. Evaluation of an indoor air quality model. Atmos Environ 36:1769–1781
Chao CY, Wong KK (2002) Residential indoor PM 10 and PM 2.5 in Hong Kong and their elementalcomposition. Atmos Environ 36:265–277
Chithra VS, Shiva Nagendra SM (2012) Indoor air quality investigations in a naturally ventilated school building located close to an urban roadway in Chennai, India. Build Environ 54:159–167. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.01.016
Clausen PA, Wilkins CK, Wolkoff P, Nielsen GD (2001) Chemical and biological evaluation of a reaction mixture of R-(+)- limonene/ozone—formation of strong airway irritants. Environ Int 26(7–8):511–522
Clements-Croome D (2006) Ventilation rates in schools. Build Environ 43(3):362–367
Corgnati SP, Filippi M, Viazzo S (2007) Perception of the thermal environment in high school and university classrooms: subjective preferences and thermal comfort. Build Environ 42:951–959
Coward S, Llewellyn J, Raw G, Brown V, Crump D, Ross D (2001) Indoor air quality in homes in England. BRE report BR 433. CRC Ltd, Watford, UK
Croome DJC, Awbi HB, Biro ZB, Kochhar N, Williams M (2008) Ventilation rates in schools. Build Environ 43:362–367
Daisey JM, Angell WJ, Apte MG (2003) Indoor air quality, ventilation and health symptoms in schools: an analysis of existing information. Indoor Air 13:53–64
Dambruoso et al. (2013) School air quality: pollutants, monitoring and toxicity published in ‘Pollutant diseases, remediation and recycling’, Series: environmental chemistry for a sustainable world, vol 4. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02387-8_1
Damek-Poprawa M, Sawicka-Kapusta K (2003) Damage to the liver, kidney, and testis with reference to burden of heavy metals in yellow-necked mice from areas around steelworks and zinc smelters in Poland. Toxicology 186:1–10
Daresta BE, Liuzzi VC, de Gennaro G, De Giorgi C, De Luca F, Caselli M (2010) Evaluation of the toxicity of PAH mixtures and organic extract from Apulian particulate matter by the model system ‘Caenorhabditis elegans’. Fresen Environ Bull 19:2002–2005
De Giuli V, Da Pos O, De Carli M (2012) Indoor environmental quality and pupil perception in Italian primary schools. Build Environ 56:335–345. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.03.024
Destaillats H, Maddalena RL, Singer BC, Hodgson AT, McKone TE (2008) Indoor pollutants emitted by office equipment. A review of reported data and information needs. Atmos Environ 42:1371–1388
Diapouli E, Chaloulakou A, Mihalopoulos N, Spyrellis N (2008) Indoor and outdoor PM mass and number concentrations at schools in the Athens area. Environ Monit Assess 136:13–20. doi:10.1007/s10661-007-9724-0
Dijken FV, Bronswijk JV, Sundell J (2005) Indoor environment in Dutch primary schools and health of the pupils. In: Proceedings of indoor air, Beijing, China, vol 1, p 623
Dimitroulopoulou C, Crump D, Coward SKD, Brown B, Squire R, Mann H, White M, Pierce B, Ross D (2005) Ventilation, air tightness and indoor air quality in new homes. BR477. Building Research Establishment Press, Garston/Watford/Hertfordshire
Ekmekcioglu D, Keskin SS (2007) Characterization of indoor air particulate matter in selected elementary schools in Istanbul, Turkey. Indoor Built Environ 16:169–176. doi:10.1177/1420326X07076777
Englert N (2004) Fine particles and human health—a review of epidemiological studies. Toxicol Lett 149:235–242
Fan Z, Lioy P, Weschler CJ, Fiedler N, Kipen H, Zhang J (2003) Ozone-initiated reactions with mixtures of volatile organic compounds under simulated indoor conditions. Environ Sci Technol 37:1811–1821
Faustman EM, Silbernagel SM, Fenske RA, Burbacher TM, Ponce RA (2000) Mechanisms underlying children’s susceptibility to environmental toxicants. Environ Health Perspect 108(Suppl 1):13–21
