Nitrous acid, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone concentrations in residential environments. (Articles).
Indoor fuel combustion has been identified as one of the most important factors that influences indoor air pollution. Indoor air pollutants arising from gas combustion include nitrogen dioxide and other nitrogen species. N[O.sub.2] has been the focus of indoor nitrogen oxides due to its health effects (1). N[O.sub.2] is produced by oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen during high-temperature fuel combustion. The oxidant properties of N[O.sub.2] can cause adverse health effects, including throat irritation, cough, and dyspnea (2). Several epidemiologic investigations have found an association between N[O.sub.2] exposure increased by indoor combustion sources and adverse respiratory health effects (1).
Nitrogen dioxide can react with surface materials commonly present indoors. Nitrous acid (HONO) is one of the possible gaseous products of heterogeneous N[O.sub.2] reactions with water on indoor surfaces (3). Indoor HONO concentration from the heterogeneous reactions can be affected by indoor N[O.sub.2] concentration, ventilation rate, surface material, available surface area, temperature, and humidity (4). In addition, HONO is formed directly by combustion processes (5). The presence of indoor HONO as a substantial portion of total oxides of nitrogen was suggested by a high removal rate of N[O.sub.2] on indoor surfaces, the formation of HONO by heterogeneous N[O.sub.2] reactions, and a relatively long lifetime for HONO (5).
A few studies have measured residential HONO concentrations because measurement of HONO at the relevant levels has been technically difficult. However, these limited measurement efforts have demonstrated that indoor levels are higher than outdoor levels. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, 24-hr average concentrations of HONO in 10 homes with gas ranges were between 2 and 8 ppb (6). In southwest Virginia, indoor 24-hr HONO levels were significantly higher than outdoor levels both in summer and winter (7). Winter indoor HONO levels of 5.46 [+ or -] 3.75 ppb and 2.43 [+ or -] 0.14 ppb were observed in houses with and without gas ranges, respectively. Higher indoor HONO levels were observed at night in a study conducted in Rome, Italy; indoor HONO levels peaked in the range of 10-21 ppb (8). In this study, long-term average residential indoor HONO concentrations were not reported.
Outdoor HONO concentrations are usually lower than indoor levels, reflecting the fact that HONO is photolytically unstable. Annual average ambient HONO levels ranged from 0.1 to 1.4 ppb across 24 U.S. and Canadian communities monitored between 1988 and 1991 (9). The highest annual average ambient HONO concentration recorded was 1.4 ppb in Livermore, California. In an urban area of Sweden, predawn 1-hr maximum HONO levels ranged from 1.3 to 3.9 ppb (10). The outdoor HONO levels were correlated with ambient N[O.sub.2] concentrations. Low, but persistent, daytime HONO levels in Lubbock, Texas, ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 ppb, whereas night levels peaked at 1-2 ppb (11). In Rome, night peak HONO concentrations ranged from 3 to 6 ppb (8).
HONO is one of the generators of hydroxyl radical in photochemical smog formation. The acidity, reactivity, and aqueous solubility of HONO suggest its potential respiratory toxicity. When asthmatics were exposed to 650 ppb of HONO for 3 hr, they demonstrated mild alterations in lung function and reported mild symptoms of lung irritation (12). In other controlled human exposure studies of healthy individuals, irritation to the mucous membrane was determined at concentrations of 77 and 395 ppb of HONO for 3.5 hr (13). However, the effect on human health of long-term exposure to low concentrations of HONO is unknown.
The potential toxicity of HONO and the presence of indoor HONO sources support the need for residential HONO measurements. In addition, many earlier analyses of N[O.sub.2] actually measured several oxides of nitrogen, including HONO (14). It is possible that results of previous epidemiologic studies were confounded by the presence of other nitrogen oxides species, including HONO. Indoor HONO can be generated from heterogeneous N[O.sub.2] reactions and indoor combustion. In this study we measured residential HONO and N[O.sub.2] levels in homes participating in a chronic ozone exposure study conducted in Southern California.
Heterogeneous reactions of nitrogen oxides have been shown to vary with sources, meteorology, and ambient [O.sub.3]. There are limited data on residential indoor HONO levels in California and elsewhere. Indoor reactions may also vary among indoor locations as well as within location across time (15). Additionally, interactions among nitrogen oxides and [O.sub.3] have been recognized as important for outdoor photochemical reactions, but little attention has been paid to indoor reactions. In one study in which indoor measurements of multiple pollutants were performed, the authors reported an inverse association between indoor [O.sub.3] and nitrogen oxides (15). These measurements were performed in a sparsely occupied, air-conditioned telephone switching building. In our study we substantially expand the information available on indoor residential concentrations of HONO, N[O.sub.2], and [O.sub.3]. We performed the integrated 6-day measurements in 119 residences in two communities in Southern California. The objectives of this study were to measure residential indoor and outdoor HONO levels along with N[O.sub.2] and [O.sub.3] concentrations and to examine the relationships among housing factors and pollutants.
