oEPA
United States      Industrial Environmental Research  EPA-600/7-80-084
Environmental Protection  Laboratory          April 1980
Agency        Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Exposure to Pollutants
from Domestic
Combustion Sources:
A Preliminary Assessment

Interagency
Energy/Environmenl
R&D Program Report

-------
                 RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination  of traditional  grouping  was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

    1. Environmental Health Effects Research

    2. Environmental Protection Technology

    3. Ecological Research

    4. Environmental Monitoring

    5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

    6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)

    7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

    8. "Special" Reports

    9. Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the  INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND  DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series  result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies  relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to  assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport  of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects;  assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
                        EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products  constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                  EPA-600/7-80-084

                                           April 1980
   Exposure  to  Pollutants from
Domestic Combustion  Sources:
     A Preliminary Assessment
                       by

           Edward T. Brookman and Amnon Birenzvige

            TRC  Environmental  Consultants, Inc.
                 125 Silas Deane Highway
              Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
                Contract No. 68-02-3115
                    Task No. 112
               Program Element No. INE623
             EPA Project Officer: John 0. Milliken

          Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
        Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology
              Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                    Prepared for

          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             Office of Research and Development
                 Washington, DC 20460

-------
     EXPOSURE TO POLLUTANTS FROM
     DOMESTIC COMBUSTION SOURCES:
        A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
                    by

             Edward T. Brookman
              Amnon Birenzvige

TRC - The Research Corporation of New England
           125 Silas Deane Highway
       Wethersfield, Connecticut  06109

           Contract No. 68-02-3115
                Task No. 12

     EPA Project Officer: 3ohn O. Milliken

 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
             Special Studies Staff
 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

                Prepared for

     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Research and Development
           Washington, DC 20460

-------
                                 ABSTRACT
     Certain domestic combustion sources emit airborne particulate matter (PM),
carbon monoxide (CO), and polycyclic organic matter (POM) in close proximity to
human receptors.  The transient ambient concentrations of these pollutants at the
receptor and the corresponding time-averaged exposures have been determined for
the following domestic combustion sources:  lawn mowing, chain sawing, charcoal
cooking, indoor gas cooking, and indoor sidestream smoke.  An  experimental test
program utilizing personal monitoring equipment was conducted to acquire data for
the lawn mower,  chain  saw,  and charcoal grill sources.   Literature data were
utilized  to assess  the indoor sources of gas cooking  and sidestream smoke.  The
transient ambient  concentrations of  particulate matter encountered were  as high
as 36 times the 24-hour  secondary ambient air quality standard of  150 yg/m3 for
TSP.    However,  the presence  of  large  quantities  of  noncombustion-related
particulate matter on the filters  (e.g., grass particles, sawdust), concurrent lower
values of ambient CO relative  to  ambient  air quality CO standards,  and  the
absence  of detectable POM indicated that these  sources probably do not result in
exposures to combustion-generated pollutants that  are significant relative  to
exposures that would  be encountered in general TSP non-attainment areas that are
heavily impacted by stationary and mobile combustion  sources.
                                     -11-

-------
                                 CONTENTS
Abstract  	   ii

     1.   Introduction	    1
     2.   Exposures from Indoor Combustion Sources	    3
     3.   Exposures from Small Internal Combustion Engines
            and Charcoal Grills	   1*
     4.   Comparison of Exposures	29
     5.   Conclusions and Recommendations	36
     6.   References.  .	39
                                    -111-

-------
                                  FIGURES

Number                                                                Page

   1      Time Variation of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
               in a Typical Split-Levei Dwelling	      4
          Schematic of Sampling System Used for Domestic
               Combustion Field Tests	     16

          Average CO Concentrations from Charcoal Grills
               as a Function of Time	     26
                                    -IV-

-------
                                  TABLES
Number
   1.       Summary of Pollutant Emissions of Gas Appliances
              for Several Typical Operating Conditions ..........    6

   2.       Ratio of Sidestream to Mainstream
              CO Emission - Experimental Results ............    8

   3.       Aromatic Hydrocarbons Identified in
              Tobacco Smoke .....................   10

   4.       Number Concentration and Average Size of
              Particles Contained in Tobacco Smoke ...........   11

   5.       Domestic Combustion Field Test Parameters -
              Lawn Mowers ............ .  .........   18

   6.       Domestic Combustion Field Test Parameters -
              Chain Saws .......................   19

   7.       Domestic Combustion Field Test Parameters -
              Charcoal Grills .....................   21

   8.       Carbon Monoxide Results from the
              Experimental Test Program   ...............   24
   9.        Particulate Results from the
               Experimental Test Program  ...............   27

   10.        Source Usage Patterns Based on
               TRC Questionnaires ...................   30

   11.        "Typical" Exposures to Carbon Monoxide
               from Domestic Combustion Sources ............   32

   12.        "Typical" Exposures to Particulate Matter
               from Domestic Combustion Sources ........  ....   34
                                    -v-

-------
                                  SECTION 1

                               INTRODUCTION
      Over the past several  years, it  has been realized that ambient air quality,
which is  frequently  measured  by only a  few monitoring  stations in a  large
geographical area, may not describe adequately the exposure of the population at
large to air  pollutants.   As one means of  understanding  the true situation,  the
Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) is conducting a Conventional Combustion
Environmental  Assessment (CCEA) program that is directed at assessing emissions
and  their associated impacts from utility, industrial, commercial, and residential
combustion processes. The emphasis of the CCEA Program is on traditional point
and  area  sources  (e.g.,  smoke  stacks, material  handling,  industrial processes,
automobile exhaust) that emit pollutants in quantities  that  significantly impact
general ambient air quality.

      This  assessment of  conventional  sources  has led to  the  question of  the
exposure  to combustion  products resulting  from several  common   domestic
combustion processes*  Several  readily identifiable "sources" in this category are
indoor gas cooking, food spills on heating elements, sidestream smoke from cigars
and  cigarettes, gas-fired laundry driers, space heaters,  small internal combustion
(1C)  engines such as those in chain saws and lawn mowers, and backyard charcoal
cooking.   Although the  total emissions from these non-conventional  domestic
combustion sources are  relatively small  and are not expected  to contribute
significantly  to general  ambient air levels of combustion-related pollutants,  the
exposures resulting from these sources, which are often "close up" to the  receptor,
may be significant in  comparison to exposures resulting from emissions  from the
more conventional large point and area combustion sources.

      TRC-The Research  Corporation  of  New England was contracted by  the
Environmental  Protection Agency's Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
at Research Triangle Park  (EPA/IERL/RTP)  to  estimate exposures to airborne
contaminants resulting from domestic combustion sources, and to compare these to
exposures generated by conventional combustion sources  that affect the general air
quality.  In particular, exposures to total particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide
(CO),  and polycyclic  organic matter  (POM)  resulting from indoor combustion
sources, small 1C engines, and charcoal cooking were to be determined. This report
presents the results of this exposure study in the following manner:


      o    For the indoor air pollution case, exposures were determined  primarily
           by extracting and analyzing information from  previous studies  on indoor
           air  pollution.  Specific  sources addressed under this category included
                                     -1-

-------
gas cooking and sidestream smoke.   Section 2 describes  the results of
this literature search.

For  the  small  1C  engines   and  charcoal  cooking  categories,  an
experimental program was designed and implemented for the purpose of
determining exposures to PM, CO, and POM.  The sampling technology
used  consisted  of  personal   monitoring systems.     The   sources
investigated  included  lawn mowers, chain saws, and  charcoal grills.
Section 3 describes this experimental  program  and  the laboratory
procedures  required  to determine  the  exposures, and presents  the
results of the testing.

Section 4 presents  "typical" exposures to domestic combustion  sources
and compares these to exposures from other conventional sources.  The
"typical" exposures were determined using the results of the literature
search and test program in conjunction  with  estimated source usage
patterns obtained from literature data and questionnaires.

The  conclusions  and  recommendations derived from  this study  are
presented in Section 5 and the references cited in the text are given in
Section 6.
                           -2-

-------
                                  SECTION 2

              EXPOSURES FROM INDOOR COMBUSTION SOURCES
      The typical American spends the majority of his waking hours indoors.  Much
of this time may be spent in the presence of unvented combustion sources such as
gas  cooking  and cigarette smoking  which are major  contributors to indoor air
pollution.  This section summarizes a literature review on the contributions of gas
cooking and cigarette smoking to the indoor concentrations of CO, PM, and POM.*
CARBON MONOXIDE

      Carbon monoxide is generated as a result of the incomplete combustion of
carbonaceous materials.  In the outdoors, the main source of CO is the exhaust
from motor vehicles.  Indoors, CO can be formed by combustion associated with
gas ovens and stoves, cigarette smoking, space heaters,  fireplaces, and spills on
heating elements.   The two  major CO sources,  gas ranges and cigarettes, are
discussed below.
Gas Ranges

      A study of indoor-outdoor air pollutant relationships was  the subject of a
report by Yocom, Cote and  Clink.1  Figure 1, taken from this report, shows the
combined effect of several indoor and outdoor sources on the indoor concentration
of CO, and on its indoor spatial and temporal distribution.  The effect of cooking
(3/4-1800 and again on 3/5-2000 and 3/6-0800), operating a motor vehicle inside the
garage having  a  common  door  with  the house  (3/4-2000  and  3/5-0900), and
increased outdoor concentration, presumably due to an  increase of traffic density
(3/5-0800 and 1600-1700 and  on 3/6-0600), are clearly seen.  It should be noted that
the  indoor  concentration  of  CO is  substantially  higher  than  the  outdoor
concentration most of the time.  It is  also interesting  to  note that increased CO
concentration in  the kitchen  (presumably as  a  result  of  cooking)  does not
substantially affect  the  CO concentration in the  family  room.   The  authors
reported that this house was a split level house with the kitchen elevated above the
family room. This emphasizes the importance of  the effect of the layout of the
*POM is also referred to as PAH (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) since PAH is
the major subcategory  of  POM.   These two terms  are used  interchangeably
throughout the report, depending on the reference cited.
                                     -3-

