Air Quality Paper

1

Something Old and Something New

An air sampling experiment comparing the particulate matter between three indoor air samples.

Joni Rorije

Prepared for:

Dr. Troy Stuckey

GEOL 3363: Environmental Geology Seminar

Southern Methodist University

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41.1. Project Purpose………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………41.2. Air Quality History and Regulation……………………………………………………………………………………………41.3. Particulate Matter…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….41.4. Purpose of Experiment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..41.5. Relevance of Particulate Matter……………………………………………………………………………………………….51.6. Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….51.7. Experimental Sites……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6

1.7.1. Location1.7.2. Observations

2. Project Implementation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..92.1. Schedule………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….92.2. Equipment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….92.3. Personnel Roles……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….102.4. Site Selection…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11

2.4.1. Site Preparation3. Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12

3.1. Equipment Preparation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………123.2. Measurements………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12

3.2.1. Table of Data Collected at Sample Sites3.3. Slide Preparation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12

4. Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..134.1. Temperature trends…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………134.2. Sampling Data Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13

4.2.1. Table of Coarse Particle Counts, Site 14.2.2.Table of Fine Particle Counts, Site 14.2.3.Figure of Particle Counts by Size, Site 14.2.4. Site 1 Data Discussion4.2.5.Table of Coarse Particle Counts, Site 24.2.6.Table of Fine Particle Counts, Site 24.2.7.Figure of Particle Counts by Size, Site 24.2.8.Site 2 Data Discussion4.2.9.Table of Coarse Particle Counts, Site 34.2.10. Table of Fine Particle Counts, Site 34.2.11. Figure of Particle Counts by Size, Site 34.2.12. Site 3 Data Discussion

4.3. Hypothesis Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………174.3.1.Hypothesis 1 Discussion

3

4.3.2.Hypothesis 2 Discussion4.3.3.Hypothesis 3 Discussion

5. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………205.1. Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..205.2. Discoveries…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….205.3. Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..205.4. Final Thoughts……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….20

6. Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..216.1. Photographs………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….21 6.2. Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………216.3. Figures………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….216.4. Data……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...216.5. References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….27

4

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of project: The purpose of this project is to learn about air quality sampling

procedures, especially for sampling and analysis of particulate matter in air samples. Through the

process of air sampling, we will learn both about air quality measurement procedures and proper

scientific experimental procedures. Using the information obtained from this experiment, we will

gain insight and knowledge about the air quality we experience every day.

1.2 Air Quality History and Regulation: Air quality first became a concern in the mid-20th century,

after the Industrial Revolution had filled many cities with smokestacks, factories, and other sources

of smog and pollutants. However, regulation of air pollution developed only slowly until the Clean

Air Act of 1963 was passed. It has since been amended many times in the past few decades to

accommodate changing conditions and add improvements, such as the addition of the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the requirement for State Implementation Plans (SIPs)

to be put into place by the states. These standards require states to draw up a plan to either reduce

or maintain levels of pollutants emitted. In order to monitor the levels of these pollutants, scientists

and researchers rely on techniques such as those used in this experiment to measure the quality of

the air.

1.3 Particulate Matter: Particulate matter, put simply, is anything in the air that is not dissolved

in the gaseous phase, and may vary widely in terms of composition, size, mass, and occurrence.

Particulate matter is considered a class of pollutants due to potential toxic or allergic effects on

human health, the reduction of visibility in high enough concentrations, and the effects on global

climate systems and the pollution of local ecosystems, and their potential to accumulate in high

concentrations when they settle out of the atmosphere as dust. Particles can come from a variety of

sources, and have a variable speciation. Some examples of common particulate matter include plant

fibers, plant pollens, mineral dust, soil particles, combustion products (such as soot), skin cells,

fungal cells, synthetic fibers, algal cells, and many more. Particulate matter is often classified by size

of the particles – according to the EPA, coarse particles are defined as being >2.5 µm in length, while

fine particles are defined as being <2.5µm in length.