Materials and Methods
In April and May 1996, HONO, N[O.sub.2] and [O.sub.3] concentrations were measured in 119 homes. The homes were recruited from an ongoing 12-month study measuring indoor and outdoor concentrations and personal exposure to ozone of elementary school-age children in two communities in Southern California. Details of this "Harvard Southern Chronic Ozone Exposure Study" are described elsewhere (16). Among the 119 houses, 57 were located in Upland (valley site) and the remaining 62 were in towns located in the mountains at the eastern end of San Bernardino County (mountain site). Measurements occurred in the last four sampling cycles of the study, with approximately 25% of the homes sampled each cycle. Complete housing characteristic information was available for 111 houses. Informed consent was obtained.
HONO concentrations were measured using a passive sampler constructed from a 37-mm diameter polystyrene air sampling cassette containing a glass fiber filter coated with a 2% sodium carbonate solution (17). The exposed filter was analysed by ion chromatography after treatment with hydrogen peroxide. The sampling rate was 100.4 mL/min and the lower detection limit was 0.2 ppb over the 6-day sampling period. Measurements below the detection limit were assigned to 50% of the detection limit, or 0.1 ppb, for the following analyses.
N[O.sub.2] concentrations were measured with a filter badge that absorbed N[O.sub.2] on a cellulose fiber filter coated with a triethanolamine solution (18). Samples were analyzed spectrophotometrically. The overall mass transfer coefficient of the sampler was 0.1 cm/sec (19). The lower detection limit of the sampler was 0.5 ppb over the 6-day sampling period.
[O.sub.3] concentrations were measured using the Harvard passive [O.sub.3] sampler (20). The filter of the passive sampler was coated with a nitrite-containing solution. The nitrite ion on the filter of the passive sampler is oxidized to nitrate ion in the presence of [O.sub.3]. The exposed sampler was analyzed for nitrate ion by ion chromatography. Given sufficient face velocity, sampling rates of the passive sampler were 21.6 [cm.sup.3]/min and 21.3 [cm.sup.3]/min for outdoor and indoor sampling, respectively. The lower detection limit of the sampler was 1.2 ppb over the 6-day sampling period. Measurements below the detection limit were assigned to 50% of the detection limit, or 0.6 ppb, for the following analyses.
Trained field technicians deployed and collected the samplers. Indoor samplers were placed in living rooms, and outdoor samplers were placed near the houses and protected from rain. Residents completed a questionnaire describing housing factors.
Average indoor HONO and N[O.sub.2] concentrations were significantly higher than outdoor concentrations, whereas indoor [O.sub.3] concentrations were significantly lower than outdoor concentrations, as shown in Table 1. The average indoor HONO concentration was 4.6 ppb, and the average outdoor HONO concentration was 0.9 ppb. Average indoor and outdoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations were 28 and 20.1 ppb, respectively. The mean ([+ or -] SD) of the ratio of indoor to outdoor N[O.sub.2] was 2.08 [+ or -] 1.69. Average indoor and outdoor [O.sub.3] concentrations were 14.9 and 56.5 ppb, respectively. The mean ([+ or -] SD) ratio of indoor to outdoor [O.sub.3] was 0.24 [+ or -] 0.18.
Twenty-two pairs of the HONO passive samplers were collocated. Precision (i.e., the SD of the absolute difference between each pair) of the HONO passive sampler was 0.98 ppb. Relative precision was 23.5%. Twenty-one pairs of the N[O.sub.2] passive samplers were collocated. Precision of the N[O.sub.2] measurements was 2.5 ppb and relative precision was 12.6%. Results of the duplicate passive samplers are shown in Figure 1.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Housing characteristics of the two communities are shown in Table 2. Housing characteristics were significantly associated with indoor HONO and N[O.sub.2] concentrations, including the community (valley vs. mountain), presence of an air conditioner, and presence of a gas range, as shown in Table 3. No single housing characteristic was associated with indoor [O.sub.3] concentration, but outdoor [O.sub.3] concentrations were significantly higher in the mountain site than in the valley site. Indoor HONO and N[O.sub.2] concentrations were significantly higher in the valley site than in the mountain site. When the houses had an air conditioner or gas range, both indoor HONO and N[O.sub.2] concentrations were significantly higher. The presence of an air conditioner was significantly associated with the community (chi-square test, p < 0.01). Ninety-three percent of the valley homes had an air conditioner in contrast to only one mountain home.