-------
I
5
S
3
   6.0
   5.0
    4.0
    3.0
   2.0
    1.0
    0.0
                                    CM BEING DRIVEN
                                      OUT OF GARAGE
1200      1700     2200     0300     0800     1300
     3/4 (TUES.)                        3/5 (WED.)
                                   TIME.  HOURS
                                                         1800
2300     0400     0900

        3/6 (THUR)
                           Source: Yocom, Cote, and Clink1
                Figure  1. Time Variation of Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
                           in a Typical Split-Level Dwelling

-------
houses on the exposure of its occupants to air pollutants.  Similar results on the
relation  between  indoor  and outdoor  concentration  of  carbon  monoxide  were
reported in a study by Moschandreas.2

      Emission rates of domestic gas stoves and ovens were measured  in a study by
Cote, Wade and Yocom.3  Their results are presented in Table 1. Other studies
have shown that the emission rate increases as the oxygen supply decreases; i.e., by
operating more than one burner and/or  by placing a utensil on  the burner.lf'5'6  In
airtight buildings, where the ventilation rate is low, the rate of CO production can
increase substantially  after prolonged operation  of gas stoves and ovens, as the
normal air oxygen concentration inside the building decreases from approximately
21% to 20% or lower.5
Sidestream Smoke

     Smoking is another source of indoor carbon monoxide and several researchers
have measured CO emissions from cigarette smoking.  Because the various studies
were done under different conditions (smoking machines vs. humans, various room
or test chamber  volumes and  ventilation  rates, number of cigarettes and total
length  of time smoked), it is difficult to make valid comparisons among the various
data.

     The non-smoker  is  exposed to  the pollutants that  are  present  in  the
sidestream smoke (i.e., the  smoke that comes from  the smoldering  end of  the
cigarette  and that fraction of the mainstream  smoke  which is  exhaled  by  the
smoker). The exhaled portion contains some fraction of the pollutants contained in
the mainstream smoke. Hattori and Ro7 reported  that 5 mg of CO per minute are
emitted into the atmosphere just  from the burning  of  a  cigarette.   When  the
smoker inhales, the amount of CO emitted in the exhaled smoke is reduced to
about  12% of the 5 mg amount or  0.6 mg  per  minute.  Hoegg8 reported that  this
fraction can be as much as 45%.

     Several studies were conducted in which CO concentrations were measured in
rooms  and test chambers.   Penkala and  Olivera9  measured a concentration of 21
ppm of CO in a test chamber of 9.175 m3 after three cigarettes were smoked by a
smoking machine.  Both the sidestream and mainstream smoke were introduced
into the chamber. Harke et al10 recorded 21 ppm of  CO in a 170 m3 room after
108 cigarettes were smoked by 11  people  during  2 hours.  This study cannot be
considered realistic  since  it  was  undertaken to determine  whether  the  CO
concentration can reach a dangerous level under extreme conditions.  Under more
realistic conditions, Bridge  and Corn11 reported that  during  a party in a  100 m3
room  with a ventilation rate  of  10.5 air exchanges  per hour, the  average CO
concentration in  the  room over a 1.5 hour time span was  9  ppm.  A total of 63
cigarettes and 10 cigars were smoked during the party.

     In order to assess the relative exposure to CO of the non-smoker to the
smoker, the ratio of  sidestream  CO  emissions to  mainstream CO emissions  was
                                      -5-

-------
   TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT EMISSIONS OF GAS APPLIANCES
           FOR SEVERAL TYPICAL OPERATING CONDITIONS


Appliance
Older Gas Stove
with Cast Iron
Burners

Newer Gas Stove
with Pressed
Steel Burners



Operation
Pilot Lights
1 Burner-High Flame
3 Burners-High Flame
Oven - Steady -State
Pilot Lights
1 Burner-High Flame
3 Burners- High Flame
Oven-Steady-State
Heat Input
Rate,
kcal/hr
150
2700
6780
2200
100
3500
10200
2200
CO Emission
Factors,
mg/kcal
419
382
475
530
842
510
315
1620
CO Emission
Rate,
mg/hr
62.9
1031
3220
1166
84.2
1785
3213
3564
Source:  Cote, Wade, and Yocom3
                              -6-

-------
measured by several investigators.  Their results are summarized in Table 2.  The
results  suggest  that  as much  as 4.6 times  as  much CO  originates from  the.
sidestream smoke as from the mainstream smoke.

      Based on CO emitted in the sidestream  smoke, Hoegg8 calculated  that the
non-smoker in the room is exposed to 0.13-0.21 cigarette equivalents per cigarette
smoked. The cigarette equivalent exposure depends  on the room size, ventilation
rate, and the number of cigarettes smoked per unit time.
PART1CULATES AND POLYCYCLIC ORGANIC MATTER

     The concentration of gaseous  pollutants in the atmosphere may be  fully
characterized by a single concentration value (expressed as ppm,  ug/m3 or other
convenient measurement unit).  Unlike gaseous pollutants, the concentration of
particulate matter in the atmosphere cannot be characterized in a similar manner;
many parameters are needed  to  describe the physical and  chemical properties of
the atmospheric aerosol.  For example, information  needed to characterize and
quantify particulate matter in the atmosphere can include total  particulate loading
(expressed as  ug/m3),  total  number concentration (expressed  as  cm"3),  size
distribution, mass  or number concentration in the various size ranges, and detailed
chemical analyses of  the particles in the different size ranges.  Obtaining all this
information is a formidable and expensive task since no one instrument is capable
of sampling  and characterizing  the  atmospheric particles  across the  entire size
range. For this reason there are  very few studies which fully characterize outdoor
atmospheric aerosols.

     In  most studies  of  indoor particulate concentration, the measured quantities
were total suspended particulate matter  measured by a low volume sampler.15"21
In most cases, indoor  concentrations were lower than outdoor concentrations.  The
means of the indoor/outdoor  ratios measured by various researchers ranged  from
.15 to  1.3. The  ratio varied from day to day and depended on the house structure,
the occupants' activities, ventilation rate, etc.

     In  other indoor  studies, the measured  quantities were soiling index22'23and
particle  mass and number concentrations. 2I*~29   The ratio of  indoor/outdoor for
number concentratons of particles ranges from .45 to 3.8.  The particle mass of the
outdoor  atmosphere particulate loading is concentrated in the larger particle  sizes
while number concentration has a maximum at 0.1 um30  and decreases toward the
larger  sizes.  Apparently, the relative contribution of the  small particles to the
total  particulate matter indoors is larger than  such  contribution outdoors.  This
conclusion was confirmed in  the study by Yocom18 where  it  was found that the
indoor/outdoor ratio of total suspended particulates in two  air conditioned office
buildings in Hartford, Connecticut,  was 1:2,  while  the  indoor/out door ratio for
respirable particles was about 2:3.  Furthermore, more than 90% of the particulate
loading of the indoor aerosol was in the respirable  range  (less than "2-3 um  in
diameter); in effect, the air conditioning system removed almost all of the larger
particles while having little effect on the smaller particles.
                                      -7-

-------
            TABLE 2. RATIO OF SIDESTREAM TO MAINSTREAM
                     CO EMISSIONS - EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
      Reference
Bridge and Corn11

Sporozolini and Savino12

Rosanno and Owens13

Hemperley1 *
 Mainstream
 Emissions,
mg/cigarette
    23

    13.4
Sidestream/
Mainstream
    4.6

   0.17

   2.75

  1.3-2.5
                                  -8-

-------
      Combustion processes such as gas cooking and cigarette smoking contribute
to the indoor concentration of particulate matter16'19'"'31 with cigarette smoke
being the major contributor to the indoor respirable particles.32  As a result, the
indoor aerosols are enriched in carbonaceous compounds.19'22

      Reports on detailed analyses  of indoor aerosols are scarce.  In one report,22
the  authors stated  that  indoor   aerosols  were  enriched  in  benzene-soluble
compounds relative to outdoor aerosols. In a  Bell Laboratory study,33  a variety of
organic compounds  were  identified in the  indoor  aerosols, including aliphatic
alcohols, aliphatic acids, ethers, and organic phosphates.

      No studies on the analysis  of particles emanating from gas  cooking were
uncovered by the literature search but several studies dealing with the composition
and  size distribution  of  particles produced  during  smoking  were reviewed.
Stedman31*  stated  that mainstream tobacco smoke contains 8%  by weight of
particulate matter with about 1200 different compounds identified.   These  include
alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, ketones, aldehydes,  alcohols, acids,  esters,  ethers,
phenols, alkaloids, steroids,  polynuclear  aromatic  hydrocarbons  (PAH),  various
heterocyclic compounds (containing oxygen, nitrogen, and  sulfur), and  various
metals.  Snook et al35 report that almost  1000  PAH have  been identified in
cigarette smoke condensate.  A list of some of the various aromatic hydrocarbons
identified in tobacco smoke is presented in Table 3.  A number of PAH in tobacco
smoke have been identified as active tumorogens35 with the most  active among
them being benzo (a) pyrene (BaP).31*

      Several   investigators   measured  the   number  concentration  and  size
distribution  of  particles in cigarette smoke.  A comparison of their results is
difficult due to differences in the quantity measured (mean number or  mean mass,
median  number or  median  mass)  and  differences  in  the  techniques  and
instrumentation  used.     All  of  the   investigators  agreed  that the  number
concentration of particles  in cigarette  smoke is more than a billion particles per
cubic centimeter and the particles are in the respirable range.  Table 4  summarizes
the results of the various studies.

      The exposure of the non-smoker to cigarette smoke depends on the number of
cigarettes smoked per unit  time, the room size, the ventilation rate, and the habits
of the smoker.  The non-smoker is exposed to  the sidestream  smoke  and  to that
portion of the mainstream smoke  that is exhaled by the smoker.  Hoegg8 reported
that 50-70% of the mainstream particulate matter is exhaled into the  atmosphere
if the smoke is not inhaled. If the  smoke is inhaled,  30% of the particulate matter
is exhaled into the room.

