Technical ReportPDF Available

Volatile Organic Compounds and Air Fresheners

Authors:
Juan Reynoso
Juan Reynoso
Juan Reynoso
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Parichehr Salimifard at Oregon State University
Parichehr Salimifard
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation
Content uploaded by Parichehr Salimifard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Parichehr Salimifard on Sep 10, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
FOR HEALTH
FORHEALTH.ORG
FOR HEALTH
BUILDING EVIDENCE
Version 1, May 2019
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS AND AIR
FRESHENERS
Contributors: Juan Reynoso, MPH/MUP, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Graduate School of Design
Parichehr Salimifard, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
What are volatile organic compounds?
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a diverse set of chemicals, liquids and solids, that can evaporate under ordinary
atmospheric conditions. 1,2 Some commonly known and used VOCs include acetone3, benzene 4, and formaldehyde. 5 VOCs
are highly reactive; therefore, besides themselves being primary pollutants, they can also react with oxidants such as ozone
and hydroxyl and nitrate radicals and produce secondary pollutants such as formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, glycol ethers, free
radicals, and particles. 6
Because of their chemical properties, VOCs are used as essential
ingredients in many products and materials. In fact, they are released
by numerous commonly used consumer products including air
fresheners, cleaning products, cosmetics, pesticides, paints, wax and
polish products, and ooring.1, 6-9 VOCs are also emitted by various
indoor activities, such as smoking tobacco, dry cleaning, oce printing, 3D printing, and using wood-red stoves. 1,7,9-11
Additionally, VOCs are also released by motor vehicle exhaust and, when in the presence of sunlight and nitrogen
oxides, they are highly reactive and contribute to the formation of ozone and smog. 1,2,9 Although VOCs are also present
in outdoor environment, concentrations of VOCs in indoor environments are consistently higher than outdoors, and
elevated concentrations can persist longer indoors.7 Moreover, since U.S. residents spend on average 90% of their
time indoors,12,13 indoor exposure to VOCs are of particular concern. Hence, reducing indoor VOCs is critical for building
occupants’ health.
Among indoor consumer products, the product category that releases the highest levels of VOCs is air freshener.14-17 An
air freshener is a product that releases a fragrance in order to add a pleasant scent to the space or to mask bad odors. Air
fresheners do not clean the air, nor do they reduce air pollutants. 14 In 2003, the California Air Resources Board found air
fresheners to have some of the highest per capita VOC emissions of any household, followed by cleaning products.18 Like
air fresheners, cleaning products are also a major source VOCs emissions indoors. However, while there are objective health
benets in using cleaning products, using air fresheners has only perceived benets. 6 Nonetheless, air fresheners have a
growing global market of over US $10 billion.19
How do VOCs in air fresheners impact health?
VOCs commonly enter the body through two main pathways: 1) inhalation through the lungs and 2) skin contact with
products that release VOCs.9 Some immediate symptoms that people may experience after exposure to VOCs include:
eye and respiratory tract irritation, headaches, dizziness, visual
disorders, and memory impairment. 1,7,9 Other long-term symptoms
associated with exposure to VOCs include: allergic skin reactions,
nausea, fatigue, vomiting, nosebleeds, diculty breathing, and
damage to the liver, kidney, and central nervous system . 1,7,9
Among the VOCs commonly found to be emitted by air fresheners,
benzene and formaldehyde are of particular concern, as they have
been linked to cancer among humans. 4,5,9,20 Toluene, ethylene, and
limonene have also been found in air fresheners and been linked to
Editor in Chief | Joseph G. Allen, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Air fresheners do not clean the air, nor do
they reduce air pollutants.
Among the VOCs commonly found to be
emitted by air fresheners, benzene and
formaldehyde are of particular concern, as
they have been linked to cancer among
humans.
toxic health eects. 14,16,21 Furthermore, exposure to 1,4 dichlorobenzene from air fresheners has led to reductions in
lung function8 and has led to decreased function of the liver, kidneys, eyes, and organs of developing embryos and
fetuses.22
Since over 70% of U.S. households use air fresheners at least once a week and their use in the rest of the world
is also growing,15,19 millions of people around the world are at risk of the negative health impacts of VOCs. In
particular, janitors and other cleaning personnel are exposed to higher levels of VOCs because of their frequent
use of air fresheners and other cleaning products.6 It should also be noted that cigarette smokers and vulnerable
populations (i.e. young children, older people, pregnant women, and people with asthma) are more susceptible to
the eects of VOCs.9 Therefore, it is important to minimize exposure to air fresheners as much as possible.