Associations between house characteristics and indoor/outdoor ratios for N[O.sub.2] and [O.sub.3] are shown in Table 4. The indoor/outdoor ratios for HONO were not evaluated because only 14 houses had both indoor and outdoor HONO levels above the detection limit. The indoor/outdoor N[O.sub.2] ratio was significantly associated with community, presence of an air conditioner, presence of a gas range, and number of bedrooms. The ratio of indoor to outdoor N[O.sub.2] levels was significantly higher in the mountain site, although indoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations were significantly higher in the valley site. The indoor/outdoor N[O.sub.2] ratio was higher in the houses with a gas range and more than 3 bedrooms. The ratio of indoor to outdoor [O.sub.3] was significantly associated with community (p < 0.05), the presence of an air conditioner, and the number of bedrooms (p < 0.1).
The relationships between indoor and outdoor concentrations of the three air pollutants were determined by Pearson correlation coefficients, as shown in Table 5. The analysis was confined to houses for which all three pollutants were measured simultaneously. Indoor HONO concentrations were significantly correlated with indoor N[O.sub.2], indoor [O.sub.3], and outdoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations. Indoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations were significantly correlated with outdoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations. Indoor [O.sub.3] concentrations were significantly correlated with outdoor [O.sub.3] concentrations.
Associations between indoor HONO, [O.sub.3], and N[O.sub.2] and outdoor N[O.sub.2] levels were determined by a stepwise multiple regression analysis. Outdoor N[O.sub.2] level was excluded from the analysis at a significance level of 0.05. Indoor HONO was correlated negatively with indoor [O.sub.3] and positively with indoor N[O.sub.2].
 Indoor HONO = 2.65 - 0.13 x Indoor [O.sub.3] + 0.15 x Indoor N[O.sub.2], where n = 74 and r = 0.65.
Indoor HONO concentrations were inversely correlated with indoor [O.sub.3] concentrations, as shown in Figure 2. Indoor HONO and [O.sub.3] concentrations were simultaneously measured in 89 houses. We performed a linear regression analysis for indoor HONO as a function of indoor N[O.sub.2] for the 76 houses where both were measured simultaneously (Figure 3). Indoor HONO levels were about 17% of indoor N[O.sub.2] levels. The 95% confidence interval for the ratio of indoor HONO to indoor N[O.sub.2] was 0.14-0.21. No single housing characteristic was significantly associated with the ratio of indoor HONO to indoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations. However, the ratio of indoor HONO to indoor N[O.sub.2] was slightly higher in homes with electric ranges than in those with gas ranges (0.22 [+ or -] 0.21 vs. 0.16 [+ or -] 0.14).
[FIGURES 2-3 OMITTED]
Indoor and outdoor N[O.sub.2] levels were similar to those reported in other studies conducted in Southern California (21). Lower ambient outdoor HONO levels are expected because HONO photolyzes fairly quickly outdoors. However, HONO formed indoors is less susceptible to photolysis. Spicer et al. (5) have shown that HONO has a low surface removal rate, only 0.02-0.05/hr greater than the removal of nonreactive tracer gas due to the air exchange rate. This is significantly lower than the surface removal rate of N[O.sub.2] (5). The HONO measurements reported in the present study clearly establish that HONO levels tend to be higher in homes than outdoors.
The precisions of the HONO and N[O.sub.2] passive samplers were comparable to previously reported values (17,18). During the entire 12-month sampling period, the relative precision of the passive [O.sub.3] sampler was 12% for indoor and 4% for outdoor samplers (16). Forty percent of the indoor HONO measurements were below the 0.2 ppb detection limit for the 6-day monitoring period, and 80% of the outdoor HONO measurements were below the detection limit. The number of HONO samplers that recorded values below the detection limit was significantly higher than expected. Longer sampling times for outdoor HONO samplers may be necessary in future studies.