      Hemperley1**  reported  that   mainstream  cigarette  smoke  from nonfilter
cigarettes  contains  27.9  mg/cigarette  of dry  particles  with  tar,  the  major
constituent, contributing 20.8 mg/cigarette. Other constituents of the mainstream
smoke are nicotine (0.92 mg/cigarette)  and PAH (0.001 mg/cigarette).   Hemperley
also  reported that the mainstream smoke contains 3.5 x  10"5  mg of  benzo (a)
pyrene and 1.3x 10"1* mg of pyrene per cigarette.
                                      -9-

-------
             TABLE 3.  AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IDENTIFIED
                       IN TOBACCO SMOKE
    Compound
    Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Alkylbenzo a pyrene
Alkylchrysene
Alkylfluorathene
Alkylpyrene
Anthanthrene
Anthracene
Azulene
Benz a anthracene
Benzene
Benzo b f luoranthene
Benzo g,h,i f luoranthene
Benzo j fluorathene
Benzo k fluorathene
Benzo m,n,o f luoranthene
5H-Benzo a fluorene
HH-Benzo a fluorene
Benzo b fluorene
7H-Benzo c fluorene
HH-Benzo b fluorene
Benzo a naphthacene
Benzo g,h,i perylene
Benzo c phenanthrene
Benzo a pyrene
Benzo e pyrene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
Coronene
Dibenz a,h anthracene
Dibenzo a,i fluorene
Dibenzo a,c naphthacene
Dibenzo a,j naphthacene
Dibenzo b,h phenanthrene
Dibenzo a,h pyrene
Dibenzo a,i pyrene
Dibenzo a,l pyrene
Dibenzo cd,jk pyrene
9,10-Dihydroanthracene
5,6-Dihydro-8H-benzo a cyclopent h -
anthracene
10,ll-Dihydro-9H-benzo a cyclopent -
i anthracene
3,*-Dihydrobenzo a pyrene
16,17-Dihydro-15H-cyclopent a -
phenanthrene
9,10-Dimethylbenz a anthracene
Dimethylchrysene
Dim e thy If luor anth ene
1,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
1,8-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
2,7-Dimethylanaphthalene
2,5-Dimethylphenathrene
Ethylbenzene
Ethylbenzene
Ethyltolunes (o-,m-,p-)
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indene
Ideno 1,2,2-cd f luoranthene
Ideno 1,2,3-pyrene
lonene
4-Isopropenyltolune
Isopropylbenzene
4-Isopropyltoluene
2-Methylanthracene
9-Methylanthracene
3-Methylbenz a anthracene
5-Methylbenz a anthracene
11-Methyl-llH-benzo a fluorene
Methylbenzo a pyrene
Methylchrysene
8-Methy If luoranthene
1 - Methylnaphtalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
9 - M et hy Iphenan thr ene
1-Methylpyrene
2-methylpyrene
4-Methylpyrene
Methylstyrenes (o-,m-)
Naphthacene
Naphthalene
HH-Naphtho 2,1-afluorene
Naphtho 2,3-a pyrene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Phenylacetylene
Pyrene
Styrene
Toluene
Triben a,c,h anthracene
1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
1,3,6-Trimethylnaphthalene
Xylenes (o-,m-,p-)
Source: Stedman34
                                     -10-

-------
           TABLE 4. NUMBER CONCENTRATION AND AVERAGE SIZE OF
                     PARTICLES CONTAINED IN TOBACCO SMOKE
Particle Number
 Concentration,
    per cm3
   6.3 x 109
Average Particle
   Diameter,
      urn
1 x 109 - 5x 10s
    Reference
      Comments
                       0.18
                       0.21
                       0.15
      0.15
                     0.20-0.23


                       0.23
    0.1-1.0


      0.52
                 Okada and Matsunuma36   Count median diameter
                                         Geometric standard
                                         deviation = 1.^8
                                         Dilution of 1500:1
                                         Mainstream smoke.
                         Hoegg8
      Hoegg8



Keith and Derrick37




Keith and Derrick37


Keith and Derrick38
    Stedman31*


      Hinds39
Mainstream smoke
Particle size doubles in
4 minutes due to
coagulation
Total no. of particles
emitted = 3.5 x  10.12

Sidestream smoke
Total no. of particles
emitted = 3.5 x  10.12

Most frequently occurring
Number of particles are
particles emitted per
second.

Most frequently
occurring.

Count median diameter
Geometric standard
deviation = 1.69
Dilution of 295:1.

Log normal distribution
of particle size.

Mass median aerodynamic
diameter corrected to
zero time
Unconnected diameter
= .71 um
Geometric standard deviation
= 1.37
Dilution of 10:1.
                                   -11-

-------
      TABLE 4 (Continued). NUMBER CONCENTRATION AND AVERAGE SIZE OF
                          PARTICLES CONTAINED IN TOBACCO SMOKE
Particle Number
 Concentration,
    per cm3
Average Particle
   Diameter,
      Vim
Reference
Comments
                       0.44
                       0.37
                        Hinds39
                        Hinds39
                       0.42


                       0.22
                    Porstendorfer*0


                    Porstendorfer1*0
                 Uncorrected diameter = .51 pm
                 Geometric standard deviation
                 = 1.49
                 Dilution of 50:1.

                 Uncorrected diameter =.44 ym
                 Geometric standard deviation
                 = 1.31
                 Dilution of 700:1.

                 Mean diameter
                 Dilution of 10:1.

                 Mean diameter
                 Dilution of 3100:1.
                                   -12-

-------
      The ratio between sidestream particulate matter emissions and mainstream
particulate  matter  emissions  has  been reported  by Rosanno13  as  3:1.   This
sidestream  to  mainstream  ratio  varies   from  one  component  to  another.
Hemperley1"* reported it  to be  3.5  for the total number of particles emitted per
cigarette, 2.1 for tar, 1.8 for nicotine, 3.7 for benzo (a) pyrene, and 3.0 for pyrene.
This indicates  that  the various components are probably not distributed equally
throughout the entire size range of particles contained in cigarette smoke.

      Hinds39  reported that  during measurements in indoor public places,  the
concentration of nicotine varied  from  lyg/m3 (in  a bus  waiting  room) to 10.3
ug/m3 (in a cocktail lounge).  From these data, the contribution of tobacco smoke
to the concentration of particulate matter was estimated to vary between  40  and
400  ug/m3, respectively.   Hoegg8  reported a  particulate concentration of 16.65
mg/m3  in a  25  m3 test  chamber  resulting  from  the  sidestream smoke of  3
cigarettes.
                                     -13-

-------
                                  SECTION 3

         EXPOSURES FROM SMALL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
                           AND CHARCOAL GRILLS
      Unlike  indoor  domestic combustion  sources, outdoor domestic  combustion
sources have not been studied  or  reported on  to  any significant extent.  It  was
therefore necessary to design and implement an experimental program which would
help to determine exposures to emissions from such sources.  This section describes
the experimental program and presents the results of the testing.
DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Monitoring Equipment

      The initial phase of the experimental program was to select and assemble the
necessary monitoring  equipment.  The  equipment had to be rugged,  portable,
compact, and capable of measuring exposures to CO, PM, and POM.

      Several companies  market  devices  that measure exposures  to  CO.   After
examining a variety of these  instruments, it was  decided to utilize the Ecolyzer
9000 CO Dosimeter for the experiments.  This Dosimeter, marketed by Energetics
Science, Inc., is a  portable,  pocket-size instrument that measures  cumulative
dosages of CO via a three-electrode electrochemical sensor. This sensor creates a
minute  electrical current in  the presence  of  CO and supplies  a  stable  signal
proportional to the ambient CO concentrations.  The dosages are stored internally
until the Dosimeter  is plugged into a readout unit which gives a digital display of
the cumulative CO exposure in ppm-hrs.  The device  is 301.5  cm3 in size, weighs
255  grams,  and  has an  accuracy  of +  6% of the   reading (according  to  the
manufacturer).

      With the CO Dosimeter  selected, a means of measuring particulate  matter
and POM had to be incorporated  into the sampling system.  It was decided to use
particulate filter cassettes which  utilize 3.6  cm diameter,  Millipore type HA,
membrane filters.   These filters can be weighed before  and after  the test  to
determine particulate  loadings and they can also  be  analyzed by  the fluorescent
spot method1*l to determine POM  exposures.

      The last item necessary for the sampling system  was a pump that would be
portable and that would draw sufficient sampling air through the Dosimeter and the
filter cassette.  This presented a  problem in that the Dosimeter requires a flow of
only 100-120 ml/min.,  while a much higher flow is preferred through the filter in

-------
order to obtain a measurable sample. The best arrangement proved to be a Bendix
Super Sampler BOX 44 pump and a flow splitter.  The pump is capable  of a flow
rate of 3000 ml/min.  and weighs only 629 grams.  By using a splitter with one leg
containing a small glass capillary tube as a flow restriction, the system was able to
draw 100 ml/min. through  the Dosimeter and  2900 ml/min. through  the  filter.
Calibration was performed by using  the flowmeter that is  an integral part of the
pump along with a separate flowmeter included with the Ecolyzer equipment.

      The total monitoring system thus consisted of a Bendix pump which attached
to an operator's belt, an Ecolyzer CO Dosimeter which fit into a shirt pocket, and a
particulate  filter cassette  which clipped on the outside of  the  shirt pocket.
Figure 2 is a schematic of the sampling system.
Source Selection

      There are  several  categories  of  domestic  internal combustion devices
commonly  in use.  These include push-type lawn mowers, riding mowers, chain
saws, hedge trimmers, lawn  edgers, snow blowers, and rototillers.  Not all of these
devices are used in most households. The objective of this program is to determine
the exposures to the most common  devices that a majority of the population would
receive.

      Two  different methods were  used to determine which devices are the most
common.  The literature has some published data on sales of small 1C engines1*2 and
these data were utilized.  For example, such data showed that the sales  of push-
type  mowers were  ten times as  great as the sales  of riding mowers.  The other
method was to distrubute a questionnaire among TRC employees asking them which
devices they owned and used.  Based on these two methods and discussions with the
EPA, it was decided to test exposures to push-type lawn mowers and chain saws.