What regulations exist?
At the federal level, there are no minimum regulations for air fresheners and there are no laws that require the
disclosure of all ingredients in fragranced consumer products.23 However, in 2017, California passed the Cleaning
Product Right to Know Act which, starting in 2020, requires manufacturers of air fresheners and other cleaning
products to disclose the information related to chemicals contained in the product, on the product label, and
on the product’s website, if those chemicals are known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive
toxicity. 24 Given the public reporting requirements of this new state law, all U.S. residents will benet from learning
about the VOCs and other chemicals emitted by air fresheners.
What can I do?
Foremost, the best way to protect yourself from the negative health impacts of air fresheners is to avoid their use
altogether in your home and advocate for a fragrance-free policy in your workplace. It should be noted that ALL
TYPES of air fresheners, even those referred to as “green”, “organic”, or “natural”, have VOC emission potential. 19
However, if you live or work in a building where complete elimination of air fresheners is not an option, consider
adopting the following strategies:
• Address the root of the problem: When odor becomes an issue in indoor spaces, consider addressing the
source of the unpleasant odor instead of using air fresheners to mask it. Such an approach may even help
address other indoor air quality issues.
• Before installing products with high VOCs, such as new carpet, in buildings, let them stay outside to release
their VOCs.1
• In spaces where occupants have higher breathing rates, such as gyms and sports facilities, using air fresheners
can lead to elevated exposure risks. Therefore, it is recommended to avoid air fresheners particularly in those
spaces; e.g. burning candles and incense in yoga studios.
• Natural ventilation: A simple mitigation measure is to open the windows and increase the air change rate with
natural ventilation.25
• Mechanical ventilation: If you live in an area with poor outdoor air quality or with extreme outdoor air
temperatures where natural ventilation is not feasible, consider increasing the air change rate by increasing the
fresh air intake of the building’s heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. 7
BUILDING EVIDENCE FOR HEALTH
FOR HEALTH
FORHEALTH.ORG
Foremost, the best way to protect yourself from the negative health impacts of
air fresheners is to avoid their use altogether in your home and advocate for a
fragrance-free policy in your workplace. It should be noted that ALL TYPES of
air fresheners, even those referred to as “green”, “organic”, or “natural”, have VOC
emission potential.
REFERENCES
1. American Lung Association. Volatile Organic Compounds. (2018). Available at: https://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/
healthy-air/indoor/indoor-air-pollutants/volatile-organic-compounds.html. (Accessed: 16th May 2019)
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Overview of Volatile Organic Compounds. (2017). Available at: https://
www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/technical-overview-volatile-organic-compounds#main-content. (Accessed: 16th
May 2019)
3. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxic Substances Portal: Acetone. (2011). Available at: https://www.
atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=1. (Accessed: 16th May 2019)
4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxic Substances Portal: Benzene. (2011). Available at: https://www.
atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=14. (Accessed: 16th May 2019)
5. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxic Substances Portal: Formaldehyde. (2011). Available at: https://
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=39. (Accessed: 16th May 2019)
6. Nazaro, W. W. & Weschler, C. J. Cleaning products and air fresheners: exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants.
Atmos. Environ. 38, 2841–2865 (2004).
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Volatile Organic Compounds’ Impact on Indoor Air Quality. (2017). Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/volatile-organic-compounds-impact-indoor-air-quality#main-content.
(Accessed: 16th May 2019)
8. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Chemical in Many Air Fresheners May Reduce Lung Function.
(2006). Available at: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2006/july27/index.cfm. (Accessed: 16th May
2019)
9. National Library of Medicine. Volatile Organic Compuounds (VOCs): Your Environment, Your Health. (2017). Available at:
https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/chemicals-and-contaminants/volatile-organic-compounds-vocs. (Accessed: 16th May 2019)
10. Azimi, P., Zhao, D., Pouzet, C., Crain, N. E. & Stephens, B. Emissions of Ultrane Particles and Volatile Organic Compounds
from Commercially Available Desktop Three-Dimensional Printers with Multiple Filaments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50,
1260–1268 (2016).
11. Miller, S. L., Brano, S. & Nazaro, W. W. Exposure to toxic air contaminants in environmental tobacco smoke: an
assessment for California based on personal monitoring data. J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 8, 287–311 (1998).
12. Klepeis, N. E. et al. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to
environmental pollutants. J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 11, 231–52 (2001).