HONO is a weak acid (pKa = 3.35), but at the pH of the body fluids that it is likely to come in contact with during respiration, it should be almost completely ionized. The potential physiologic relevance of low levels of indoor HONO might be explored using an approach similar to that described by Spengler et al. (22) that utilized chamber studies in which children received hydrogen ion doses comparable to those that would be experienced during acid aerosol events. Controlled human exposures of HONO are more limited. If we assume that a dose value of 395 ppb HONO over 3.5 hr is needed to cause mucous membrane irritation (13), the delivered dose is approximately 1,278 [micro]g ([approximately equal to] 760 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] HONO x 8 x [10.sup.-3] [m.sup.3]/min breathing rate x 210 rain). At indoor levels of 10 ppb (90th percentile in this study), an adult (15 [m.sup.3]/day breathing rate) and a child (10 [m.sup.3]/day breathing rate) would have the equivalent delivered dose of hydrogen ion from HONO in about 4.5 days and 6.6 days, respectively. This simple estimate assumes constant exposure and does not include activities and concentrations that vary across time. Calculation of the biologically relevant acid dose to children and adults is obviously more complicated than this simple estimation. Nonetheless, the above example demonstrates that indoor exposures to even a weak acid may be relevant. Given the prevalence in the Southern California residences, it is reasonable to consider indoor HONO as an important contributor to hydrogen ion exposures.
A few housing factors were associated with indoor HONO and other pollutants. The community (mountain vs. valley) was significantly associated with both indoor HONO and N[O.sub.2] levels. Homes with an air conditioner and a gas range had higher indoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations. Homes with an air conditioner had lower [O.sub.3] concentrations, indicating either greater removal or lower air exchange rates. Pandian et al. (23) and Sub et al. (24) both have shown that homes with air conditioners have lower air exchange rates. Earlier, Dockery and Spengler (25) reported that the impact of environmental tobacco smoke concentrations was twice as large for air-conditioned homes than for non-air-conditioned homes, suggesting lower ventilation rates. Because both HONO and N[O.sub.2] have indoor sources, it is reasonable to expect high concentrations in the homes that have lower air exchange. However, the lack of a significant association for HONO with the housing factors studied may indicate that there may be other factors that influence indoor HONO concentrations.
Houses with humidifiers had lower HONO levels. Increased humidity from humidifier should have increased moisture on surfaces thus increasing aqueous phase heterogeneous formation of HONO in the presence of N[O.sub.2] (15). In addition to a larger formation rate, more moisture on surfaces would also mean a larger reservoir for HONO (5,26). However, our measurements do not support this hypothesis. Unfortunately, we do not have information regarding the use of humidifiers or indoor relative humidity during this study, which limits out ability to interpret the association. The influence of indoor moisture and humidification on HONO production rate needs to be investigated further in more detailed field and chamber studies.
Although HONO was higher in homes with higher N[O.sup.2], the relationship between indoor HONO and cooking on a gas range was not obvious. Because housing characteristics and ambient concentrations of all pollutants were different between the valley and mountain sites, it was difficult to see a clear relationship between indoor HONO and cooking on a gas range. Under controlled conditions, Traynor et al. (27) showed that gas ranges emit HONO at about 11% the rate of N[O.sub.2] emissions. Variations in other variables across the homes studied here and the fact that cooking times were not recorded prevented us from examining the direct impacts from cooking on a gas range.
Community was associated with all three contaminants. Indoor and outdoor [O.sub.3] levels were higher in the mountain sites than in the valley sites. The difference between communities for indoor [O.sub.3] was not statistically significant. However, indoor and outdoor N[O.sub.2] levels and indoor HONO levels were significantly lower in mountain sites. In this study, the community was significantly associated with ambient levels and housing characteristics influencing residential ventilation rates. It is possible that the association between community and the three air pollutants may be different when ambient ozone levels are different. Indoor measurements of N[O.sub.2] and HONO were made in Albuquerque, New Mexico, during a period when ambient [O.sub.3] was low (6). Indoor HONO levels ranged from 5 to 15% of indoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations. The relationship between indoor N[O.sub.2] and HONO (6) was less than that found here, suggesting a possible role of [O.sub.3] and indoor moisture in the relationship.
Although indoor HONO is partially generated from heterogeneous N[O.sub.2] reactions, previously reported associations between HONO and N[O.sub.2] levels in residences are available only from a few homes. None of the previous measurements included [O.sub.3] concentrations (6,28). In the current study, the average ratio of indoor HONO to indoor N[O.sub.2] was 0.17 (95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.21), slightly higher than those recorded in previous studies. Brauer et al. (28) found ratios in two research homes at peak N[O.sub.2] concentrations to be on the order of 0.1-0.12. In the Albuquerque study, in which indoor N[O.sub.2] concentrations were reported as averages of bedroom, living room, and kitchen N[O.sub.2] concentrations, the average ratio of HONO to N[O.sub.2] was 0.08 (6). The ratio of HONO to N[O.sub.2] levels ranged from 0.03 to 0.15. Indoor HONO is generated by indoor sources and heterogeneous N[O.sub.2] reactions; the heterogeneous N[O.sub.2] reactions are affected by various environmental conditions. The different ratios may be due to differences of N[O.sub.2] concentration, ventilation rate, surface material, available surface area, temperature, and humidity.