Forbes L, Patel MD, Rudnicka AR, Cook DG, Bush T, Stedman JR, Strachan DP, Anderson HR (2009) Chronic exposure to outdoor air pollution and diagnosed cardiovascular disease: meta- analysis of three large cross-sectional surveys. Environ Health 8(30):1–9
Fraga S, Ramos E, Martins A, Samúdio MJ, Silva G, Guedes J, Oliveira Fernandes E, Barros H (2008) Indoor air quality and respiratory symptoms in Porto Schools. Rev Port Pneumol 14(4):487–507
Fromme H, Twardella D, Dietrich S, Heitmann D, Schierl R, Liebl B, Ruden H (2007) Particulate matter in the indoor air of classrooms-exploratory results from Munich and surrounding area. Atmos Environ 41:854–866. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.08.053
Fromme H, Diemer J, Dietrich S, Cyrys J, Heinrich J, Lang W, Kiranoglua M, Twardella D (2008) Chemical and morphological properties of particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5) in school classrooms and outdoor air. Atmos Environ 42:6597–6605. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.04.047
Gemenetzis P, Moussas P, Arditsoglou A, Samara C (2006) Mass concentration and elemental composition of indoor PM2.5 and PM 10 in University Rooms in Thessaloniki, Northern Greece. Atmos Environ 40:3195–3206
Godwin C, Batterman S (2007) Indoor air quality in Michigan schools. Indoor Air 17:109–121
Gold DR, Allen G, Damokosh A, Serrano P, Hayes C, Castiilejos M (1996) Comparison of outdoor and classroom ozone exposures for school children in Mexico City. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 46:335–342
Goyal R, Khare M (2011) Indoor air quality modeling for PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 in naturally ventilated classrooms of an urban Indian school building. Environ Monit Assess 176:501–516. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1600-7
Green RS, Smorodinsky S, Kim JJ, McLaughlin R, Ostro B (2004) Proximity of California public schools to busy roads. Environ Health Perspect 112:61–66
Grimsrud D, Bridges B, Schulte R (2006) Continuous measurements of air quality parameters in schools. Build Res Inform 34:447–458
Grøntoft T, Raychaudhuri MR (2004) Compilation of tables of surface deposition velocities of O3, NO2 and SO2 to a range of indoor surfaces. Atmos Environ 38:533–544
Gul H, Gaga EO, Döğeroğlu T, Özden O, Ayvaz O, Özel S, Güngör G (2011) Respiratory health symptoms among students exposed to different levels of air pollution in a Turkish city. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8:1110–1125. doi:10.3390/ijerph8041110
Guo YL, Lin YC, Sung FC, Huang SL, Ko YC, Lei JS, Su HJ, Shaw CK, Lin RS, Dockery DW (1999) Climate, traffic-related air pollutants, and asthma prevalence in middle-school children in Taiwan. Environ Health Perspect 107:1001–1006
Guo H, Lee SC, Chan LY, Li WM (2004) Risk assessment of exposure to volatile organic compounds in different indoor environments. Environ Res 94:57–66
Hanoune B, LeBris T, Allou L, Marchand C, Calve LS (2006) Formaldehyde measurements in libraries: comparison between Infrared diode laser spectroscopy and a DNPH-derivatization method. Atmos Environ 40:5768–5775
Health Canada (1995) Exposure guidelines for residential indoor air quality. Report of the Federal- Provincial Advisory Committee on environmental and occupational health. Health Canada Publications—Communications, Ottawa, ON. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/air/exposure-exposition/exposure-exposition-eng.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2012
Hochstetler HA, Yermakov M, Reponen T, Ryan PH, Grinshpun SA (2011) Aerosol particles generated by diesel-powered school buses at urban schools as a source of children’s exposure. Atmos Environ 45:1444–1453. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.12.018
Hodgson AT (1995) A review and a limited comparison of methods for measuring total volatile organic compounds in indoor Air. Indoor Air 5(4):247–257