1.4 Purpose of Experiment: The purpose of this experiment is to measure and analyze the

particulate matter present in everyday locations, looking for trends in the data obtained. In this

5

particular experiment, the data from three indoor locations are analyzed in order to compare the

particulate matter found in each sample, looking for trends that might arise based on the age of the

building that the sample was taken in.

1.5 The Relevance of Particulate Matter in this Experiment: Particulate matter has important

effects on human health; a higher density of particulate matter in the air of an area poses greater

risks to those with allergies or breathing problems such as asthma. Areas with higher particulate

matter in the air are often also considered to be more “dirty”. It is not unreasonable to believe that

a building that has been recently built might have cleaner facilities and therefore cleaner air; this

experiment will determine whether or not that is the case.

1.6 Hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The total concentration of particles will be greater in air samples taken

from older buildings compared to air samples taken from newer buildings.

Null (Ho): Total particle concentration is not different in air samples taken from older buildings

than in samples taken from newer buildings.

Alternate (Ha): Total particle concentration is greater in air samples taken from older buildings

than in samples taken from newer buildings.

Hypothesis 2: The concentration of larger coarse particles will be greater in air samples

taken from older buildings compared to air samples taken from newer buildings.

Null (Ho): Total particle concentration in air samples is not affected by whether the sample was

taken in an older building compared to a newer one.

Alternate (Ha): Air samples from older buildings will have a higher concentration of large coarse

particles compared to air samples from newer buildings.

Hypothesis 3: There will be a notable difference in the speciation of particles from air

samples taken from older buildings compared to newer buildings.

Null (Ho): Air samples from older buildings will have the same particle speciation as air samples

taken from newer buildings.

6

Alternate (Ha): Air samples from older buildings will have different particle speciation as air

samples taken from newer buildings.

1.7 Experimental Sites:

The slides were taken from three locations: The Collins Atrium in the Annette Caldwell Simmons

Hall, the Anthropology Lab in Heroy Hall, and the Rotunda in Dallas Hall.

1.7.1 Location:

Site 1 – Collins Atrium, Annette Caldwell Simmons Hall (opened September 2010). Sample was

taken on the floor in the southeast corner of the atrium, slightly elevated on a box, 5 feet from the

wall. The sample was taken on March 29, 2012 from 8:02 to 8:07pm. No GPS coordinate was

available.

Photo 1.7.1.1 – Site 1, Collins Atrium, Annette Caldwell Simmons Hall, viewed from above

Site 2 – Anthropology Lab, 434A Heroy Hall. Sample was taken on the center table, 3 feet from

the ground, on March 29, 2012, from 8:45 – 8:50pm. No GPS coordinate was available.

7

Photo 1.1.7.2 – Site 2, 434A Heroy Hall (Anthropology Lab)

Site 3 – Main Rotunda, Dallas Hall (opened 1915). Sample was taken 2 inches from the seal in

the center of the floor, with the equipment on the floor, on March 22, 2012 from 8:37 – 8:42 pm. No

GPS coordinate was available.

8

Photo 1.1.7.3 – Site 3, Dallas Hall Rotunda, viewed from above.

1.7.2 Observations:

Site 1 – The atrium was recorded as containing benches, a trash can and recycling bin, potted

plants, and a large portrait of Annette Caldwell Simmons. Also within the area was a long hallway,

windowed doors, ventilation units, and a stairwell, as well as entrances to other rooms. As the

sample was taken, the rotameter was surrounded by the people in the project team, and there were

various passersby, including 5 people that were recorded to come down the stairs at 8:04pm. The

atmospheric temperature was measured to be 75.9o to 77o F.

Site 2 – The lab consisted of one large table surrounded by chairs (in which our project team

were sitting) and various lab equipment and materials, including bottles of water and hydrochloric

acid, shelves holding bone and fossil specimens, a fume hood, sink, cabinets, more samples in plastic

bags, and a cart. The room was noted as not seeming dusty. The atmospheric temperature was 79.7o

– 81.6o F.