13. U.S. Environmental Protection. Report to Congress on indoor air quality: Vol II: Assessment and control of indoor air
pollution. EPA/400/1-89/001C. (1989).
14. Kim, S., Hong, S.-H., Bong, C.-K. & Cho, M.-H. Characterization of air freshener emission: the potential health eects. J.
Toxicol. Sci. 40, 535–550 (2015).
15. National Resources Defense Fund. New Study: Common Air Fresheners Contain Chemicals That May Aect Human
Reproductive Development. (2007). Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070919. (Accessed: 16th May 2019
16. Singer, B. C. et al. Indoor secondary pollutants from cleaning product and air freshener use in the presence of ozone.
Atmos. Environ. 40, 6696–6710 (2006).
17. Wallace, L. A., Pellizzari, E., Leaderer, B., Zelon, H. & Sheldon, L. Emissions of volatile organic compounds from building
materials and consumer products. Atmos. Environ. 21, 385–393 (1987).
18. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1997 Consumer and Commercial Products Survey - Summary of Sales and
Emissions (as of 3/21/00). (2003).
19. Steinemann, A. Ten questions concerning air fresheners and indoor built environments. Build. Environ. 111, 279–284
(2017).
20. California Oce of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The Proposition 65 List. (2018). Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/proposition-65-list. (Accessed: 16th May 2019)
21. Liu, X., Mason, M., Krebs, K. & Sparks, L. Full-Scale Chamber Investigation and Simulation of Air Freshener Emissions in the
Presence of Ozone. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 2802–2812 (2004).
22. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxic Substances Portal: Dichlorobenzenes. (2011). Available at:
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=126. (Accessed: 16th May 2019)
23. Steinemann, A. Fragranced consumer products: exposures and eects from emissions. Air Qual. Atmos. Heal. 9, 861–866
(2016).
24. California Legislature. Senate Bill No. 258 Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017. (2017). Available at: https://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB258. (Accessed: 16th May 2019)
25. Howard-Reed, C., Wallace, L. A. & Ott, W. R. The Eect of Opening Windows on Air Change Rates in Two Homes. J. Air
Waste Manage. Assoc. 52, 147–159 (2002).
BUILDING EVIDENCE FOR HEALTH
FOR HEALTH
FORHEALTH.ORG
... Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are an organic chemical that easily becomes gaseous at room temperature. Emission of VOC would come from building materials such as paint and varnishes that contain toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene [1], [2], home and personal care products such as air fresheners which contain benzene, formaldehyde, toluene, ethylene, and linalool [3], [4], even emission through transportation. Continuous inhalation of VOCs can cause headaches, skin allergies, even cancer. ...
Temperature Profile of Hollow Aluminum Heated using Thermoelectric on Both Sides
Article
Full-text available
  • Sep 2021
The use of QCM sensors for gas sensors requires a reaction space known as headspace. Gas sensor headspace is needed to be heated to enable the gas molecule to react with the sensor sensitive layer. In the development of a sensor array, sensor placement requires space. As a result, the sensor experiences a temperature condition influenced by the sensor’s placement. Our headspace was made of a rectangular aluminum hollow. The hollow dimension was 40mm in height and 20mm in width with an aluminum thickness of 1mm. The aluminum hollow was heated on two sides using two thermoelectric TEC-12706. The temperature distribution of the aluminum heated by thermoelectric on both sides shows the temperature distribution profile, which depends on its position towards the thermoelectric. At the elevated temperature of 80°C, aluminum’s surface temperature shows a uniform temperature distribution in the direction perpendicular to the thermoelectric surface. In the direction parallel to the thermoelectric surface, the temperature profile shows a curved curve with the thermoelectric midpoint’s highest temperature. The temperature difference between the point parallel to the midpoint and the thermoelectric edge is 5°C. A temperature difference of less than 1°C is only obtained in an area 1cm wide from the thermoelectric midpoint position. This result suggests that a wider thermoelectric surface should be considered to obtain a wider area with uniform temperature.