Comparisons of indoor HONO and [O.sub.3] levels indicate that indoor HONO levels are high only when indoor [O.sub.3] concentrations are low. Weschler et al. (15) reported a similar inverse correlation in a telephone switching office. The authors suggested that this reflected the rapid reaction of ozone with nitrite ions in aqueous surface films. HONO in the gas phase is in equilibrium with HONO in sorbed moisture films on surfaces (5,26). HONO in the aqueous surface films, in turn, is in equilibrium with its conjugate base, the nitrite ion. Ozone rapidly oxidizes the nitrite ion to nitrate. When indoor ozone concentrations are elevated, nitrite ions in aqueous surface films are rapidly oxidized to nitrate ions. This process depletes the surface reservoir of HONO, which ultimately reduces the gas phase concentration of HONO. Hence, an inverse correlation between indoor [O.sub.3] and indoor HONO is anticipated.
The indoor [O.sub.3] and HONO concentrations reported in this study are average concentrations over a 6-day period. However, it is well established that [O.sub.3] concentrations vary in a diurnal fashion. If indoor [O.sub.3] and HONO concentrations had been measured with sufficient time resolution to fully capture their daily concentration changes, the inverse correlation between these two pollutants would be expected to be even stronger than that observed in the current study.
Differential assessment of health effects associated with N[O.sub.2] and HONO may be difficult in community studies because of potential confounding factors. Indoor HONO is correlated with indoor N[O.sub.2]; however, substantial home variation of HONO is not explained by indoor N[O.sub.2] measurements. Potential health effects of HONO would not be completely determined by measuring N[O.sub.2] only. Characterization of outdoor N[O.sub.2], HONO, and [O.sub.3] in the Southern California communities alone did not predict indoor HONO concentrations. Including indoor [O.sub.3] improves the correlation between indoor HONO and indoor N[O.sub.2], with an increase in the coefficient of correlation from 0.51 to 0.65. However, housing characteristics that could be considered proxies for surface area, surface wetness, and air exchange rates did not lead to any substantial improvement of HONO prediction.
Six-day residential HONO, N[O.sub.2], and [O.sub.3] concentrations were simultaneously measured using passive samplers. Indoor HONO levels were higher than outdoor HONO levels. Several housing characteristics, including community and the presence of a humidifier, were significantly associated with both indoor N[O.sub.2] and HONO concentrations. Additional housing factors, primarily presence of a gas range or air conditioner, were associated with indoor N[O.sub.2] levels. No housing characteristic was significantly associated with indoor [O.sub.3] concentrations, but factors associated with higher air exchange rates were associated with higher indoor/outdoor ratios for [O.sub.3]. Indoor HONO levels were correlated with indoor N[O.sub.2] levels and inversely correlated with indoor [O.sub.3] levels. Indoor HONO levels were about 17% of indoor N[O.sub.2] levels. No significant amounts of HONO were measured when indoor [O.sub.3] levels were high. The measurements demonstrated the occurrence of substantial residential indoor HONO concentrations and showed association between indoor HONO, N[O.sub.2], and [O.sub.3] concentrations.