      Similar reasoning was  applied to  the charcoal cooking category.  There are a
few  different methods of igniting charcoal, but by far the most common is with
charcoal lighter fluid and so this was the method selected to be tested.
Description of Field Tests - General

     Each field  test  was conducted  by the same  operator  using identical  test
procedures to eliminate  unnecessary  variables.   Two sets of monitoring systems
were utilized.  One set  was worn by the operator to record his exposures.  The
other set was situated in a nearby location that would be unaffected by the source
being tested.  The purpose of the second unit was to record the background levels
of CO, PM, and POM.

     At the  start of each test, the Dosimeters were calibrated and cleared of any
previous dosages. The following items were then recorded on a standardized data
sheet:
                                     -15-

-------
                         INLET
                 FILTER CASSETTE
                                                                   INLET PORT
FLOW SPLITTER
                      O
                  FLOW ADJUST
                                                      ECOLYZER 9000 CO DOSIMETER
                                                         ON/OFF SWITCH
             BENDIX BOX 44  PUMP
                                             aOWMETER
                    Figure 2. Schematic of Sampling System Used For

                             Domestic Combustion Field Tests
                                     -16-

-------
     o     Date of test
     o     Type of source tested
     o     Description of device
     o     Meteorological conditions
     o     Plot plan showing samplers and activity locations
     o     Dosimeter numbers
     o     Start time of test
     o     Beginning pump counter and rotameter readings
     o     Filter numbers
The  monitoring systems were  then positioned,  the pumps turned  on,  and the
activity was begun.

      At the completion of the tests, the pumps  were shut off  and the following
items were recorded on the data sheet:
     o     Mode of operation (continuous or start/stop, fuel usage, etc.)
     o     Finish time of test and total time source and pump were operating
     o     Ending pump counter and rotameter readings
     o     CO exposure readings
     o     Narrative describing test and any unusual occurrences
The  filter cassettes were wrapped in aluminum  foil and stored in a refrigerator
until they could be weighed and analyzed by TRC's Chemistry Lab.  This type of
filter handling was necessary to minimize degradation and loss of  any polycyclic
organic matter.
Description of Field Tests - Specific

      A total of fifteen field tests were conducted to assess exposures to domestic
combustion sources: six tests on lawn mowers, four tests on  chain saws, and five
tests on  charcoal grills.

      For four of  the  six  lawn mowing field tests,  the same lawn mower was
utilized. This provided a measure of the  repeatability of the results. All mowing
was performed in a circular  or square  pattern  so  that  the  results would not be
biased by wind  direction.   Table 5 provides the test conditions  for this source
category.

      Four  different chain  saws were tested under a variety of conditions.  The
type and diameter  of the wood that was  cut varied considerably and the relative
position  of  the  operator to the sawing activity was  also different in each case.
Where possible, the operator  was positioned so  that emissions and  sawdust were
blown away from him.  Table 6 presents the test conditions.
                                     -17-

-------
                                             TABLE 5.  DOMESTIC COMBUSTION FIELD TEST PARAMETERS - LAWN MOWERS
oo
Test Number
Date of 'Test
Test Location
Length of Test
Weather Conditions:
Wind Speed
Wind Direction
Temperature
Cloud Cover
Mower Specifications:
Manufacturer
Model
Approximate Age
Horsepower
Additional Information




Lawn Conditions



1
10-15-79
Manchester, CT
1330-1430

Gusty to 16-32 km/hr
SW
10°C
75%

Sears
-
10 years
3.5
Briggs & Stratton
engine
Exhaust to side
Variable speed.

Grass 7-10 cm long
Heavy leaf cover
in spots.

2
10-16-79
Wethersfield, CT
1350- 1450

~ 8 km/hr
N-E
16°C
10%

-
Gran Prix-WDE 22
2 years
3.5
Briggs & Stratton
engine
Exhaust to side '
Variable speed.
148 cc at 3600 rpm.
Grass 5 cm long
Some leaves
Very dusty in
spots.
3
10-17-79
Glastonbury, CT
1230-1430

Gusty to 16- 32 km/hr
W-N
18°C
75%

Lawn Boy
21 Deluxe- 76 20G
<1 year
-
2 cycle engine
Exhaust down
Single speed
Grass catcher.

Grass 7-10 cm long
Heavy leaf cover
in spots.

4
10-19-79
Wethersfield, CT
1320-1420

~ 8 km/hr
Variable
16°C
100%




- Same as





Grass 10-15 cm long
and thick
Some leaves.

5
10-23-79
Cromwell, CT
1210-1310

Gusty to 16 km/hr
SE-SW
2I°C
75%




Test No. 3 with no grass





Grass 5-7 cm long
Heavy leaf cover
in spots.
Dusty in spots.
6
10-25-79
Fartnington, CT
1200-1330

Gusty to 24 km/hr
SV.'
IO°C
100%




catcher -





Grass !0-15cmlong
and moist
Heavy leaf cover
in spots.
     Additional Comments
Grass  catcher
attached but left
unzipped.  Tended
to fill up in
matter of minutes.

-------
                                            TABLE (,.  DOMESTIC COMBUSTION FIELD TEST PARAMETERS - CHAIN SAWS
Test Number
Date of Test
Test Location
Length of Test
         8
      10-30-79
  Glastonbury, CT
     1140-1210
           9
        11-6-79
      Ellington, CT
       1230-1330
         10
      11-8-79
  E. Hampton, CT
     1325-1425
         II
      11-12-79
   E. Hampton, CT
     1*20-1520
Weather Conditions:
    Wind Speed
    Wind Direction
    Temperature
    Cloud Cover
Gusty to 16-24 kin/hr
       N-NE
        I3°C
         5%
       8-l6km/hr
           S
          IO°C
          100%
     8-l6km/hr
       N-NW
        10°C
        90%
      < 8 krn/hr
         S
        7°c
        100%
Chain Saw Specifications:
    Manufacturer
    Model
    Blade Length
    Self-Oiling/Manual
    Approximate Age
        Stihl
       015 AV
       35.6 cm
     Self-Oiling
       2 years
       McCulloch
          1-70
        45.7 cm
        Manual
       10-15 years
       Poulan

      40.6 cm
       Both
     Brand new
        Echo
       '(52 VL
      40.6 cm
     Sell-Oiling
       < I year
Description of Activity
Small branches (5-15 cm dia.)
placed on cinder blocks (45 cm
above ground) and cut up.
Sawing took place in an
open area.
Large logs (up to 40 cm dia.)
placed on sawhorse (90 cm
above ground) and cut up.
Sawing took place in an
open area.
Pallets and split logs
cut up at ground level.
Sawing took place
adjacent to house.
Cut down a large tree
(30-35 cm dia.) at a
height of 180 cm above
ground and then cut up
limbs on ground.
Sawing took place in
an open  area.
Additional Comments
Saw idling most of the time.
Large quantities of saw dust.
produced.  Noticeable exhaust.
First time saw used.
Operator directly over
activity.
                                                                                                                                              Large quantities of saw
                                                                                                                                              dust produced when
                                                                                                                                              tree cut down.

-------
      The testing of the charcoal grills presented a slight problem in that during a
typical cooking activity, the operator may be near the grill for only a few minutes.
For example, if chicken is being barbecued, the  operator lights  the coals, comes
back  to put on the chicken, comes back again to turn the chicken over, and then
returns  one final time  to remove the food.  The rest of the  time he is removed
from  such close-up exposures.  Such brief exposure duration does not allow time to
obtain meaningful samples.  It  was  thus decided to set up the monitoring system on
a tripod at a location identical to the position  a person cooking on the grill would
naturally assume.  This would be at breathing level, slightly upwind of the cooking
activity to avoid smoke irritation.  As in an  actual cooking experience, smoke
would occasionally impact the monitor due to variable wind gusts.  The results
obtained would thus provide  a measure  of  the  maximum exposure a person could
experience if he stood  over  the  grill the whole time cooking  occurred.  More
realistic exposures could then be obtained by taking some fraction of the maximum
exposures corresponding to the actual time spent near the grill.

      Five  charcoal grill tests were conducted.   The first  two tests recorded
exposures during typical cooking activities (steak, chicken).  The next two tests
were  designed to measure exposures from just the combustion of the charcoal with
no cooking taking  place.  The final test  was  similar to  the fourth test except
hamburgers were cooked for a 20-minute  period  during the test.  Readings of the
CO exposures were taken at frequent intervals (every 30 minutes for test 13, every
15 minutes for tests 14 and 15) during these last three tests to determine the peak
exposure periods. Table 7 presents  the test conditions for this source category.
DATA AND LABORATORY ANALYSES PROCEDURES

Carbon Monoxide

      Carbon monoxide exposures were obtained directly from the Dosimeters using
the Readout at the conclusion of each field  test.  The  Readout gives a digital
reading  of  cumulative  exposure  in ppm-hrs.  Division  of this reading by the
sampling time in  hours results in  a time-weighted  average concentration.   The
ambient CO level, obtained from the background monitor, was subtracted from the
CO reading  obtained  from  the operator's monitor  in order  to get the actual
exposure due solely to  the activity being tested.
Particulate Matter

      Prior to field testing, the Millipore filters were desiccated over silica gel in a
glass desiccator for 24 hours.  The filters were then removed one at a time from
the desiccator and weighed to  the nearest 0.01 mg on an analytical balance.  After
each filter weight was  recorded, the filter was placed on its backing and inserted
into the plastic sampling cassette.  The  inlet and outlet holes of the  cassette were
plugged with plastic stoppers.  The completed sampling cassette  was then marked
with an identifying number and placed in a desiccator until ready for field use.
                                      -20-

-------
                                              TABLE 7. DOMESTIC COMBUSTION FIELD TEST PARAMETERS - CHARCOAL GRILLS
is)
Test Number
Date of Test
Test Location
Length of Test
Weather Conditions:
Wind Speed
Wind Direction
Temperature
l "loud Cover
Test Specifications:
Type of Grill
Charcoal Type
Lighter Fluid Type
Approx. No. of Briquets
Food Cooked
Distance Between
Monitor and Charcoal
7
10-29-79
Rocky Hill, CT
1840-1900