View
Ten questions concerning air fresheners and indoor built environments
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2016
  • BUILD ENVIRON
Air fresheners are pervasive within indoor built environments, such as workplaces, schools, housing, transportation, hotels, hospitals, care facilities, and a range of private and public buildings. Air fresheners are designed to impart an aroma to the air environment or to mask odors, with the intent of creating a pleasing indoor space. However, despite the intent, air fresheners can emit and generate a range of potentially hazardous air pollutants that can impair air quality. Even so-called green and organic air fresheners can emit hazardous air pollutants. Air freshener ingredients are largely unknown and undisclosed, owing to regulatory protections on consumer product ingredients and on fragrance formulations. In studies, fewer than ten percent of all volatile ingredients are typically disclosed on air freshener labels or material safety data sheets. From an indoor air quality perspective, air fresheners have been indicated as a primary source of volatile organic compounds within buildings. From a health perspective, air fresheners have been associated with adverse effects, such as migraine headaches, asthma attacks, mucosal symptoms, infant illness, and breathing difficulties. This article investigates the seeming paradox that products designed to improve the indoor environment can pose unintended and unknown risks. It examines the science, health, and policy perspectives, and provides recommendations and research directions.
View
Fragranced consumer products: exposures and effects from emissions
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2016
Fragranced consumer products, such as cleaning supplies, air fresheners, and personal care products, are a primary source of indoor air pollutants and personal exposure. Previous research indicates that fragranced products can trigger adverse health effects, with implications for workplaces and public places. This is the first study to examine the multiple dimensions of exposures related to fragranced products and effects in the US population. The study investigated the prevalence and types of fragranced product exposures, associated health effects, awareness of product emissions, and preferences for fragrance-free policies and environments. Data were collected using an online survey with a nationally representative population (n = 1136) of adults in the USA. Overall, 34.7 % of the population reported health problems, such as migraine headaches and respiratory difficulties, when exposed to fragranced products. Further, 15.1 % have lost workdays or a job due to fragranced product exposure in the workplace. Also, 20.2 % would enter a business but then leave as quickly as possible if they smell air fresheners or some fragranced product. Over 50 % of the population would prefer that workplaces, health care facilities and professionals, hotels, and airplanes were fragrance-free. While prior research found that common fragranced products, even those called green and organic, emitted hazardous air pollutants, more than two thirds of the population were not aware of this, and over 60 % would not continue to use a fragranced product if they knew it emitted such pollutants. Results from this study provide strong evidence that fragranced products can trigger adverse health effects in the general population. The study also indicates that reducing exposure to fragranced products, such as through fragrance-free policies, can provide cost-effective and relatively simple ways to reduce risks and improve air quality and health.
View
Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds from Building Materials and Consumer Products
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 1987
  • Atmos Environ
EPA's TEAM Study of personal exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOC) in air and drinking water of 650 residents of seven U.S. cities resulted in the identification of a number of possible sources encountered in peoples' normal daily activities and in their homes. A follow-up EPA study of publicaccess buildings implicated other potential sources of exposure. To learn more about these potential sources, 15 building materials and common consumer products were analyzed using a headspace technique to detect organic emissions and to compare relative amounts. About 10–100 organic compounds were detected offgassing from each material. Four mixtures of materials were then chosen for detailed study: paint on sheetrock; carpet and carpet glue; wallpaper and adhesives; cleansers and a spray pesticide. The materials were applied as normally used, allowed to age 1 week (except for the cleansers and pesticides, which were used normally during the monitoring period), and placed in an environmentally controlled chamber. Organic vapors were collected on Tenax-GC over a 4-h period and analyzed by GC-MS techniques. Emission rates and chamber concentrations were calculated for 17 target chemicals chosen for their toxic, carcinogenic or mutagenic properties. Thirteen of the 17 chemicals were emitted by one or more of the materials. Elevated concentrations of chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, n-decane, n-undecane, p-dichlorobenzene, 1,2-dichloroethane and styrene were produced by the four mixtures of materials tested. For some chemicals, these amounts were sufficient to account for a significant fraction of the elevated concentrations observed in previous indoor air studies. We conclude that common materials found in nearly every home and place of business may cause elevated exposures to toxic chemicals.
View
The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2001
  • J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol
Because human activities impact the timing, location, and degree of pollutant exposure, they play a key role in explaining exposure variation. This fact has motivated the collection of activity pattern data for their specific use in exposure assessments. The largest of these recent efforts is the National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS), a 2-year probability-based telephone survey ( n=9386) of exposure-related human activities in the United States (U.S.) sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The primary purpose of NHAPS was to provide comprehensive and current exposure information over broad geographical and temporal scales, particularly for use in probabilistic population exposure models. NHAPS was conducted on a virtually daily basis from late September 1992 through September 1994 by the University of Maryland's Survey Research Center using a computer-assisted telephone interview instrument (CATI) to collect 24-h retrospective diaries and answers to a number of personal and exposure-related questions from each respondent. The resulting diary records contain beginning and ending times for each distinct combination of location and activity occurring on the diary day (i.e., each microenvironment). Between 340 and 1713 respondents of all ages were interviewed in each of the 10 EPA regions across the 48 contiguous states. Interviews were completed in 63% of the households contacted. NHAPS respondents reported spending an average of 87% of their time in enclosed buildings and about 6% of their time in enclosed vehicles. These proportions are fairly constant across the various regions of the U.S. and Canada and for the California population between the late 1980s, when the California Air Resources Board (CARB) sponsored a state-wide activity pattern study, and the mid-1990s, when NHAPS was conducted. However, the number of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in California seems to have decreased over the same time period, where exposure is determined by the reported time spent with a smoker. In both California and the entire nation, the most time spent exposed to ETS was reported to take place in residential locations.