Site 3 – The rotunda is a large open indoor space with the seal in the center. The sample was

taken on the marble floor, as a few people passed by around the classrooms. There was a heater

about 20 feet away. Gold paint was recorded in the area. The atmospheric temperature was

measured to be 72.8o – 74.8o F.

9

2. Project Implementation

2.1 Schedule: The data for this experiment was collected on March 22, 2012 and March

29, 2012, both in the evening. The samples were studied and analyzed in the following weeks,

ending on April 26, 2012.

2.2 Equipment: The samples were taken using an EMS air pump and rotameter with

EMS sampling cassettes. Also used were a GPS locator, stopwatch, thermometer, anemometer,

extension cords, and digital cameras. To analyze the samples, polarized-light microscopes were

used.

Photo 2.2.1 – Air pump, rotameter, and sampling cassette used to obtain air samples.

10

2.3 Personnel Roles

Photo 2.3.1 – Project Team

Time Keeper: Enrique

GPS Recorder: Emily

Photographers: Joey and Andres

Extension Cord Team

Haulers: Chris and Mike

Scouts: Joni and Brandi

Meteorologists: Lincoln

Sampling Equipment Manager: James

Sampling Cassette Installers: All Members of Team, one per site

Site Describers: Maddie and Don

Data Recorder: Maureen

11

2.4 Site Selection: The sites were selected by Dr. Stuckey and the project team so that

each member had at least one site that they preferred to sample. Factors determining the

selection of each site include proximity to the lab, potential for varied particulate matter, and

variety in types of sample sites.

The three sites I chose for further analysis were samples taken in the oldest building on

campus (Dallas Hall), one of the newest buildings on campus (Simmons Hall), and one building

that was built somewhere in between (Heroy Hall). This provides a broad age range so that if

there is any major difference in the samples due to the age of the building the sample was taken

in, those differences should be maximized. The sample from Heroy Hall could potentially be

treated as a control in that it is not at either extreme of the age spectrum; however, I choose to

simply compare it alongside the other samples due to the high amount of variables other than

building age that may affect the results from Heroy Hall differently than the results from

Simmons or Dallas.

2.4.1 Site Preparation: Each site was left mostly undisturbed before the sample

was taken, with no cleaning or other special preparations to the sites. Before the sample could

be taken, an electrical outlet was located, extension cord was plugged in as needed, and the

rotameter was calibrated to 5 liters per minute. The pump was then fitted to the sampling

cassette, and air was pumped through for 5 minutes, meaning a total of 25 liters of air was

pumped through the cassette. Notes were taken on the features of the site, including events

occurring during the sampling such as people walking by. The date, time, cassette number,

location, and temperature were recorded. For outdoor samples, wind speed and GPS were also

recorded, but there are no outdoor samples in this particular analysis.

12

3. Methods

3.1 Equipment Preparation: Before the sample could be taken, an electrical outlet was located, extension cord was plugged in as needed, and the rotameter was calibrated to 5 liters per minute. The pump was then fitted to the sampling cassette, and air was pumped through for 5 minutes, meaning a total of 25 liters of air was pumped through the cassette. Notes were taken on the features of the site, including events occurring during the sampling such as people walking by. The date, time, cassette number, location, and temperature were recorded. For outdoor samples, wind speed and GPS were also recorded, but there are no outdoor samples in this particular analysis.

3.2 Measurements:

Table 3.2.1: Data collected at sample sites.

Site Cassette Number Temperature (o F) Date and TimeCollins Atrium, Simmons Hall

01851278 75.9 – 77 3/29/128:02 – 8:07 pm

Anthropology Lab, 434A Heroy Hall

01827890 79.7 – 81.6 3/29/128:45 – 8:50 pm

Dallas Hall Rotunda 01836634 72.8 – 74.8 3/22/128:37 – 8:42 pm

3.3 Slide Preparation: Slides were created by removing the adhesive film from the sampling cassettes, transferred to a clean glass slide, and covered and sealed with a cover slip. This process was the same for all samples. It was noted that the slides contained air bubbles, often on the order of hundreds of µm. Several particles from the original sample would appear to stick to these bubbles, making them more difficult to see and measure. Therefore, these bubbles are a limiting factor in the accuracy of the particle counts and can be treated as a source of error.