<8 km/hr
S
10°C
0%

Double Hibachi
Kingsford
Sunshine Lite
30
Steak

61 cm
12
11-15-79
Rocky Hill, CT
1120-1220

8-16 km/hr
W-5W
IO°C
50%

Double Hibachi
Kingsford
Sunshine Lite
40
Chicken/Potatoes

61 cm
13
11-20-79
Rocky Hill, CT
1325-1625

16-24 km/hr
S-W
' |0°C
50%

Double Hibachi
Kingsford
Sunshine Lite
40
None

61 cm
14
12-3-79
Manchester, CT
1205-1505

8-16 km/hr
N-NW
4°C
0%

24" Dia. Grill
Kingsford
Sunshine Lite
80
None

84cm
15
12-4-79
Manchester, CT
1115-1415

16-24 km/hr
N-E
4C(.
75%

24" Dia Grill
Kingsford
Sunshine Lite
80
5 Hamburgers

84 crn
      Additional Comments
Smoke affected monitor.
Monitor started when
steak placed on grill.
Smoke had little effect
on monitor.  Monitor
started when chicken
was placed on the grill.
Smoke slightly affected
monitor.  Monitor started
when charcoal was lit.
No cooking done - just
charcoal combustion.
Smoke slightly affected
monitor.  Monitor started
when charcoal was lit.
No cooking done - just
charcoal combustion.
Smoke slightly affected
monitor.  Monitor
started when charcoal
was lit.  Hamburgers
added after 45 min.
and cooked for 20 min.

-------
      Upon completion  of  each field test, the sample  cassette was removed from
the sampling train and the inlet  and outlet  ports were plugged with the  plastic
stoppers.  The  cassettes were  wrapped in aluminum  foil and refrigerated until the
laboratory was  ready to analyze them. The refrigerated storage time was typically
one to two days.

      Upon receiving the samples in the laboratory, the aluminum  foil wrapping and
the plastic plugs were removed. The filter cassettes were then immediately placed
in a  desiccator.   The  desiccator  was placed in a  doubled, black plastic  bag to
exclude light and  placed in a darkened cabinet at room temperature for  24 hours.
After the desiccating  period, the sample cassettes were removed one at a time.
The  cassette halves were carefully separated so as not to lose any particulate
matter.  The filter  was removed from the cassette and weighed on an analytical
balance. The difference between the initial and final weights then equals  the total
mass of the collected  particulates.  Dividing this  weight by the sampling flow
volume gives the concentration value.
Polycyclic Organic Matter

      Once the filters were weighed, they were analyzed for the presence of POM
by using the fluorescent spot technique as devised by Smith  and Levins.1>1  This
method can be used to estimate the order  of magnitude concentration of POM in
samples.

      The first step in this  procedure is the extraction of the filters.  After all
glassware has been pre-rinsed twice with methylene chloride, the  Millipore  filters
are placed in a 250  ml Erlenmeyer flask with 100 ml of methylene chloride.  The
flask is then placed on a swirler for 30 minutes.  The liquid is carefully transferred
to a 500 ml K-D set-up with a 4  ml calibrated concentrator and the extract
evaporated to 500 yl. The extract is then transferred via Pasteur pipette to 3.5 ml
glass vials (covered with aluminum foil) for storage.

      Once  the  sample has been  extracted  and concentrated,  it is  ready  for
fluorescence detection via the spotting technique.  An 11 cm  circle of Whatman
#42  filter paper showing no background fluorescence is selected. Using a template
and  sharp lead pencil, nine circles of 2.78 mm  diameter are drawn in two rows.
The  solution to be spotted is added  to  the filter  paper within  two of the  circles
using a 1 ul hypodermic syringe.  During this step, the filter  is supported at the
edges such that the area to be spotted does not touch any surface. The syringe is
rinsed at least three times with methylene chloride to remove any possibility of
cross contamination and then rinsed with one volume of the solution to be spotted.
The  syringe is filled with the solution to be spotted and the volume adjusted to 1
yl.   The needle  tip is touched  to  the  center of the circle while depressing the
plunger and blowing gently on  the spot.  This procedure is continued until  all the
material in the syringe has been added to the circle.

      The  sensitizer  solution  used  for  the  technique  is  naphthalene  at  a
concentration of  60  yg/yl in  methylene chloride.  Using  a 1  yl  syringe, 1 yl of
                                      -22-

-------
sensitizer is added to one of the spots containing the extracted filter solution and
to one other spot.  One of the remaining six spots is  spotted with an unused filter
extract in order to insure that there is no fluoresence inherent in the extract itself
or the solvents. The other five spots contain various amounts of anthracene (1 ng,
10 ng, 100 ng, 1 ng and 10 yg) which are used for comparison purposes.

      Once the spotting  has been  completed, the  filter  paper is  placed  in  a
Model C-70 Chromatovue ultraviolet cabinet which utilizes a 254 nm lamp source
to expose the samples. The spots are then visually  compared by the unaided eye
within 10 minutes of  the addition of the sensitizer.  If the sample  plus sensitizer
spot fluoresces brighter than the spot with sensitizer alone, the presence of POM is
indicated.  Comparison with the anthracene concentrations gives an indication of
the relative sample concentration.
RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Carbon Monoxide

      The  raw data  and  time-averaged CO  concentrations  obtained  from  the
experimental program are presented in Table 8 for all three source categories. The
last  column presents the time-averaged concentrations which were calculated  by
subtracting the background Dosimeter reading  from the source Dosimeter reading
and dividing the result by the length of the test  in hours.

      The average CO concentrations obtained from the lawn mowing tests are
quite consistent and fairly low, ranging from 1  to  5 ppm. The four tests that were
conducted on the same mower (tests 3-6) show very good agreement with a range
of 2.5 to  4 ppm.  Some degree of consistency is expected since the operator of a
lawn mpwer is always in the same  position  relative  to  the engine. Differences in
the age  and condition  of the mower  and  the lawn conditions did  not seem  to
produce any noticable variations in average CO  concentrations.

      The chain saw  tests resulted in a large variation in CO exposures.  The values
obtained ranged from approximately 1 ppm-hr up to 36  ppm-hrs.  The two smaller
CO exposures  (tests  8 and  11) were obtained during tests where the diameter  of the
wood was  small,  the chain saws  were small, and the cutting took place in open
areas with a crosswind.  The value of 15 ppm was obtained using a very old large
chain saw that had  noticeable exhaust  while  cutting  large diameter  logs.  The
cutting took place  with a crosswind.  The  highest value of  36 ppm  (test 10) was
produced during a test in which the operator was cutting up logs directly adjacent
to a house.  There  was no crosswind and  thus the  exhaust  rose straight up.  In
addition, the sawing took place at ground level  with  the operator directly over the
operation. One other possible reason for the high concentration could be that this
was the first time the saw was used and there could be  excess emissions during an
engine "break-in" period.

      The charcoal  grill tests, with  one exception,  resulted  in fairly  consistent
average CO concentrations.  The first test performed  (number 7) may  have been
                                     -23-

-------
                                    TABLE 8. CARBON MONOXIDE RESULTS FROM
                                              THE EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAM
-C-


Test
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
7
12
13
14
15


Type of Source
Tested
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Chain Saw
Chain Saw
Chain Saw
Chain Saw
Charcoal Grill
Charcoal Grill
Charcoal Grill
Charcoal Grill
Charcoal Grill


Length of
Test, min.
60
60
120
60
60
90
30
60
60
60
20
60
180
180
180
Receptor
Dosimeter
Reading,
ppm-hrs
1
5
5
4
H
5
<1
15
36
4
10
9
38
33
22
Background
Dosimeter
Reading,
ppm-hrs
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
2

Time-Averaged
CO Concentration,
ppm
1
5
2.5
3
it
3.3
= 1
15
36
4
30*
9*
11.3*
10*
6.7*

CO Concentration/
CO Ambient Air
Quality Standard**
0.03
0.14
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.09
0.03
0.43
1.03
0.11
0.86
0.26
0.32
0.29
0.19
      *Maximum values based on continuous operator presence near grill.
    **One-hour average CO standard = 35 ppm.

-------
unduly  influenced  by large quantities  of  smoke  impacting the  sampler,  thus
producing the high CO level.  A concentration of  9 ppm  (test 12) was obtained
while  cooking  chicken for  one  hour.   The monitoring  system was  turned  on
approximately 30 minutes after the charcoal was ignited as this was when cooking
was  initiated.  Tests 13-15  were all three-hour tests  in which  the sampling was
begun  when the charcoal was  first ignited, rather  than when cooking would  be
started.   CO exposures were  recorded  at frequent intervals to determine  peak
concentration periods.   The results,  corrected for background, are plotted  in
Figure 3.   Tests  13 and  14  were performed with no cooking taking  place.  The
higher level of test  13 may be due to the position of the monitor relative to the
burning charcoal.  The monitor was only  61  cm from the charcoal during this test
while it was 84  cm  from the charcoal  for  test 14.   Additionally, test 13 was
performed in a more enclosed  location while test  14 was out in the  open with a
better crosswind.  Tests  14 and  15  were  identical  except for the cooking  of
hamburgers during test 15.   The  CO exposure measured during test 15 was lower
than the  exposure measured during  test  14.   This could  be  due  to stronger
crosswinds during this  test, thus  reducing  the impact of the  emissions  on the
monitor.  It could also be due to reduced oxygen from the fat covering the charcoal
and the hamburgers on the grill  causing blockage, thus limiting CO production.

