Advertisement

Simulating Indoor Atmospheres: Development Of An Explicit Chemical Mechanism

  • N. Carslaw
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

The focus of most air quality research until recently has been on the outdoor environment, and chemical mechanisms have been constructed and used to describe the key processes that occur there. However, in developed countries, we typically spend 90% of our time indoors, and so exposure to air pollutants is likely to occur in the indoor environment, whether at home, in the workplace or whilst commuting. There are some important differences between indoor and outdoor air chemistry. There is much less light indoors than outdoors, particularly in the UV, and so photolysis processes tend to be relatively unimportant indoors. There is also a much larger surface area available for reaction indoors compared with outdoors, owing to the presence of walls, floors, and furnishings. Consequently, chemical mechanisms with which to study indoor air have to account for these differences. They must also consider processes such as indoor-outdoor exchange, indoor emissions and the chemical degradation of species that are important indoors but do not feature in chemical mechanisms that describe atmospheric degradation outdoors. In this paper, a detailed chemical box model is described, that has been constructed based on a comprehensive chemical mechanism (the Master Chemical Mechanism) to investigate indoor air chemistry in a typical urban residence in the UK. Unlike previous modeling studies of indoor air chemistry, the mechanism adopted contains no simplifications such as lumping or the use of surrogate species, allowing more insight into indoor air chemistry than previously possible. The chemical mechanism contains around 16,000 reactions and 5,000 species. The results show a predicted indoor OH radical concentration up to 4.0 x 105 molecule cm-3, only a factor of 10–20 less than typically observed outdoors and sufficient for significant chemical cycling to take place. The reactions of ozone with alkenes and monoterpenes play a major role in producing new radicals. Concentrations of PAN-type species and organic nitrates reach concentrations of a few ppb indoors, with potential health implications. Sensitivity tests highlight that the most crucial parameters for modeling the concentration of OH are the light intensity levels, the air exchange rate and the outdoor concentrations of O3 and NOX.

Keywords

Indoor air chemistry master chemical mechanism ozone-terpene chemistry OH radicals 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Carslaw, N., 2003. Where next with indoor air measurements? Atmospheric Environment 37, 5645–5646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carslaw, N., 2007. A new detailed chemical model for indoor air pollution, Atmospheric Environment 41, 1164–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carslaw, N., Wolkoff, P., 2006. A new European initiative for indoor air pollution research, Indoor Air 16, 4–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP), 2004;http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/COMEAP/index.htm.
  5. Crump, D.R., Squire, R.W., Yu, C.W.F., 1997. Sources and concentrations of formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds in the indoor air of four newly built unoccupied test houses, Indoor Built Environment 6, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drakou, G., Zerefos, C., Ziomas, I., Voyatzaki, M., 1998. Measurements and numerical simulations of indoor O3 and NOX in two different cases, Atmospheric Environment 32, 595–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Emmerson, K.M., Carslaw, N., Pilling, M.J., 2005. Urban atmospheric chemistry during the PUMA Campaign. 2. Radical budgets for OH, HO2 and RO2, Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry 52,165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faloona, I., Tan, D., Brune, W., Hurst, J., Barket, D., Couch, T.L., Shepson, P., Apel, E., Riemer, D.,Thornberry, T., Carroll, M.A., Sillman, S., Keeler, G.J., Sagady, J., Hooper, D., Paterson, K., 2001. Nighttime observations of anomalously high levels of hydroxyl radicals above a deciduous forest canopy, Journal of Geophysical Research 106, 24315–24333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jenkin, M.E., Saunders, S.M., Pilling, M.J., 1997. Construction and application of a master chemical mechanism (MCM) for modelling tropospheric chemistry, Atmospheric Environment 31, 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jenkin, M.E., Saunders, S.M., Wagner, V., Pilling, M.J., 2003. Protocol for the development of the Master Chemical Mechanism, MCM v3 (Part B): tropospheric degradation of aromatic volatile organic compounds, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 3, 181–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nazaroff, W.W., Cass, G.R., 1986. Mathematical modelling of chemically reactive pollutants in indoor air, Environmental Science and Technology 20, 924–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nazaroff, W.W., Weschler, C.J., 2004. Cleaning products and air fresheners: exposure to primary and secondary air pollutants, Atmospheric Environment 38, 2841–2865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Platt, U., Alicke, B., Dubois, R., Geyer, A., Hofzumahaus, A., Holland, F., Martinez, M., Mihelcic, D.,Klupfel, T., Lohrmann, B., Patz, W., Perner, D., Rohrer, F., Schafer, J., Stutz, J., 2002. Free radicals and fast photochemistry during BERLIOZ, Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry 42, 359–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sarwar, G., Corsi, R., Kimura, Y., Allen, D., Weschler, C., 2002. Hydroxyl radicals in indoor environments, Atmospheric Environment 36, 3973–3988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saunders, S.M., Jenkin, M.E., Derwent, R.G., Pilling, M.J., 2003. Protocol for the development of the Master Chemical Mechanism, MCM v3 (Part A): tropospheric degradation of non-aromatic volatile organic compounds, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 3, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. SØrensen, D.N., Weschler, C.J., 2002. Modeling gas-phase reactions in indoor environments using computational fluid dynamics, Atmospheric Environment 36, 9–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wainmann, T., Weschler, C.J., Lioy, P.J., Zhang, J., 2001. Effects of surface type and relative humidity on the production and concentration of nitrous acid in a model environment, Environmental Science and Technology 35, 2200–2206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weschler, C.J., 2004. Ozone-initiated reaction products indoors may be more harmful than ozone itself,Atmospheric Environment 38, 5715–5716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Weschler, C.J., Shields, H.C., 1996. Production of the hydroxyl radical in indoor air, Environmental Science and Technology 30, 3250–3258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weschler, C.J., Shields, H.C., 1997. Measurements of the hydroxyl radical in a manipulated but realistic indoor environment, Environmental Science and Technology 31, 3719–3722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weschler, C.J., Wells, R., 2004. Guest editorial, Indoor Air 14, 373–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wolkoff, P., 1999. How to measure and evaluate volatile organic compound emissions from building products. A perspective, Science of the Total Environment 227, 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolkoff, P., Nielsen, G.D., 2001. Organic compounds in indoor air — their relevance for perceived indoor air quality? Atmospheric Environment 35, 4407–4417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wolkoff, P., Clausen, P.A., Wilkins, C.K., Nielsen, G.D., 2000. Formation of strong airway irritants in terpene/ozone mixtures, Indoor Air 10, 82–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yu, C., Crump, D., 1998. A review of the emission of VOCs from polymeric materials used in buildings,Building and Environment 33, 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Carslaw
    • 1
  1. 1.Environment DepartmentUniversity of YorkYork

Personalised recommendations