View
The Effect of Opening Windows on Air Change Rates in Two Homes
Article
Full-text available
  • Mar 2002
More than 300 air change rate experiments were completed in two occupied residences: a two-story detached house in Redwood City, CA, and a three-story townhouse in Reston, VA. A continuous monitor was used to measure the decay of SF6 tracer gas over periods of 1-18 hr. Each experiment first included a measurement of the air change rate with all exterior doors and windows closed (State 0), then a measurement with the single change from State 0 conditions of opening one or more windows. The overall average State 0 air change rate was 0.37 air changes per hour (hr(-1)) (SD = 0.10 hr(-1); n = 112) for the California house and 0.41 hr(-1) (SD = 0.19 hr(-1); n = 203) for the Virginia house. Indoor/outdoor temperature differences appeared to be responsible for the variation at the Virginia house of 0.15-0.85 hr(-1) when windows were closed. Opening a single window increased the State 0 air change rate by an amount roughly proportional to the width of the opening, reaching increments as high as 0.80 hr(-1) in the California house and 1.3 hr(-1) in the Virginia house. Multiple window openings increased the air change rate by amounts ranging from 0.10 to 2.8 hr(-1) in the California house and from 0.49 to 1.7 hr(-1) in the Virginia house. Compared with temperature differences and wind effects, opening windows produced the greatest increase in the air change rates measured in both homes. Results of this study indicate the importance of occupant window-opening behavior on a home's air change rate and the consequent need to incorporate this factor when estimating human exposure to indoor air pollutants.
View
Emissions of ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds from commercially available desktop 3D printers with multiple filaments
Article
  • Jan 2016
  • ENVIRON SCI TECHNOL
Most desktop 3D printers designed for the consumer market utilize a plastic filament extrusion and deposition process to fabricate solid objects. Previous research has shown that the operation of extrusion-based desktop 3D printers can emit large numbers of ultrafine particles (UFPs: particles less than 100 nm) and some hazardous volatile organic compounds (VOCs), although very few filament and printer combinations have been tested to date. Here we quantify emissions of UFPs and speciated VOCs from five commercially available desktop 3D printers utilizing up to nine different filaments using controlled experiments in a test chamber. Median estimates of time-varying UFP emission rates ranged from ~108 to ~1011 #/min across all tested combinations, varying primarily by filament material and, to a lesser extent, bed temperature. The individual VOCs emitted in the largest quantities included caprolactam from nylon-based and imitation wood and brick filaments (ranging from ~2 to ~180 μg/min), styrene from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) filaments (~10 to ~110 μg/min), and lactide from polylactic acid (PLA) filaments (~4 to ~5 μg/min). Results from a screening analysis of the potential exposures to these products in a typical small office environment suggest caution should be used when operating many of the printer and filament combinations in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces or without the aid of a combined gas and particle filtration system.
View
Characterization of air freshener emission: The potential health effects
Article
  • Sep 2015
  • J Toxicol Sci
Air freshener could be one of the multiple sources that release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the indoor environment. The use of these products may be associated with an increase in the measured level of terpene, such as xylene and other volatile air freshener components, including aldehydes, and esters. Air freshener is usually used indoors, and thus some compounds emitted from air freshener may have potentially harmful health impacts, including sensory irritation, respiratory symptoms, and dysfunction of the lungs. The constituents of air fresheners can react with ozone to produce secondary pollutants such as formaldehyde, secondary organic aerosol (SOA), oxidative product, and ultrafine particles. These pollutants then adversely affect human health, in many ways such as damage to the central nervous system, alteration of hormone levels, etc. In particular, the ultrafine particles may induce severe adverse effects on diverse organs, including the pulmonary and cardiovascular systems. Although the indoor use of air freshener is increasing, deleterious effects do not manifest for many years, making it difficult to identify air freshener-associated symptoms. In addition, risk assessment recognizes the association between air fresheners and adverse health effects, but the distinct causal relationship remains unclear. In this review, the emitted components of air freshener, including benzene, phthalate, and limonene, were described. Moreover, we focused on the health effects of these chemicals and secondary pollutants formed by the reaction with ozone. In conclusion, scientific guidelines on emission and exposure as well as risk characterization of air freshener need to be established.