Hodgson AT, Levin H (2003) Volatile organic compounds in indoor air: a review of concentrations measured in North America since 1990. Report LBNL-51715. Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence. Available at: http://energy.lbl.gov/ie/pdf/LBNL-51715.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2012
Hodgson MJ, Frohlinger J, Permar E, Tidwell C, Traven ND, Olenchock SA, Karpf M (1991) Symptoms and micro-environmental measures in non-problem buildings. J Occup Med 33(4):527–533
Hong H, Cheng LS, Jun-Ji C, Chang-Wei Z, Xin-Geng C, Shao-Jia F (2007) Characteristics of indoor/outdoor PM2.5 and elemental components in generic urban, roadside and industrial plant areas of Guangzhou City China. J Environ Sci 19:35–43
Huang YC, Ghio AJ (2006) Vascular effects of ambient pollutant particles and metals. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 4:199–208
Huang H, Zou C, Cao J, Tsang P, Zhu F, Yu C, Xue S (2012) Water-soluble ions in PM 2.5 on the qianhu campus of Nanchang University, Nanchang city: indoor–outdoor distribution and source implications. Aerosol Air Qual Res 12:435–443
Hubbell BJ, Hallberg A, McCubbin DR, Post E (2005) Health related benefits of attaining the 8-hr ozone standard. Environ Health Perspect 113:73–82
Hulin M, Annesi-Maesano I, Caillaud D (2011) Indoor air quality at school and allergy and asthma among schoolchildren. Differences between rural and urban areas. Rev Fr D’allergol 51:419–424. doi:10.1016/j.reval.2011.01.002
IARC (2012) Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenicity to humans, volume 100 F, formaldehyde, 2012. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Report on Carcinogens, 12th edition
ISO 16000-3: (2011) Indoor air-part 3: determination of formaldehyde and other carbonyl compounds in indoor air and test chamber air-active sampling method
Janssen NAH, Hoek G, Harssema H, Brunekreef B (1997) Childhood exposure to PM10: relation between personal, classroom, and outdoor concentrations. Occup Environ Med 54(12):888–894
Janssen NAH, van Vliet PHN, Aarts F, Harssema H, Brunekreef B (2001) Assessment of exposure to traffic related air pollution of children attending schools near motorways. Atmos Environ 35:3875–3884
Jo WK, Kim JD (2010) Personal exposure of graduate students attending the college of natural sciences or social sciences to volatile organic compounds on campus. Chemosphere 81:1272–1279
Jones AP (1999) Indoor air quality and health. Atmos Environ 33(28):4535–4564
Kotzias D (2005) Indoor air and human exposure assessment—needs and approaches. Exp Toxicol Pathol 57:5–7
Koutrakis P, Briggs SLK, Leaderer BP (1992) Source apportionment of indoor aerosols in Suffolk and Onondaga Counties, New York. Environ Sci Technol 23:521–527
Lai SC, Ho KF, Zhang YY, Lee SC, Huang Y, Zou SC (2010) Characteristics of residential indoor carbonaceous aerosols: a case study in guangzhou, pearl river delta region. Aerosol Air Qual Res 10:472–478
Lee SC, Chang M (1999) Indoor air quality investigations at five classrooms. Indoor Air 9:134–138
Lee SC, Chang M (2000) Indoor and outdoor air quality investigation at schools in Hong Kong. Chemosphere 41:109–113
Lee K, Parkhurst WJ, Xue J, Ozkaynak A, Neuberg D, Spengler JD (2004) Outdoor/indoor/personal ozone exposures of children in Nashville, Tennessee. Air Waste Manag Assoc 54:352–359
Leovic KW, Sheldon LS, Whitaker DA, Hetes RG, Calcagni JA, Baskir JN (1996) Measurement of indoor air emissions from dry-process photocopy machines. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 46(9):821–829
Li TH, Turpin BJ, Shields HC, Weschler CJ (2002) Indoor hydrogen peroxide derived from ozone/d-limonene reactions. Environ Sci Technol 36:3295–3302
Liuzzi VC, Daresta BE, de Gennaro G, De Giorgi C (2011) Different effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in artificial and in environmental mixtures on the free living nematode C. elegans. J Appl Toxicol 32:45–50