Table 1, HONO, N[O.sub.2], and [O.sub.3] concentrations (ppb). Pollutant, location No. Mean [+ or -] SD Med Min HONO Indoor 99 4.6 [+ or -] 4.3 3.3 0.1 Outdoor 102 0.9 [+ or -] 2.3 0.1 0.1 Indoor/outdoor (a) N[O.sub.2] Indoor 92 28.0 [+ or -] 12.6 28.9 4.3 Outdoor 88 20.1 [+ or -] 14.0 17.4 3.2 Indoor/outdoor 87 2.08 [+ or -] 1.69 1.3 0.2 [O.sub.3] Indoor 106 14.9 [+ or -] 13.3 11.1 0.6 Outdoor 100 56.5 [+ or -] 22.3 49.8 18.4 Indoor/outdoor 96 0.24 [+ or -] 0.18 0.2 0.0 90th 95th Pollutant, location percentile percentile Max HONO Indoor 9.7 12.3 21.1 Outdoor 1.7 7.1 12.2 Indoor/outdoor (a) N[O.sub.2] Indoor 43.1 49.3 52.0 Outdoor 39.3 42.1 47.8 Indoor/outdoor 4.5 5.4 10.6 [O.sub.3] Indoor 34.2 41.0 67.8 Outdoor 89.6 95.7 160.1 Indoor/outdoor 0.5 0.7 0.8 Pollutant, location No. < LOD t-Test p-Value HONO Indoor 40 7.62 < 0.001 Outdoor 82 Indoor/outdoor (a) N[O.sub.2] Indoor 0 3.99 < 0.001 Outdoor 0 Indoor/outdoor [O.sub.3] Indoor 9 -16.38 < 0.001 Outdoor 0 Indoor/outdoor Abbreviations: LOD, limit of detection; Max, maximum; Med, median; Min, minimum. (a) Indoor/outdoor of HONO was excluded due to a large number of measurements < LOD. Table 2. Housing characteristics of the two communities. Variables Valley No. of houses 56 No. of bedrooms (mean [+ or -] SD) 3.6 [+ or -] 0.9 Presence of gas range Yes 43 No 12 Presence of air conditioning Yes 51 No 4 Presence of humidifier Yes 15 No 41 Window open Sometimes 12 Often 44 Variables Mountain No. of houses 55 No. of bedrooms (mean [+ or -] SD) 3.7 [+ or -] 1.0 Presence of gas range Yes 46 No 9 Presence of air conditioning Yes 1 No 54 Presence of humidifier Yes 27 No 28 Window open Sometimes 6 Often 4 Table 3. Housing characteristics significantly associated with indoor HONO, N[O.sub.2], and [O.sub.3] concentrations HONO Variable No. Mean [+ or -] SD Community Valley 43 5.6 [+ or -] 4.6 Mountain 47 3.5 [+ or -] 3.8 Presence of air conditioner Yes 39 5.4 [+ or -] 4.6 No 50 3.9 [+ or -] 4.0 Presence of humidifier Yes 32 2.6 [+ or -] 2.6 No 58 5.6 [+ or -] 4.7 Presence of gas range Yes 72 4.8 [+ or -] 4.6 No 17 3.1 [+ or -] 2.5 HONO Variable t-Test p-Value Community Valley 2.31 0.023 Mountain Presence of air conditioner Yes -1.69 0.094 No Presence of humidifier Yes 3.34 0.010 No Presence of gas range Yes -1.48 0.142 No N[O.sub.2] Variable No. Mean [+ or -] SD Community Valley 48 33.8 [+ or -] 9.2 Mountain 47 21.7 [+ or -] 13.4 Presence of air conditioner Yes 44 32.3 [+ or -] 9.7 No 42 23.8 [+ or -] 13.9 Presence of humidifier Yes 31 24.5 [+ or -] 13.9 No 56 30.5 [+ or -] 11.6 Presence of gas range Yes 68 30.7 [+ or -] 12.4 No 18 19.7 [+ or -] 10.4 N[O.sub.2] Variable t-Test p-Value Community Valley 4.97 0.000 Mountain Presence of air conditioner Yes -3.26 0.002 No Presence of humidifier Yes 2.19 0.032 No Presence of gas range Yes -3.45 0.001 No [O.sub.3] Variable No. Mean [+ or -] SD Community Valley 49 13.4 [+ or -] 8.5 Mountain 52 16.3 [+ or -] 17.0 Presence of air conditioner Yes 45 12.7 [+ or -] 8.1 No 55 16.4 [+ or -] 16.6 Presence of humidifier Yes 37 18.0 [+ or -] 16.8 No 64 13.2 [+ or -] 11.0 Presence of gas range Yes 83 15.6 [+ or -] 14.1 No 17 12.1 [+ or -] 11.2 [O.sub.3] Variable t-Test p-Value Community Valley -1.07 0.286 Mountain Presence of air conditioner Yes 1.35 0.182 No Presence of humidifier Yes -1.72 0.089 No Presence of gas range Yes -0.96 0.338 No Table 4. Housing characteristics significantly associated with indoor/outdoor N[O.sub.2] and [O.sub.3] concentrations. Indoor/outdoor N[O.sub.2] Variable No. Mean [+ or -] SD Community Valley 45 1.07 [+ or -] 0.25 Mountain 37 3.24 [+ or -] 2.00 Presence of air conditioner Yes 40 1.07 [+ or -] 0.26 No 41 3.03 [+ or -] 2.01 Presence of humidifier Yes 29 1.94 [+ or -] 1.27 No 