View
Cleaning products and air fresheners: Exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants
Article
  • Jan 2004
Cited By (since 1996): 195 , Export Date: 4 February 2013 , Source: Scopus , The following values have no corresponding Zotero field: Author Address: Dept. of Civ. and Environ. Eng., University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1710, United States Author Address: Environ. and Occup. Hlth. Sci. Inst., Univ. Med. and Dent. of New Jersey, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, United States Author Address: Intl. Ctr. Indoor Environ. and Ener., Technical University of Denmark, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
View
Indoor secondary pollutants from cleaning product and air freshener use in the presence of ozone
Article
  • Nov 2006
  • ATMOS ENVIRON
This study investigated the formation of secondary pollutants resulting from household product use in the presence of ozone. Experiments were conducted in a 50-m3 chamber simulating a residential room. The chamber was operated at conditions relevant to US residences in polluted areas during warm-weather seasons: an air exchange rate of 1.0 h−1 and an inlet ozone concentration of approximately 120 ppb, when included. Three products were used in separate experiments. An orange oil-based degreaser and a pine oil-based general-purpose cleaner were used for surface cleaning applications. A plug-in scented-oil air freshener (AFR) was operated for several days. Cleaning products were applied realistically with quantities scaled to simulate residential use rates. Concentrations of organic gases and secondary organic aerosol from the terpene-containing consumer products were measured with and without ozone introduction. In the absence of reactive chemicals, the chamber ozone level was approximately 60 ppb. Ozone was substantially consumed following cleaning product use, mainly by homogeneous reaction. For the AFR, ozone consumption was weaker and heterogeneous reaction with sorbed AFR-constituent VOCs was of similar magnitude to homogeneous reaction with continuously emitted constituents. Formaldehyde generation resulted from product use with ozone present, increasing indoor levels by the order of 10 ppb. Cleaning product use in the presence of ozone generated substantial fine particle concentrations (more than 100 μg m−3) in some experiments. Ozone consumption and elevated hydroxyl radical concentrations persisted for 10–12 h following brief cleaning events, indicating that secondary pollutant production can persist for extended periods.
View
Exposure to toxic air contaminants in environmental tobacco smoke: An assessment for California based on personal monitoring data
Article
  • Sep 1998
  • J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol
The contribution of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to the exposure of adult nonsmoking Californians was determined for selected toxic air contaminants (TACs). The assessment was based on published measurements of ETS emission factors and personal exposures to volatile organic compounds. The human exposure studies were conducted in three California areas--Los Angeles, Pittsburgh/Antioch, and Woodland--between 1984 and 1990. We derived unexposed and passive population exposure distributions by randomly sampling the monitoring results for individuals classified according to exposure status (active smoker, passively exposed or unexposed to ETS during monitoring). The differences between the unexposed and passive distributions were used to estimate the ETS-only contribution for exposure to benzene, styrene, o-xylene, and m,p-xylene. Emission factors were then employed to infer the ETS-caused exposure to thirteen other compounds. The estimated arithmetic mean increments of 24-hour exposure attributable to ETS for the nonsmoking Californian population (age > or = 7) exposed to ETS are as follows (results in units of microgram m-3 exposure concentration; results using two different emission factors presented as a range): acetaldehyde 11-15; acetonitrile 7.0; acrylonitrile 0.49; benzene 1.02; 1,3-butadiene 0.75-2.3; 2-butanone 1.4; o-cresol 0.17; m,p-cresol 0.41; ethyl acrylate < 0.015; ethylbenzene 0.49-0.64; formaldehyde 6.5-8.2; n-nitrosodimethylamine 0.0028; phenol 1.4; styrene 0.36; toluene 3.1-3.2; o-xylene 0.77; m,p-xylene 0.99. The 90% confidence limits on these estimates due to the limited sample size in the studies are roughly x/ divided by 6. For four widely studied compounds, ETS is estimated to contribute the following percentages to the total inhalation exposure of all nonsmoking Californians: o-xylene 5%; m,p-xylene 3%; benzene 5%; and styrene 8%.
View