Long CM, Suh HH, Koutrakis P (2000) Characterization of indoor particle sources using continuous mass and size monitors. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 50:1236–1250
MacIntosh DL, Minegishi T, Fragala MA, Allen JG, Coghlan KM, Stewart JH, McCarthy JF (2012) Mitigation of building-related polychlorinated biphenyls in indoor air of a school. Environ Health 11:24. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-11-24
Martuzevicius D, Grinshpun SA, Lee T, Hu S, Biswas P, Reponen T, LeMasters G (2008) Traffic-related PM 2.5 aerosol in residential houses located near major highways: indoor versus outdoor concentrations. Atmos Environ 42:6575–6585
Meininghaus R, Kouniali A, Mandin C, Cicolella A (2003) Risk assessment of sensory irritants in indoor air a case study in a french school. Environ Int 28:553–557
Mejía JF, Low Choy S, Mengersen K, Morawska L (2011) Methodology for assessing exposure and impacts of air pollutants in school children: data collection, analysis and health effects—a literature review. Atmos Environ 45:813–823. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.11.009
Mendell JM, Health GA (2005) Do indoor pollutants and thermal conditions in schools influence student performance? A critical review of the literature. Indoor Air 15:27–52
Mentese S, Gullu G (2006) Variations and sources of formaldehyde levels in residential indoor air in Ankara, Turkey. Indoor Built Environ 15:273–281
Mi YH, Norback D, Tao J, Mi YL, Ferm M (2006) Current asthma and respiratory symptoms among pupils in Shanghai, China: influence of building ventilation, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and form aldehyde in classrooms. Indoor Air 16(6):454–464. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2006.00439.x
Mølhave L, Bach B, Pedersen OF (1986) Human reactions to low concentrations of volatile organic compounds. Environ Int 12(1–4):167–175
Mullen NA, Bhangar S, Hering SV, Kreisberg NM, Nazaroff WW (2011) Ultrafine particle concentrations and exposures in six elementary school classrooms in northern California. Indoor Air 21:77–87. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00690.x
Mumovic D, Palmer J, Davies M, Orme M, Ridley I, Oreszczyn T, Jud C, Critchlow R, Medina HA, Pilmoor G, Pearson C, Way P (2009) Winter indoor air quality, thermal comfort and acoustic performance of newly built secondary schools in England. Build Environ 44:1466–1477. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.06.014
Nadadur SS, Miller A, Hopke PK, Gordon T, Vedal S, Vandenberg JJ, Costa DL (2007) The complexities of air pollution regulation: the need for an integrated research and regulatory perspective. Toxicol Sci 100:318–327
NIOSH/IPCS (2004) International chemical safety cards: formaldehyde
Oeder S, Dietrich S, Weichenmeier I, Schober W, Pusch G, Jörres RA, Schierl R, Nowak D, Fromme H, Behrendt H, Buters J (2012) Toxicity and elemental composition of particulate matter from outdoor and indoor air of elementary schools in Munich, Germany. Indoor Air 22:148–158
OEHHA (2008) Office of environmental health hazard assessment, Sacramento, CA. Air toxics hot spots, risk assessment guidelines, technical support document for the derivation of non cancer reference exposure levels. Appendix D. Available: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/NoncancerTSD_final.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2012
Oie L, Nafstad P, Botten G (1993) Infants exposure to NO2. In: Proceedings of indoor air’93, Helsinki, Finland, vol 3, p 183
Olson DA, Turlington J, Duvall RM, McDow SR, Stevens CD, Williams R (2008) Indoor and outdoor concentrations of organic and inorganic molecular markers: source apportionment of PM 2.5 using low- volume samples. Atmos Environ 42:1742–1751
Ozkaynak H, Xue J, Spengler JD, Wallace LA, Pellizzari ED, Jenkins P (1996) Personal exposure to airborne particles and metals: results from the particle TEAM study in Riverside, California. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 6:57–78
