Changes in atmospheric concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls between the 1990s and 2010s in an Australian city and the role of bushfires as a source

Over recent decades, efforts have been made to reduce human exposure to atmospheric pollutants including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) through emission control and abatement. Along with the potential changes in their concentrations resulting from these efforts, profiles of emission sources may have also changed over such extended timeframes. However relevant data are quite limited in the Southern Hemisphere. We revisited two sampling sites in an Australian city, where the concentration data in 1994/5 for atmospheric PAHs and PCBs were available. Monthly air samples from July 2013 to June 2014 at the two sites were collected and analysed for these compounds, using similar protocols to the original study. A prominent seasonal pattern was observed for PAHs with elevated concentrations in cooler months whereas PCB levels showed little seasonal variation. Compared to two decades ago, atmospheric concentrations of ∑13 PAHs (gaseous + particle-associated) in this city have decreased by approximately one order of magnitude and the apparent halving time ( t 1 / 2 ) was estimated as 6.2 ± 0.56 years. ∑6 iPCBs concentrations (median value; gaseous + particle-associated) have decreased by 80% with an estimated t 1 / 2 of 11 ± 2.9 years. These trends and values are similar to those reported for comparable sites in the Northern Hemisphere. To characterise emission source profiles, samples were also collected from a bushfire event and within a vehicular tunnel. Emissions from bushfires are suggested to be an important contributor to the current atmospheric concentrations of PAHs in this city. This contribution is more important in cooler months, i.e. June, July and August, and its importance may have increased over the last two decades.

Risk assessment for airborne infectious diseases between natural ventilation and split-system air conditioner in a university classroom

Indoor air quality is a critical factor in the classroom due to high people concentration in a unique space. Indoor air pollutant might increase the chance of both long and short-term health problems among students and staff, reduce the productivity of teachers and degrade the student’s learning environment and comfort. Adequate air distribution strategies may reduce risk of infection in classroom. So, the purpose of air distribution systems in a classroom is not only to maximize conditions for thermal comfort, but also to remove indoor contaminants. Natural ventilation has the potential to play a significant role in achieving improvements in IAQ. The present study compares the risk of airborne infection between Natural Ventilation (opening windows and doors) and a Split-System Air Conditioner in a university classroom. The Wells-Riley model was used to predict the risk of indoor airborne transmission of infectious diseases such as influenza, measles and tuberculosis. For each case, the air exchange rate was measured using a CO2 tracer gas technique. It was found that opening windows and doors provided an air exchange rate of 2.3 air changes/hour (ACH), while with the Split System it was 0.6 ACH. The risk of airborne infection ranged between 4.24 to 30.86 % when using the Natural Ventilation and between 8.99 to 43.19% when using the Split System. The difference of airborne infection risk between the Split System and the Natural Ventilation ranged from 47 to 56%. Opening windows and doors maximize Natural Ventilation so that the risk of airborne contagion is much lower than with Split System.