     It should be noted that the above discussion on charcoal  grill exposures  is
based on maximum operator exposure.  As mentioned previously, actual  exposures
would  be  some percentage of this  value  corresponding to the time  the person  is
actually in front  of  the grill.  To  get a feel for a more realistic exposure to CO
from charcoal cooking, assume that the operator is exposed to the emissions for  10
minutes out of an hour of cooking.  Using a maximum exposure of 12 ppm-hrs, the
operator would be actually exposed  to about 2 ppm-hrs during the activity.
Particulate Matter

      The results of the  participate analyses  are  given  in Table  9  for all three
source categories.   No results are  given  for tests  5 and 7  because the  final
weighings of the source and background filters were performed on different days
and, thus, some humidity  effects  occurred.    A final  weighing could  not  be
performed for one of the filters of test 3 due  to a small piece  of filter destroyed
during handling. The flow volumes given in column four of the table were obtained
from the rotameter readings on the Bendix pumps.

      The particulate concentrations obtained  from the  lawn mower tests range
from  310 to  1600 vig/m3.  The two low values  (310 and 400 yg/m3) were obtained
using  the same mower.  This particular mower had a  smaller engine than the
mowers of tests 1 and 2 and it also had downward exhaust, rather than to the side
as in the first two test mowers. Grass particles were visible on some of the filters.
                                     -25-

-------
16
14
12
10
         L
      .TEST 13 - DOUBLE  HIBACHI.- CHARCOAL ONLY
      TEST 14 - 24" GRILL - CHARCOAL ONLY
      TEST 15 - 24" GRILL - CHARCOAL PLUS HAMBURGERS
               0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0         2.5
 TIME  (HOURS)
3.0
     Figure 3. Average CO Concentrations from Charcoal Grills as a Function of Time

                                    -26-

-------
                                       TABLE 9.  PARTICULATE RESULTS FROM THE
                                                EXPERIMENTAL TEST PROGRAM


Test
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
7
12
13
1*
15


Type of Source
Tested
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Lawn Mower
Chain Saw
Chain Saw
Chain Saw
Chain Saw
Charcoal Grill
Charcoal Grill
Charcoal Grill
Charcoal Grill
Charcoal Grill
Difference Between
Receptor Filter Weight and
Background Filter Weight,
ug
280
200
—
70
—
80
40
330
820
920
__
10
-10*
-30*
-40*

Total Flow Volume
Through Filter,
m3
0.17
0.17
0.35
0.17
0.17
0.26
0.09
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.06
0,17
0.52
0.52
0.52

Particulate
Concentration,
ug/m3
1600
1200
.
400
400
310
440
1900
4800
5400
_
60



Particulate Concentration/
Secondary TSP Ambient
Air Quality
Standard**
10.7
8.0

2.7
2.7
2.1
2.9
12.7
32.0
36.0
_
0.4
_
_
—
 *Negative values are probably the result of weighing balance sensitivity.
**24-hour secondary TSP standard = 150 ug/m3.

-------
      The concentrations obtained from the chain saw field tests showed a wide
variety of  values, ranging from 440  to  5400  ug/m3.   The  highest  value  was
obtained under conditions in which the operator himself was covered with sawdust
following the felling of a tree.   Visible sawdust  particles  were seen  on the filters
following the tests.

      There were essentially no  participate exposures due to the charcoal grilling
activities. The results obtained from the sources were all very near to the levels
recorded  by  the background monitors and  thus no significant particulate exposure
seems evident from this source category.
Polycyclic Organic Matter

      All of the particulate filters were tested for the presence of POM using the
fluorescent  spot technique.   As discussed  previously,  this technique is based on
comparing  the  fluorescence  of  the  prepared samples  with   that  of  known
concentrations of anthracene (sensitized with  naphthlene).  The lowest detectible
amount is 1  ng.  The next level of comparison is 10 ng.

      Based  on this technique, all of the  particulate filters displayed levels of POM
that were approximately equal to or lower than the lowest detectible limit of 1 ng.
None of the filters displayed fluorescence that would be comparable to the  10 ng
level.

      To provide insight into the levels of POM expected and the sensitivity of the
POM  measurements, some  brief  calculations can  be performed.   The  lowest
detectible amount,  1 ng, would correspond to a concentration of approximately
5 ng/m3 based on the hourly flowrate through the particulate filter.  To determine
what  levels  of POM are expected, published information on automobile and small
utility engine  exhaust can be used in conjunction with  the lawn mowing results of
this project.  Santodonato et al1*2 present  information on exhaust emissions  from
gasoline automobiles.  According to these  data, the ratio  of  particulate  to  BaP
(used  as an index for POM) emission rates is very roughly 250 mg/mile to 5 yg/mile
or 50,000:1.  Since no data could be found  on  emissions of BaP from small utility
engines, it will be assumed that this ratio stays the same for small engine exhaust.
The ratio of CO to particulate emission rates for 4-stroke lawn and garden engines
can be  obtained from Hane and  Springer1*3 as  approximately 100:1.   Combining
these two values than  gives a  ratio for CO/BaP of about 5xl06:l.  Using a CO
concentration  of 5 ppm for lawn mowing, a concentration of about 1 ng/m3 would
be expected for POM.  This level is below  the lowest  detectible  level of about 5
ng/m  .  Therefore, the results obtained  using  the fluorescent spot technique seem
reasonable.
                                     -28-

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                        COMPARISON OF EXPOSURES
     One objective of this project was to compare the exposures obtained through
the literature search and the field tests with those from more conventional sources
of pollutants, such as automobile  exhaust.   To do this properly, the  exposures
should  be in terms of "typical" exposures based on source usage  patterns.  The
following subsections  establish typical exposures from domestic combustion sources
and compare them with exposures from other sources.
"TYPICAL" USAGE OF DOMESTIC COMBUSTION SOURCES

     To obtain information on  the usage  patterns of  the various  combustion
sources, a questionnaire was  circulated  among  all TRC  employees.   Table 10
summarizes the results  of this questionnaire for  lawn mowers, chain saws, and
charcoal grills.  The literature also contained some information on usage patterns.
For lawn mowers, Hare and Springer1*3 presented a value of 40 hours/year (based on
18 times/year), linger and Hecker1*1* used 50 hours/year in their calculations, and
Donahue et al45 gave a range of 30-70 hours/year.  Only one value could  be found
for chain saws and  that  was a  rough estimate of 3-4 hours/year.lf5  However, this
report was produced at a time when home heating by wood stoves was not nearly as
common as it is  today.  No information on charcoal grill usage could be found in
the literature.

     Based on the information presented  in Table  10  and  the  literature,  the
following values were chosen  as rough estimates for source usage for individuals
owning and operating these devices:


           Lawn mowers:   40 hours/year
           Chain saws:      70 hours/year
           Charcoal grills:  20 hours/year


It  should be  noted  that  these  are  average values  for the New England  area.  In
southern areas, it is logical to assume that the use of lawn mowers and. grills could
increase proportionally to the duration of warm  weather and the use of chain saws
would decrease. For national values, the following gross estimates will be used for
individuals owning such devices:
                                     -29-

-------
                                 TABLE 10. SOURCE USAGE PATTERNS BASED
                                          ON TRC QUESTIONNAIRES
Type of
Source
Lawn Mower
Chain Saw
Charcoal Grill
Sample
Size
36
15
29
Hours/Use
Arithmetic Range
Mean
1.8 0.5-6
2.6 1-8
0.7 0.3-1.5
Uses/Year
Arithmetic Range
Mean
16 8-30
28 2-100
25 3-100
Hours/Year
Arithmetic Range
Mean
29 4-90
72 2-350
18 1.5-60
O

-------
           Lawn mowers:   50 hours/year
           Chain saws:      30 hours/year
           Charcoal grills:  40 hours/year


      For  the case of gas stove usage, only a very rough estimate can be made.
Assume that  a person uses a gas stove six times per week for meals at an average
of one hour per time and twice a day for heating water or warming leftovers at
about fifteen minutes per time.  This sums up to about 500 hours per year that the
stove is on. This could be further analyzed by considering that several burners (and
possibly the oven) are usually on while preparing meals while only one burner is on
for heating water.  It has been shown3 that emissions increase with an increase in
burner usage. However, the 500 hour  estimate is very crude to begin with and
further refinement would be meaningless.

      Too  many variables exist to estimate yearly exposures to sidestream smoke.
"TYPICAL" EXPOSURES TO DOMESTIC COMBUSTION SOURCES

     Based on the results of the experimental test program, the literature search,
and  the  usage  patterns  developed  above,  "typical"  exposures  to  domestic
combustion sources can be established. It is realized that the values obtained will
be very  crude due  to  the limited number of tests, the  scarcity of literature
information, and  the rough assumptions on usage;  however, the values will provide
"ball park" estimates that can be used for comparison with exposures from other
combustion sources.
Carbon Monoxide

     Table  11 presents the  "typical" exposures to  carbon monoxide for New
England and national usage assumptions.  The values  given for average exposure
(column 2) were selected as follows: the lawn mower exposures varied from 1 to 5
ppm-hrs, so a  value of 3 ppm-hrs was  chosen; the chain saw exposures  were quite
varied  but  a  value of  10 ppm-hrs  was felt to be  representative;  a value of
2 ppm-hrs for  charcoal cooking was selected based on the arguments presented in
the previous section of this report.  The study by Yocom et al* showed that the  CO
exposure was  approximately 5 ppm-hrs during gas stove operation (see Figure 1)
and so this  value  was used.  It is also assumed that the person using the stove
remains in the kitchen the entire time  the stove is "on".  As for sidestream smoke,
not enough information is  available to determine "typical" exposures as there  are
just too many variables.
                                     -31-

-------
            TABLE 11. "TYPICAL" EXPOSURES TO CARBON MONOXIDE
                      FROM DOMESTIC COMBUSTION SOURCES
                                         Assumed             Estimated CO
   Type of      "Typical" Hourly CO    Usage Per Year, hrs.  Exposure Per Year, ppm-hrs
   Source      Exposure, ppm-hrs   New England   Nation    New England   Nation
 Lawn Mower

  Chain Saw

Charcoal  Grill

  Gas Stove
3

10

2

5
70

20

500
 50

 30

 40

500
 120

 700

 40

2500
 150

 300

 SO

2500
                                   -32-

-------
Particulate Matter

     Table  12 presents the "typical" exposures to particulate emissions  for both
the New England and national  usage  assumptions.  The average concentrations for
one hour presented in  column 2 were obtained as follows:  for lawn mowers, the
results for the three different types  of mowers were averaged to obtain a value of
1000 yg/m3; for chain saws, all four values were averaged to obtain 3100 ug/m3.
No significant value could be obtained for the charcoal category and thus an hourly
concentration of zero  is  shown.   Not enough literature  information  exists to
establish estimates of particulate exposures from gas stoves and sidestream smoke.
Polycyclic Organic Matter

     Since no  significant amounts of POM were  detected in any of the samples
(i.e., all levels were equal to or less than the lowest detectible amount of 1 ng), no
"typical" exposures can be determined.
COMPARISON OF EXPOSURES

      Having  established  some  "typical"  exposures from  domestic  combustion
sources,  the pollutant levels  can now  be compared with exposures  from other
sources of CO, PM, and POM.  Comparisons can  also be made with the national
standards.
Carbon Monoxide

      The national  ambient  air  quality  standards  for  carbon  monoxide  are  a
one-hour average of 35 ppm  and an eight-hour  average  of  9  ppm.  Of the three
types of domestic combustion devices tested during the experimental program, only
chain saws appear to result in exposures comparable to  exposures encountered in
non-attainment  situations.   While  the  average  chain saw CO concentration  was
approximately 10 ppm, one test resulted in a one-hour average concentration of 36
ppm.    The  eight-hour  standard  would  not normally  apply because  domestic
combustion activities are rarely performed for this length of  time.