Park JC, Chung MH, Rhee EK (2011) Field survey on the indoor environment of elementary schools for planning of environment friendly school facilities. J Asian Archit Build Eng 10(2):461–468
Pegas PN, Evtyugina MG, Alves CA, Nunes T, Cerqueira M, Franchi M, Pio C, Almeida SM, Freitas M (2010) Outdoor/indoor air quality in primary schools in Lisbon: a preliminary study. Quim Nova 33(5):1145–1149
Pegas PN, Alves CA, Evtyugina MG, Nunes T, Cerqueira M, Franchi M, Pio CA, Almeida SM, Freitas MC (2011a) Indoor air quality in elementary schools of Lisbon in spring. Environ Geochem Health 33(5):455–468
Pegas PN, Alves CA, Evtyugina MG, Nunes T, Cerqueira M, Franchi M, Pio CA, Almeida SM, Verde SC, Freitas MC (2011b) Seasonal evaluation of outdoor/indoor air quality in primary schools in Lisbon. J Environ Monit 13(3):657–667
Pegas PN, Nunes T, Alves CA, Silva JR, Vieira SLA, Caseiro A, Pio CA (2012) Indoor and outdoor characterisation of organic and inorganic compounds in city centre and suburban elementary schools of Aveiro, Portugal. Atmos Environ 55:80–89
Pennequin-Cardinal A, Plaisance A, Locoge N, Ramalho O, Kirchner S, Galloo JC (2005) Dependence on sampling rates of radiello diffusion sampler for BTEX measurements with concentration level and exposure time. Talanta 65:1233–1240
Pope CA, Ezzati M, Dockery DW (2009) Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the United States. N Engl J Med 360:376–386
Poupard O, Blondeau P, Iordache V, Allard F (2005) Statistical analysis of parameters influencing the relationship between outdoor and indoor air quality in schools. Atmos Environ 39:2071–2080
Prieditis H, Adamson IYR (2002) Comparative pulmonary toxicity of various soluble metals found in urban particulate dust. Exp Lung Res 28:563–576
Priscilla N, Pegas M, Evtyugina G, Alves CA, Nunes T, Cerqueira M, Franchi M, Pio C (2010) Outdoor/indoor air quality in primary schools in Lisbon: a preliminary study. Quim Nova 33(5):1145–1149
Ramachandran G, Adgate JL, Banerjee S, Church TR, Jones D, Fredrickson A et al (2005) Indoor air quality in two urban elementary schools-measurements of airborne Fungi, Carpet allergens, CO2, temperature, and relative humidity. J Occup Environ Hyg 2:553–566
Raub JA, Mathieu-Nolf M, Hampson NB, Stephen RT (2000) Carbon monoxide poisoning—a public health perspective. Toxicology 145:1–14
Raysoni AU, Sarnat JA, Sarnat SE, Garcia JH, Holguin F, Luèvano SF, Li WW (2011) Binational school-based monitoring of traffic-related air pollutants in El Paso, Texas (USA) and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua (México). Environ Pollut 159(10):2476–2486. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.024
Reich BJ, Fuentes M, Burke J (2009) Analysis of the effects of ultrafine particulate matter while accounting for human exposure. Environmetrics 20:131–146
Righi E, Aggazzotti G, Fantuzzi G, Ciccarese PG (2002) Air quality and well-being perception in subjects attending university libraries in Modena (Italy). Sci Total Environ 286:41–50
Rohr AC, Wilkins CK, Clausen PA, Hammer M, Nielsen GD, Wolkoff P (2002) Upper airway and pulmonary effects of oxidation products of (+)-alpha-pinene, d-limonene, and isoprene in BALB/c mice. Inhal Toxicol 14(7):663–684
Rohr AC, Shore SA, Spengler JD (2003) Repeated exposure to isoprene oxidation products causes enhanced respiratory tract effects in multiple murine strains. Inhal Toxicol 15(12):1191–1207
Rudnick S, Milton DK (2003) Risk of indoor airborne infection transmission estimated from carbon dioxide concentration. Indoor Air 13:237–245
Sager TM, Castranova V (2009) Surface area of particle administered versus mass in determining the pulmonary toxicity of ultrafine and fine carbon black: comparison to ultrafine titanium dioxide. Part Fibre Toxicol 6:1–12