53 2.10 [+ or -] 1.95 Presence of gas range Yes 64 2.27 [+ or -] 1.88 No 17 1.22 [+ or -] 0.52 No. of bedrooms [less than or equal to] 3 39 2.45 [+ or -] 2.12 > 3 42 1.66 [+ or -] 1.19 Indoor/outdoor N[O.sub.2] Variable t-Test p-Value Community Valley -7.21 0.000 Mountain Presence of air conditioner Yes 6.13 0.000 No Presence of humidifier Yes 0.41 0.683 No Presence of gas range Yes -2.26 0.027 No No. of bedrooms [less than or equal to] 3 2.09 0.040 > 3 Indoor/outdoor [O.sub.3] Variable No. Mean [+ or -] SD Community Valley 48 0.28 [+ or -] 0.19 Mountain 43 0.19 [+ or -] 0.16 Presence of air conditioner Yes 44 0.26 [+ or -] 0.18 No 46 0.20 [+ or -] 0.17 Presence of humidifier Yes 32 0.28 [+ or -] 0.23 No 59 0.22 [+ or -] 0.15 Presence of gas range Yes 74 0.24 [+ or -] 0.18 No 16 0.22 [+ or -] 0.19 No. of bedrooms [less than or equal to] 3 42 0.27 [+ or -] 0.21 > 3 48 0.21 [+ or -] 0.15 Indoor/outdoor [O.sub.3] Variable t-Test p-Value Community Valley 2.59 0.011 Mountain Presence of air conditioner Yes -1.69 0.095 No Presence of humidifier Yes -1.52 0.133 No Presence of gas range Yes -0.53 0.599 No No. of bedrooms [less than or equal to] 3 1.68 0.096 > 3 Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficient between air pollutants. Indoor HONO Indoor N[O.sub.2] Indoor [O.sub.3] Indoor N[O.sub.2] 0.511 ** -- -- Indoor [O.sub.3] -0.514 ** -0.136 -- Outdoor HONO -0.021 -0.186 -0.223 * Outdoor N[O.sub.2] 0.352 ** 0.602 ** -0.052 Outdoor [O.sub.3] -0.180 -0.220 * 0.556 ** Outdoor HONO Outdoor N[O.sub.2] Indoor N[O.sub.2] -- -- Indoor [O.sub.3] -- -- Outdoor HONO -- -- Outdoor N[O.sub.2] -0.083 -- Outdoor [O.sub.3] -0.092 -0.341 ** * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
(1.) U.S. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Oxides of Nitrogen. EPA-600/8-91/049A-F. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993.
(2.) Samet JM, Marbury MC, Spongier JD. Health effects and sources of indoor air pollution. Part I. Am Rev Respir Dis 138:1496-1508 (1987).
(3.) Jenkin ME, Cox RA, Williams DJ. Laboratory studies of the kinetics of formation of nitrous acid from the thermal reaction of nitrogen dioxide and water vapour. Atmos Environ 22:487-498 (1988).
(4.) Brauer M, Rasmussen TR, Kjaergaard SK, Spongier JD. Nitrous acid formation in an experimental exposure chamber. Indoor Air 3:94-105 (1993).
(5.) Spicer CW, Kenny DV, Ward GF, Billick IH. Transformations, lifetimes, and sources of N[O.sub.2], HONO and HN[O.sub.3] in indoor environments. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 43:1479-1485 (1993).
(6.) Spengler JD, Brauer M, Samet JM, Lambert WE. Nitrous acid in Albuquerque, New Mexico, homes. Environ Sci Technol 27:841-845 (1993).
(7.) Leaderer BP, Naeher L, Jakun T, Balenger K, Holford TR, Toth C, Sullivan J, Wolfson JM, Koutrakis P. Indoor, outdoor, and regional summer and winter concentrations of P[M.sub.10], P[M.sub.2.5], S[O.sub.4.sup.2-], [H.sup.+], N[H.sub.4.sup.+], N[O.sub.3.sup.-], N[H.sub.3], and nitrous acid in homes with and without kerosene space heaters. Environ Health Perspect 107:223-231 (1999).
(8.) Febo A, Perrino C. Prediction and experimental evidence for high air concentration of nitrous acid in indoor environments. Atmos Environ 25A:1055-1061 (1991).
(9.) Spongier JD, Koutrakis P, Dockery DW, Raizenne M, Speizer FE. Health effects of acid aerosols on North American children: air pollution exposures. Environ Health Perspect 104:492-499 (1996).
(10.) Sjodin A. Studies of the diurnal variation of nitrous acid in urban air. Environ Sci Technol 22:1086-1089 (1988).
(11.) Vecera Z, Dasgupta PK. Measurement of ambient nitrous acid and a reliable calibration source for gaseous nitrous acid. Environ Sci Technol 25:255-260 (1991).