On each microscope, the eyepiece scale was used to measure the length of particles. After calibration, it was determined that at 10x magnification, each tick equaled 10 microns; at 20x, each tick equaled 5 microns; at 40x, each tick equaled 2.5 microns; and at 63x, 1 tick equaled 1.59 microns.

13

4. Results

4.1 Temperature Trends: The temperatures recorded at each of the sites did not vary by any wide margin, and it is not believed that the differences in temperature contributed to any notable trends in the data obtained from the samples. As a result, temperature is not a variable in any of the hypotheses discussed in this analysis.

4.2 Sampling Data Discussion: The samples were analyzed by counting the number of particles in each size category. For larger particles, usually >50 microns (µm), the total number of particles was counted. For smaller particles, only a sector of the slide was counted and the number was extrapolated based on the size of the sector counted.

Table 4.2.1: Particle counts – coarse particles at Site 1 (>2.5 µm).

Coarse Particle Size (microns) Count

>100 1680-100 860-80 950-60 940-50 1525-40 3610-25 1162.5-10 738

Total Coarse Particles 947

Table 4.2.2: Particle counts – fine particles at Site 1 (0-2.5 µm).

Fine Particle Size (microns) Count

1-2.5 11500-1 1154

Total Fine Particles 2304

Figure 4.2.3: Particle composition by size in Site 1.*

14

29%

35%

35%

Particle Count by Size in µm - Site 1

Total Coarse Particles1-2.50-1

*Note: for the sake of readability I show only the total amount of coarse particles (>2.5 microns) instead of each of the partitioned size categories for coarse particles; the counts for those categories are listed in the tables above.

4.2.4 Site 1 Discussion: As listed above, a total of 3251 particles were counted in the sample for Site 1 (Collins Atrium in Simmons Hall). 947 (29%) of those particles were coarse particles, and 2304 (71%) of those particles were fine particles.

Since this sample was taken at 5 liters per minute for 5 minutes, a total of 25 liters of air was collected. Therefore, the density of particles in this sample was 3251/25 or 130.04 particles per liter.

The types of particles in this slide included the following: cellulose, skin cells, pollen, mineral dust (possibly gypsum), soil particles, and fungi.


15


>100 1680-100 560-80 350-60 640-50 425-40 1010-25 942.5-10 832


Table 4.2.6: Particle counts – fine particles at Site 2 (<2.5 µm).


1-2.5 9830-1 2293


Figure 4.3.7: Particle composition by size in Site 2.

23%

23%

54%



16

4.3.8 Site 2 Discussion: As listed above, a total of 4246 particles were counted in the sample for Site 2 (Anthropology Lab, Heroy Hall). 970 (23%) of those particles were coarse particles, and 3276 (77%) of those particles were fine particles.


The types of particles in this slide included the following: synthetic fiber, mineral dust, dirt particles, fungi, plant fibers (very few), and a bladed mineral.



>100 980-100 660-80 250-60 540-50 1025-40 810-25 522.5-10 163


Table 4.2.10: Particle counts – fine particles at Site 3 (0-2.5 µm).


1-2.5 11230-1 1076


17

Figure 4.2.11: Particle composition by size in Site 3.

10%

46%

44%



4.2.12: Site 3 Discussion: As listed above, a total of 2454 particles were counted in the sample for Site 3 (Dallas Hall Rotunda). 255 (10%) of those particles were coarse particles, and 2199 (90%) of those particles were fine particles.


The types of particles in this slide included the following: synthetic fiber, fungi, plant fiber, skin cells, mineral dust, and soil particles.