Saraga DE, Maggos T, Helmis CG, Michopoulos J, Bartzis JG, Vasilakos C (2010) PM1 and PM 2.5 ionic composition and VOCs measurements in two typical apartments in Athens, Greece: investigation of smoking contribution to indoor air concentrations. Environ Monit Assess 67:321–331
Sarwar G, Corsi R, Allen D, Weschler CJ (2003) The significance of secondary organic aerosol formation and growth in buildings: experimental and computational evidence. Atmos Environ 37:1365–1381
Scheepers PTJ, Konings J, Demirel G, Gaga EO, Anzion R, Peer PGM, Dogeroglu T, Ornektekin S, van Doorn W (2010) Determination of exposure to benzene, toluene and xylenes in Turkish primary school children by analysis of breath and by environmental passive sampling. Sci Total Environ 408:4863–4870
Scheff PA, Paulius VK, Curtis L, Conroy LM (2000a) Indoor air quality in a middle school, part II: development of emission factors for particulate matter and bioaerosols. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 15:835–842
Scheff PA, Paulius VK, Huang SW, Conroy LM (2000b) Indoor air quality in a middle school, part I: use of CO2 as a tracer for effective ventilation. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 15:824–834
Seppanen OA, Fisk WJ, Mendell MJ (1999) Association of ventilation rates and CO2 concentrations with health and other responses in commercial and institutional buildings. Indoor Air 9(4):226–252
Shaughnessy RJ, Haverinen-Shaughnessy U, Nevalainen A, Moschandreas D (2006) A preliminary study on the association between ventilation rates in classrooms and student performance. Indoor Air 16:465–468
Shendell DG, Prill R, Fisk WJ, Apte MG, Blake D, Faulkner D (2004) Associations between classroom CO2 concentrations and student attendance in Washington and Idaho. Indoor Air 14:333–341
Smedje G, Norback D, Edling C (1997a) Asthma among secondary schoolchildren in relation to the school environment. Clin Exp Allergy 27(11):1270–1278. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1997.tb01171.x
Smedje G, Norback D, Edling C (1997b) Subjective indoor air quality in schools in relation to exposure. Indoor Air 7:143–150
Smedje G, Mattsson M, Walinder R (2011) Comparing mixing and displacement ventilation in classrooms: pupils’ perception and health. Indoor Air 21:454–461. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00725.x
Smolík J, Dohányosová P, Schwarz J, Ždímal V, Lazaridis M (2008) Characterization of indoor and outdoor air in a suburban area of Prague. Water Air Soil Pollut Focus 8:35–47
Sofuoglu A, Kiymet N, Kavcar P, Sofuoglu SC (2010) Polycyclic and nitro musks in indoor air: a primary school classroom and a women’s sport center. Indoor Air 20:515–522. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00674.x
Sofuoglu SC, Aslan G, Inal F (2011) An assessment of indoor air concentrations and health risks of volatile organic compounds in three primary schools. Int J Hyg Environ Health 214:38–46. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.08.008
Sohn JR, Moon HJ, Ryu SH, Hwang T (2012) Indoor air quality in school classrooms with mechanical ventilation systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on sustainable healthy buildings, Seoul, Korea, p 349
Spedding JD (1974) Air pollution. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Stranger M, Potgieter-Vermaak SS, Van Grieken R (2007) Comparative overview of indoor air quality in Antwerp, Belgium. Environ Int 33:789–797. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2007.02.014
Stranger M, Potgieter-Vermaak SS, Van Grieken R (2008) Characterization of indoor air quality in primary schools in Antwerp, Belgium. Indoor Air 18:454–463
Szoboszlai Z, Furu E, Angyal A, Szikszai Z, Zs K (2011) Investigation of indoor aerosols collected at various educational institutions in Debrecen, Hungary. X-Ray Spectrom 40:176–180. doi:10.1002/xrs.1323
Tager IB (1999) Air pollution and lung function growth—is it ozone? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 160:387–389