      When comparing  the  exposures obtained from  domestic activities with those
from  other  activities, the domestic exposures seem quite minor.  Commuting
activities result in large CO  exposures. Numerous studies have been performed in
which CO exposures have been  measured while commuting  to  and from work.
Cortese  and Spengler1*6  used  CO Ecolyzers in obtaining  exposure data  on 62
non-smokers, each carrying the monitors for a 3 to  5 day period during commuting
and work activities.  Mean one-hour concentrations of 5  to  20 ppm were obtained,
with several  hourly readings  greater  than 35 ppm.  Other  studies have recorded
average levels up to  54 ppm,  with peaks to 120 ppm.1*7  Szalai"8 reported that the
typical heads-of-households in 44 cities in the United States spend  an average of
nearly an hour  and a half  in travel per day  or approximately 540 hours per year.


                                     -33-

-------
          TABLE 12. "TYPICAL" EXPOSURES TO PARTICIPATE MATTER
                     FROM DOMESTIC COMBUSTION SOURCES
  Type of
  Source
   "Typical"
  Particulate
Concentration,
    Ug/m3
       Assumed
  Usage Per Year, hrs
             Estimated
        Particulate Exposure
        Per Year, yig/m3-hrs
New England   Nation   New England   Nation
Lawn Mower

 Chain Saw

  Charcoal
   Grill
     1000

     3100

      0
     70

     20
50

30
4000

21700

  0
5000

9300

 0
                                     -34-

-------
Using an average  CO concentration of 15 ppm results in 8100 ppm-hrs per  year.
Comparing this number  with the values presented in Table 10 shows the relatively
minor CO impact of domestic combustion sources on humans.
Particulate and Polyclyclic Organic Matter

     It is not  particularly meaningful  to  compare  the particulate  exposures
obtained from the domestic combustion tests to those  from other sources and, in
fact,  such comparisons could  be  very misleading.   The particulate  exposures
obtained were based on the total weight of  material found on  the  filters.  Size
analyses were not performed and it was evident that large portions of the weight
were due to very large particles of either sawdust or grass.  Such  particles are well
outside the inhalable  size  range  (<15um  in diameter)  of particles which is of
primary interest to EPA.

     Only one study could be found which reported POM (or PAH) data  that could
be used for comparison purposes. Bridbord et al1*9 used benzo(a) pyrene (BaP) as an
index compound for PAH in establishing exposures.  They recognized that to the
extent that polynuclear aromatic  compounds besides  BaP are also  present, BaP
represents a  poor surrogate for this  purpose.   Unfortunately, better data were
generally  not available. Their  results showed that a one pack per day  smoker of
unfiitered cigarettes would inhale  about  0.7ug of BaP each day. The level was
0.4 ug   for   filtered  cigarette smokers.    They  also  reported   BaP  indoor
concentrations  ranging from 0.3 to  0.14 ug/m3 in a restuarant.   In some of their
calculations they assumed ambient  BaP levels in urban air of 0.002  ug/m3.  The
results of the domestic combustion tests showed levels of POM less than  or equal
to 1 ng on the test filter.   For  a flow volume of  0.2 m3, this  would  result in less
than or equal to 0.005 ug/m3 which is well below the levels presented by  Bridbord
et al for cigarette smoking.
                                     -35-

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS

     As a result of the literature  review on indoor domestic combustion  sources
and the experimental program on small internal combustion  devices and charcoal
grills, several significant conclusions can be drawn regarding  exposures to CO, PM,
and POM from such devices. These conclusions are presented  below.


     o     Charcoal cooking results in  essentially no significant exposures to PM
           and POM and only very minor exposures to CO due to the limited time
           an operator is actually near the activity.  In actuality, an operator may
           be better off standing near the grill than returning indoors to  a  room
           full of smokers.

     o     The combustion of charcoal  alone, with no cooking taking place, seems
           to produce peak CO concentrations from 45 minutes to 90 minutes  after
           the charcoal is ignited.

     o     Lawn mowing results in very low CO (approximately 3ppm-hrs) and
           POM exposures.  Paniculate exposures were  noted, primarily  due to
           grass clippings and soil dust on the filters.

     o     CO exposures from  lawn mowing seem to be  independent of lawn and
           mower conditions,  possibly due to the distance between the operator
           and the engine exhaust.

     o     Chain sawing can lead to significant levels of  CO (one test resulted in
           36 ppm for one hour) depending on crosswind, wood size, chain saw type
           and condition, and operator position.  It is best to do the sawing in the
           open  where a crossflow of wind can limit the exposure to the exhaust.

     o     Chain sawing results in significant participate  exposure (up to 36 times
           the secondary ambient standard),  most likely due to  sawdust.  POM
           exposures were not detected.

     o     CO concentrations from  gas stove cooking are on the order of 5 ppm for
           one  hour.   Particulate  and  POM  exposures could  not   be  readily
           determined from the literature.
                                     -36-

-------
           Sidestream smoke can lead to  relatively high CO levels, but so many
           different  study  and reporting  methods exist  in the literature  that
           quantification is not really possible. Even less  information is available
           for particulate and POM.

           The exposures from domestic combustion sources seem to be of minor
           importance when compared with exposures from other sources, such as
           traffic.  While one-hour exposures  may be comparable in some cases,
           yearly exposures are  vastly different due  to the limited use  of  such
           devices  as lawn  mowers when  compared with the time spent by most
           people in commuting to work.
RECOMMENDATIONS

     This project can  essentially  be  viewed as a  screening study for domestic
combustion sources.  Many variables exist that could affect exposures  and only a
few  could be  examined  during  the test program.  For  example, it has been
postulated that lawn mower emissions and exposures can  be dependent  on load
factor, engine size, grass height, presence of leaves and dust on lawn, moisture of
grass,  engine  air-fuel  ratio,  direction  of  exhaust,  use  of  grass  catcher,  air
temperature, wind speed, etc.  The influence of these variables could obviously  not
be assessed  in  five or  six field tests.   However, this project  did  lead  to some
interesting conclusions and  recommendations can  be made for future  investi-
gations.  These recommendations are presented below.
           Chain sawing should be investigated  further due to the possibly high
           exposure levels that can result from such activity.  This should  be an
           area of increasing interest due to the increased usage of such devices in
           these times of home heating by wood stoves.

           Other domestic combustion  devices that may be used in non-ventilated
           areas and/or close to the face of the  operator should be identified and
           investigated.

           Short-term surges that might produce high levels of pollutants, such as
           charcoal  ignition and engine start-up, should be investigated further.
           An operator is  normally closer  to a lawn  mower or chain  saw  engine
           when starting it than when it is running.

           Indoor air quality is becoming increasingly important as homes become
           more  energy  efficient.    Further  experimental  testing  should  be
           performed  to  determine   exposures resulting from  gas  cooking,
           sidestream smoke,  and  other  indoor  sources of pollution.   The data
           presented in the literature are not adequate.

           Indoor air quality measurements should be made in homes  using wood
           and coal  space heating equipment.  The measurement?: should be made
                                     -37-

-------
across a population of  users sufficient  to  describe  the  spectrum of
equipment type, installation adequacy, and operating procedures.

Further work is needed in defining the size and chemical characteristics
of particulates  generated by domestic combustion sources.

A different  method for the capture of the particulate matter and POM
should be examined and compared to the one  used  for this study.  A
pump/cassette  combination  that  would  obtain a  larger  air  sample
volume might improve the accuracy of the results.

CO Dosimeters should be used for future experiments. These devices
proved  to  be  accurate, easy to  use,  rugged, portable,  and  highly
economical with regard to the time needed to apply them.

Analyses or tests should be performed to determine if CO exposures as
measured with  the Dosimeter can be used as an index of exposure to
other  combustion   related  pollutants  (e.g.,  combustion  generated
particulate matter and POM.)
                           -38-

-------
                                 SECTION 6

                                REFERENCES
1.   Yocom, 3.E.,  W.A. Cote, and W.L.  Clink.  A  study of Indoor-Outdoor Air
     Pollutant Relationships: Volume II:  Summary Report - Supplementary Study.
     TRC - The Research Corporation of New England, Wethersfield, Connecticut.
     Prepared for the National Air Pollution Control Administration.  May 1970.

2.   Moschandreas,  D.J., J.W.C. Stark, J.E. McFadden, and S.S.  Morese.   Indoor
     Air Pollution in the Residential Environment:  Volume I:   Data Collection,
     Analysis, and  Interpretation.   Prepared for  U.S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research  Triangle Park, North  Carolina.   Report No. EPA-600/
     7-78-229 a. December 1978.