4.3 Hypothesis Discussion

Hypothesis 1: The total concentration of particles will be greater in air samples taken

from older buildings compared to air samples taken from newer buildings.

Null (Ho): Total particle concentration in air samples is not affected by whether the

sample was taken in an older building compared to a newer one.

Alternate (Ha): Total particle concentration is greater in air samples taken from older

buildings than in samples taken from newer buildings.

4.3.1 Hypothesis 1 Discussion: The sample from oldest building, Dallas Hall, had a total particle count of 2454, with a particle concentration of 98.16 particles/L. The next sample, taken from

18

the slightly younger building of Heroy Hall, had a total particle count of 4246, with a particle concentration of 169.84 particles/L. The sample from the newest building, Simmons Hall, had a total particle count of 3251, with a particle concentration of 130.04 particles/L. The sample from Heroy Hall had the greatest particle concentration, and the sample from Simmons Hall had a greater particle concentration than the sample from Dallas Hall. Therefore, the Ho was accepted.

Hypothesis 2: The concentration of larger coarse particles will be greater in air samples

taken from older buildings compared to air samples taken from newer buildings.

Null (Ho): Total particle concentration in air samples is not affected by whether the

sample was taken in an older building compared to a newer one.

Alternate (Ha): Air samples from older buildings will have a higher concentration of

large coarse particles compared to air samples from newer buildings.

4.3.2 Hypothesis 2 Discussion: The sample from the oldest building, Dallas Hall, had a total of 947 coarse particles. The sample from the next oldest building, Heroy Hall, had a total of 970 coarse particles. The sample from the newest building, Simmons Hall, had a total of 255 coarse particles. The samples from Dallas Hall and Heroy Hall had similar amounts of coarse particles, and the two buildings are relatively close in age. The sample from Simmons Hall had a dramatically lower number of coarse particles. Therefore, the Ho was rejected.

Hypothesis 3: There will be a notable difference in the speciation of particles from air

samples taken from older buildings compared to newer buildings.

Null (Ho): Air samples from older buildings will have the same particle speciation as air

samples taken from newer buildings.

Alternate (Ha): Air samples from older buildings will have different particle speciation

as air samples taken from newer buildings.

4.3.3 Hypothesis 3 Discussion: Mineral dust, plant fiber (cellulose) and fungi were found in all three samples. Skin cells and dirt particles were found in samples from Simmons Hall and Dallas Hall. Synthetic fibers were found in samples from Heroy and Dallas Hall. There were some unidentified

19

particles that were unique to each slide, such as the bladed mineral found in the sample from Heroy Hall. While some there is some subjectivity as to the magnitude of the difference between the speciation of these samples, the differences do not appear negligible and therefore, Ho is rejected.

20

5. Conclusions

5.1 Discussion: Considering the first hypothesis, the data indicates that there was actually a higher density of particulate matter in the air sample from the newest building tested, Simmons Hall, compared to the oldest building tested, Dallas Hall. This directly contrasted with the hypothesized result. However, it should also be noted that the sample from Heroy Hall showed the highest particle concentration out of the three samples. This result does not appear to be related to the relative ages of the buildings. Therefore, there must be other factors at play that determine the particle concentration of these indoor sites; potential examples might include size of the room, location within the room, proximity of the sample site to objects such as ventilation units, people, and furniture, or proximity of the sample site to doors or windows.

Considering the second hypothesis, the data indicates that the samples from Heroy and Dallas Hall had significantly higher concentrations of large coarse particles than the sample from Simmons Hall. The difference was conclusive enough to declare the null hypothesis false. However, it is still possible that there may be other factors at play that determine the difference in particle size, which might include some of the variables listed above.

Considering the third hypothesis, the data indicates that there are in fact differences between the particle compositions of each sample; however, there is still a good deal of overlap in the types of particles seen in each slide. The rejection of the null hypothesis is therefore limited by a certain degree of subjectivity in determining how large the difference is.