Theodosiou TG, Ordoumpozanis KT (2008) Energy, comfort and indoor air quality in nursery and elementary school buildings in the cold climatic zones of Greece. Energy Build 40:2207–2214. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.06.011
Touloumi G, Pocock SJ, Katsouyanni K, Trichopoulos D (1994) Short term effects of air pollution on daily mortality in Athens: a time-series analysis. Int J Epidemiol 23:957–967
Tran DT, Alleman LY, Coddeville P, Galloo JC (2012) Elemental characterization and source identification of size resolved atmospheric particles in French classrooms. Atmos Environ 54:250–259. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.021
UBA (2008) Guidelines for indoor air hygiene in school buildings. In: Dr. Heinz-Jörn Moriske, Dr. Regine Szewzyk (eds) Federal Environment Agency (UBA) Innenraumlufthygiene-Kommission des Umweltbundesamtes. Available at: http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/4113.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2012
UNI EN ISO (16000-1): (2006) Indoor air—Part 1: general aspects of sampling strategy
UNI EN ISO (16000-2): (2006) Indoor air—Part 2: sampling strategy for formaldehyde
UNI EN ISO (16000-5): (2007) Indoor air – Part 5: sampling strategy for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
UNI EN ISO (16017-1): (2007) Campionamento ed analisi di composti organici volatili mediante tubo di adsorbimento/desorbimento termico/cromatografia gassosa capillare. Parte 1: Campionamento mediante aspirazione con pompa
UNI EN ISO (16017-2): (2007) Campionamento ed analisi di composti organici volatili mediante tubo di adsorbimento/desorbimento termico/cromatografia gassosa capillare. Parte 2: Campionamento per diffusione
UNI EN ISO (16000-15): (2008) Indoor air—Part 15: sampling strategy for nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
USEPA (1991) The clean air act. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC
USEPA (2003) Integrated risk information system. USEPA, Washington, DC. Available: http://www.epa.gov/IRIS/subst/2003
Vaizoglu SA, Aycan S, Deveci MA, Acer T, Bulut B, Bayraktar UD, Akyollu B, Celik M, Arslan U, Akpinar F, Baris Z, Arslan S, Deniz A, Didem Evci E, Güler C (2003) Determining domestic formaldehyde levels in Ankara, Turkey. Indoor Built Environ 12:329–335. doi:10.1177/142032603035546
Van Dijken F, Van Bronswijk JEMH, Sundell J (2006) Indoor environment and pupils’ health in primary schools. Build Res Inf 34(5):437–446
Van Roosbroeck S, Jacobs J, Janssen NAH, Oldenvening M, Hoek G, Brunekreef B (2007) Long-term personal exposure to PM2.5 soot and NOx in children attending schools near busy roads a validation study. Atmos Environ 41:3381–3394. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.12.023
Venn A, Lewis S, Cooper M, Hubbard R, Hill I, Boddy R, Bell M, Britton J (2000) Local road traffic activity and the prevalence, severity, and persistence of wheeze in school children: combined cross sectional and longitudinal study. Occup Environ Med 57:152–158
Wahab SAA, Basma Y (2004) Total suspended dust and heavy metal levels emitted from a workplace compared with nearby residential houses. Atmos Environ 38:745–750
Wåhlinder R, Norbäck D, Wieslander G, Smedje G, Erwall C (1997) Nasal mucosal swelling in relation to low air exchange rate in schools. Indoor Air 7:198–205
Wainman T, Zhang J, Weschler CJ, Lioy PJ (2000) Ozone and limonene in indoor air: a source of submicron particle exposure. Environ Health Perspect 108:1139–1145
Wargocki P, Wyon DP, Matysiak B, Irgens S (2005) The effects of classroom air temperature and outdoor air supply rate on the performance of school work by children. In: Proceedings of indoor air 2005, Beijing, vol 1, p 368