(12.) Beckett WS, Russi MB, Haber AD, Rivkin RM, Sullivan JR, Tameroglu Z, Mohsenin V, Leaderer BP. Effect of nitrous acid on lung function in asthmatics: a chamber study. Environ Health Perspect 103:372-375 (1995).
(13.) Rasmussen TR, Brauer M, Kjaergaard S. Effects of nitrous acid exposure on human mucous membranes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 151:1504-1511 (1995).
(14.) Spicer CW, Yanagisawa Y, Mulik JD, Billick IH. The prevalence of nitrous acid in indoor air and its impact on N[O.sub.2] measurements made by passive samplers. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Helsinki, Finland, Vol 3, Helsinki, Finland:Finnish Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate, 1993;277-282.
(15.) Weschler CJ, Shields HC, Naik DV. Indoor chemistry involving [O.sub.3], NO, and N[O.sub.2] as evidenced by 14 months of measurements at a site in Southern California. Environ Sci Technol 28:2120-2132 (1994).
(16.) Geyh AS, Xue J, Ozkaynak H, Spengler JD. The Harvard Southern California Chronic Ozone Exposure Study: assessing ozone exposure of grade-school-age children in two Southern California communities. Environ Health Perspect 108:265-270 (2000).
(17.) Leaderer BP, Koutrakis P, Wilson JM, Sullivan JR. Development and evaluation of a passive sampler to collect nitrous acid and sulfur dioxide. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 4(4):503-511 (1994).
(18.) Yanagisawa Y, Nishimura H. A badge-type personal sampler for measurement of personal exposures to N[O.sub.2] and NO in ambient air. Environ Int 8:235-242 (1982).
(19.) Lee K, Yanagisawa Y, Spengler JD, Billick IH. Wind velocity effects of sampling rate of N[O.sub.2] badge. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2:207-219 (1992).
(20.) Koutrakis P, Wolfson JM, Bunyaviroch A, Froehlich SE, Hirano K, Mulik JD. Measurement of ambient ozone using a nitrite-coated filter. Anal Chem 65:209-214 (1993).
(21.) Spengler JD, Schwab M, Ryan PB, Colome S, Wilson AL, Billick IH, Backer E. Personal exposure to nitrogen dioxide in the Los Angeles basin. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 44:39-47 (1994).
(22.) Spongier JD, Keeler G J, Koutrakis P, Ryan PB, Raizenne M, Franklin CA. Exposure to acidic aerosols. Environ Health Perspect 79:43-51 (1989).
(23.) Pandian MD, Ott WR, Behar JV. Residential air exchange rates for use in indoor air and exposure modelling studies. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 3:407-416 (1993).
(24.) Suh HH, Koutrakis P, Spengler JD. The relationship between airborne acidity and ammonia in indoor environments. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 4:1-22 (1994).
(25.) Dockery DW, Spengler JD. Indoor-outdoor relationships of respirable sulfates and particles. Atmos Environ 15:335-343 (1981).
(26.) Wainman T, Weschler CJ, Lioy PJ, Zhang J. Effects of surface type and relative humidity on the production and concentration of nitrous acid in a model indoor environment. Environ Sci Technol 35:2200-2206(2001).
(27.) Traynor GW, Anthon DW, Hollowelf CD. Technique for determining pollutant missions from a gas-fired range. Atmos Environ 16:2979-2987 (1982).
(28.) Brauer M, Ryan PB, Suh HH, Koutrakis P, Spongier JD, Leslie NP, Billick IH. Measurement of nitrous acid inside two research homes. Environ Sci Technol 24:1521-1527 (1990).
Kiyoung Lee, (1) Jianping Xue, (2) * Alison S. Geyh, (3) Haluk Ozkaynak, (2) * Brian P. Leaderer, (4) Charles J. Weschler, (5) and John D. Spengler (2)
(1) University of California, School of Medicine, Davis, California, USA; (2) Harvard University, School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; (3) Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA; (4) Yale University, School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; (5) University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Address correspondence to K. Lee, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California at Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis CA 95615 USA. Telephone: (530) 754-8164. Fax: (530) 752-5047. E-mail: email@example.com
* Current address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
We thank the children and their families for their participation and cooperation in this study.
This study was partially funded by National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grants R01-ES06370 and R01-ES05410.
Received 14 May 2001; accepted 9 August 2001.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Spengler, John D.|
|Publication:||Environmental Health Perspectives|
|Date:||Feb 1, 2002|
|Previous Article:||Effects of pentachlorophenol and tetrachlorohydroquinone on mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways in Jurkat T cells. (Articles).|
|Next Article:||Effects of exposure to low levels of environmental cadmium on renal biomarkers. (Articles).|