5.2 Discoveries: The overarching discovery to come out of these conclusions concerns the general assumption that newly built buildings are inherently “cleaner” and would therefore have less particulate matter pollution. However, it appears that this is not necessarily the case, especially when concerning total particulate matter count. Another important discovery made through the process of analyzing this data was that there are many sources of error that may cause the experiment to turn out differently.

5.3 Future Recommendations: There are many more variables in play that determine the samples’ particle count, composition, distribution, and potential for error. One notable factor not discussed in this experiment is the highly variable physical distribution of particles on a sample slide; one might have clusters of particles in the center, while another might be more spread out, although they generally still have the highest densities in the center. Another source of error is simple mistakes in counting and extrapolation; these errors could be corrected over the course of many repeated experiments.

5.4 Final Thoughts: On a personal level, I found that the real learning experience from this project came about not from the results of the data analysis but the process of acquiring that data, from the sampling itself to the analysis of the samples. This project enabled us as a class to experience the techniques and importance of air sampling and air quality assessment firsthand.

21

6. Appendices

6.1 List of Photographs:

Photo 1.7.1.1 – Site 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6

Photo 1.7.1.2 – Site 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

Photo 1.7.1.3 – Site 3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

Photo 2.2.1 – Air pump, rotameter, and sampling cassette…………………………………………………………9

Photo 2.3.1 – Project Team……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10

6.2 List of Tables:

Table 3.2.1 – Data collected from sample sites…………………………………………………………….12

Table 4.2.1 – Coarse particle counts, Site 1…………………………………………………………………..13

Table 4.2.2 – Fine particle counts, Site 1………………………………………………………………………13

Table 4.2.5 – Coarse particle counts, Site 2…………………………………………………………………..15

Table 4.2.6 – Fine particle counts, Site 2………………………………………………………………………15

Table 4.2.9 – Coarse particle counts, Site 3…………………………………………………………………16

Table 4.2.10 – Fine particle counts, Site 3……………………………………………………………………16

6.3 List of Figures:

Figure 4.2.3 - Particle composition by size, Site 1……………………………………………..14

Figure 4.2.7 – Particle composition by size, Site 2…………………………………………….15

Figure 4.2.11 – Particle composition by size, Site 3…………………………………………..17

6.4 Data:

Original Particle Count Spreadsheets:

Site 1:

Coarse Particles (microns)

Number of Particles Speciation:

>100 16 cellulose80-100 8 skin cells60-80 9 pollen

22

50-60 9 gypsum/mineral dust40-50 15 soil particles25-40 36 fungi10-25 1162.5-10 738


Fine Particles (microns)

1-2.5 1150

0-1 1154


Total Particles 3251

Site 2:

Coarse Particles (microns) Number of Particles Speciation:>100 16 synthetic fiber80-100 5 mineral dust60-80 3 dirt50-60 6 fungi40-50 4 plant fibers (very few)25-40 10 bladed mineral10-25 942.5-10 832Total Coarse Particles 970

Fine Particles (microns)1-2.5 9830-1 2293Total Fine Particles 3276


Site 3:

23

Coarse Particles (microns) Number of Particles Speciation:>100 9 synthetic fiber80-100 6 fungi60-80 2 plant fiber50-60 5 skin cells40-50 10 mineral dust/dirt25-40 8 Notes:10-25 52

Particles on this slide appeared more spread out than on the other slides, where they usually clustered together.

2.5-10 163Total Coarse Particles 255

Fine Particles (microns)1-2.5 11230-1 1076Total Fine Particles 2199


Field Data Sheets:

24

25

26

27

6.5 References:

Particulates Observed on Selected Air Sample Media. Brown, Hackey: EcoSystems Environmental, Inc. Prepared for Dr. Troy Stuckey.

Air Quality, 4 th Edition. Godish 2004. CRC Press LLC.

Fundamentals of Air Sampling. Wight 1994. CRC Press LLC.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_guide.html

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_guide.html

Documents

Air Quality Paper