Weichenthal S, Dufresne A, Infante-Rivard C, Joseph L (2008) Characterizing and predicting ultrafine particle counts in Canadian classrooms during the winter months: model development and evaluation. Environ Res 106:349–360. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2007.08.013
Weschler CJ (2000) Ozone in indoor environments: concentration and chemistry. Indoor Air 10:269–288
Weschler CJ (2006) Ozone’s impact on public health: contributions from indoor exposures to ozone and products of ozone-initiated chemistry. Environ Health Perspect 114(10):1489–1496. doi:10.1289/ehp.9256
Weschler CJ (2009) Changes in indoor pollutants since the 1950s. Atmos Environ 43:153–169
Weschler GJ, Shields HC (1999) Indoor ozone/terpene reactions as a source of indoor particles. Atmos Environ 33:2301–2312
WHO, World Health Organisation (2006a) Air quality guidelines—global update 2005. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/78638/E90038.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2012
WHO, World Health Organization (2006b) Principles for evaluating health risks in children associated with exposure to chemicals. Available at: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/ehc/ehc237.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2012
WHO, World Health Organization (2010) Guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants. ISBN 978 92 890 0213 4. Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/128169/e94535.pdf
Wild P, Bourgkard E, Paris C (2009) Lung cancer and exposure to metals: the epidemiological evidence. Methods Mol Biol 472:139–167
Wilkins CK, Clausen PA, Wolkoff P, Larsen ST, Hammer M, Larsen K, Hansen V, Nielsen GD (2001) Formation of strong airway irritants in mixtures of isoprene/ozone and isoprene/ozone/nitrogen dioxide. Environ Health Perspect 109:937–941
Wolkoff P (1995) Volatile organic compounds-sources, measurements, emissions, and the impact on indoor air quality. Indoor Air 5(suppl 3):9–73
Wolkoff P, Clausen PA, Wilkins CK, Hougaard KS, Nielsen GD (1999) Formation of strong airway irritants in a model mixture of (+)-alpha-pinene/ozone. Atmos Environ 33(5):693–698
Wu YC, Batterman SA (2006) Proximity of schools in detroit, michigan to automobile and truck traffic. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 16:457–470
Wu Q, Baek SY, Fang M, Chang YS (2010) Distribution and fate of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in indoor environments of elementary schools. Indoor Air 20:263–270. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00652.x
Yamashita S, Kume K, Horiike T, Honma N, Masahiro F, Amagai T (2012) Emission sources and their contribution to indoor air pollution by carbonyl compounds in a school and a residential building in Shizuoka, Japan. Indoor Built Environ 21(3):392–402
Yang W, Sohn J, Kim J, Son B, Park J (2009) Indoor air quality investigation according to age of the school buildings in Korea. J Environ Manag 90:348–354
Zanobetti A, Schwartz J (2005) The effect of particulate air pollution on emergency admissions for myocardial infarction: a multicity case-crossover analysis. Environ Health Perspect 113:978–982
Zhang Q, Zhu Y (2012) Characterizing ultrafine particles and other air pollutants at five schools in South Texas. Indoor Air 22:33–42. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.2011.00738.x
Zhang G, Spickett J, Rumchev K, Lee AH, Stick S (2006) Indoor environmental quality in a ‘low allergen’ school and three standard primary schools in Western Australia. Indoor Air 16:74–80
Zhu CS, Cao JJ, Tsai CJ, Shen ZX, Ho KF, Liu SX (2010) The indoor and outdoor carbonaceous pollution during winter and summer in rural areas of Shaanxi, China. Aerosol Air Qual Res 10:550–558
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
de Gennaro, G., Dambruoso, P.R., Loiotile, A.D. et al. Indoor air quality in schools. Environ Chem Lett 12, 467–482 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-014-0470-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-014-0470-6