3.   Cote,  W.A., W.A.  Wade and J.E. Yocom.  A  Study of Indoor Air  Quality.
     TRC - The Research Corporation of New England, Wethersfield, Connecticut.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  197*.

*.   Hollowell,  C.D.,  R.J.  Budnitz, G.D. Case, and G.W. Traynor.   Combustion
     Generated  Indoor Air Pollution Field Measurements, 8/75 - 10/75.  Prepared
     for the U.S. Energy Research  and  Development Administration.   January
     1976.

5.   Tanaka, M., Y. Kobayashi, and  S. Yoshizawa.  Indoor  Air Pollution Due to
     Domestic Gas Range. 3. Japan Air Cleaning Association 9:28. 1971.

6.   Sterling, T.D.  and E. Sterling.  Carbon Monixide Levels in Kitchens and
     Homes  with Gas  Cookers.   JAPCA.  Volume  29. No. 3. March 1979. pp.
     238-2*1.

7.   Hattori, H. and T. Ro. Indoor Air Pollution by Tobacco Smoke.  Presented at
     the 16th Annual  Meeting of the  Japan Society of  Air  Pollution,  Niigata,
     Japan. November 5-7, 1975.

8.   Hoegg,  U.R. Cigarette Smoke  in  Closed Spaces.   Environmental Health
     Perspectives. Volume 2. October 1972. pp. 117-128.

9.   Penkala, S.J.  and  G. DeOliveira.   The  Simultaneous  Analysis of  Carbon
     Monoxide and Suspended Particulate  Matter Produced by Cigarette Smoking.
     Environmental Research. Volume 9. 1975. pp. 99-114.
                                    -39-

-------
10.   Harke, H.P., A. Baars, B. Frahm, H. Peters, and C. Schultz.  The Problem of
     Passive Smoking.   Internationales  Archiv fur  Arbeitsmedizin.   Volume 29.
     1972. pp. 323-339.

11.   Bridge, D.P. and M. Corn.  Contribution to  the  Assessment of Exposure of
     Non Smokers to Air Pollution  from Cigarette and Cigar Smoke in  Occupied
     Spaces. Environmental Research.  Volume 5.  1972. pp. 192-209.

12.   Sforzolini, G.S. and A. Savino.  Valutazione di un Idnice Zapido di Conlamina-
     zion Amsientale da Fuo di  Sigaretta in Nelazione Alia Compusizone Delia
     Fase Gassosa Del fumo. Estratto Riv. Ital. Igiene  Anne.  28:1. 1968.

13.   Rosanno,  A.T.  and D.F.  Owens.   Design  Procedures to Control  Cigarette
     Smoke and Other Air Pollutants. ASHRAE Trans.  75: 93.  1969.

14.   Hemperley,  W.  Indoor Air Contaminants Due  to  Tobacco Smoke.   Masters
     Thesis. University of Texas.  1976.

15.   Weatherley, M.L. The Effects of Buildings.  Int. 3. Air Wat. Pollut.  10:404.
     1966.

16.   Biersteker,  K., H. DeGraaf,  and  C.A.G.  Nass.  Indoor  Air  Pollution  In
     Rotterdam  Homes.  Int. 3.   Air.  Water Pollution. Volume  9.  1965.  pp.
     343-350.

17.   Padfield,  T.  The  Control  of Relative  Humidity  and  Air   Pollution  in
     Show-Cases and Picture Frames.  Studies Conservats.  11:8. 1966.

18.   Yocom,  3.E.,  W.L. Clink,  and  W.A.  Cote.  Indoor/Outdoor  Air Quality
     Relationships.  Presented at the 63rd Annual  Meeting  of  the  Air  Pollution
     Control Association, St. Louis, Missouri, 3une  14-19, 1970.

19.   Goldwater,  L.3., A. Manoharan, and  M.B. 3acobs.  Suspended Particulate
     Matter, Dust in "Domestic"  Atmospheres.  Arch. Environ. Health.  Volume 2.
     1961. pp. 511-515.

20.   3acobs, M.B., L.3.  Goldwater, and  A.  Fergany.   Comparison  of Suspended
     Particulate Matter  of Indoor and Outdoor Air.  Int. 3. Air Water Poll. 6:377.
     1962.

21.   Berdyev, K.B.,  N.V. Palovich, and A.A.  Tuzhilina.  Effect of Motor Vehicle
     Exhaust Gases on Atmospheric Pollution in Dwelling and in Main Street.  Hyg.
     and Sanitation (Moscow).  32: 424. 1967.

22.   Yocom,  3.E.,  W.L. Clink, and  W.A.  Cote.  Indoor/Out door  Air Quality
     Relationships.  3APCA.  Volume 21. No. 5. May  1971. pp.  251-259.

23.   Casey, G.C.R., 3.3. Phair. R.3.  Shephard, and  M.C. Thompson.  The Effects of
     Air Pollution on Human Health.  3. Amer. Ind. Hgy. Assoc. 19:363. 1958.
                                     -40-

-------
24.  Shephard,  R.3.   Topographic  and Meteorological Factors  Influencing Air
     Pollution in Cincinnati.  AM A Arch, of Ind. Health. Volume 19. January  1959.
     pp. 44-54.

25.  Ishido, S.,  T.  Tanaka, and T.  Nakagawa.  Air Conditions in  Dwellings with
     Special Reference to Numbers of Dust Particles and Bacteria. Bull. Dept.
     Home Econ. Osaka City Univ. 3:35. 1955.

26.  Ishido, S.,  K.  Kamada,  and T.  Nakgawa.  Free  Dust  Particles and Airborne
     Micro Flora. Bull. Dept. Home Econ. Osaka City  Univ. 4:31. 1956.

27.  Ishido, S. Variations  in Indoor  and Outdoor Dust Densities. Bull. Dept. Home
     Econ.  Osaka City Univ. 6:53. 1959.

28.  Seisaburo,  S.,  K. Kiyoko, and N.  Tatsuko.  Free Dust Particles and Airborne
     Micro Flora.  Bull. Dept. Home  Econ. Osaka City Univ. 4:31. 1959.

29.  Romagnoli, G.  Studies  on the  Climate  Conditions in Some  Elementary
     Classrooms of Novara. Italian Review of Hyg. 21:410. 1961.

30.  Junge, C. Comments on Concentration and Size Distribution Measurements of
     Atmospheric Aerosols and  a  Test of  the Theory of Self-Preserving  Size
     Distribution. J. Atm. Sci.  26:603. 1969.

31.  Lefcoe, N.M.  and  J.I. Inculet. Particulate in Domestic Premises; I: Ambient
     Level and Central Air Filtration.  Arch. Environ. Health. 22:230. 1971.

32.  Fujii, S. And O. Minamino.  Research Concerning Dust Generation Caused by
     Various Movements Indoors.  Clean Air Q. Japan Air  Cleaning Assoc. 10:60.
     1972.

33.  Weschler,  C.J. Characterization  of  Selected Organics in Size-Fractionated
     Indoor Aerosol.  To Be Published.

34.  Stedman,  R.L.  The Chemical  Composition of Tobacco and Tobacco  Smoke.
     Chem. Reviews. Volume 68. 1968. pp. 153-207.

35.  Snook, M.E., R.F. Severson, H.C. Higman, R.F. Arrendale, and O.T. Chortyic.
     Methods for Characterization of  Complex Mixtures of Polynuclear Aromatic
     Hydrocarbons.   Polynuclear Aromatic  Hydrocarbons:   Third International
     Symposium on Chemistry  and Biology  -  Carcinogenesis  and Mutagenesis.
     Published by Ann Arbor Science. 1979.

36.  Okada, T. and  K. Matsunuma. Determination of Particle Size Distribution and
     Concentration of Cigarette Smoke by a Light Scattering Method.  J.  Colloid
     Sci. 48:461. 1974.

37.  Keith, C.H. and J.C. Derrick.  Measurement  of the Particle Size Distribution
     and Concentration of Cigarette smoke by the "Conifuge".  Tobacco Science.
     Volume 5.  1961. pp. 84-91.
                                     -41-

-------
38.   Keith, C.H. and 3.C. Derrick.  Measurement of the Particie Size Distribution
     and Concentration of Cigarette Smoke by the "Conifuge".   3.  Colloid Sci.
     Volume 15. 1960. pp. 340-356.

39.   Hinds, W.C.  Size Characteristics of  Cigarette Smoke.  Am.  Ind. Hyg. Assoc.
     3. Volume 39. 3anuary  1978. pp 48-54.

40.   Porstendorfer, 3.  Pie Bestiwmung Grossenverteilung Von Aerosolen Mit Hilfe
     Der Radiactiven Markeirung Und Der Spiralzentrifuge.

41.   Smith, E.M. and P.L.  Levins.  Sensitized Fluorescence for the Detection of
     Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Prepared for U.S. Environmental  Protec-
     tion Agency.  Report No. EPA-600/7-78-182. September 1978.

42.   Santodonato,  J., D. Basu, and  P. Howard.  Health Effects  Associated with
     Diesel Exhaust Emissions.   Prepared  for  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency.  Report No. EPA-600/1-78-063.  November, 1978.

43.   Hare, C.T. and K.3. Springer.  Small Engine Emissions and  Their  Impact.
     Automotive Engineering. Volume 80. No. 7. 3uly 1972. 12p.

44.   Zinger,  D.E.  and  L.H. Hecker. Gaseous Emissions from Unregulated Mobile
     Sources. 3APCA. Volume 29. No. 5. May 1979. pp. 526-531.

45.   Donahue,  3.A., G.C. Hardwick,  H.K. Newhall, K.S. Sanvordenker, and N.C..
     Woelffer.   Small  Engine Exhaust Emissions and Air Quality in  The United
     States.  Presented by the  SAE  Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit,
     Michigan. 3anuary 10-14, 1972.

46.   Cortese, A.D. and 3.D. Spengler.  Determination of Environmental  Carbon
     Monoxide  Exposures Through Personnal Monitoring - Fixed U.S. Personal and
     Transportation Mode Relationships.  Presented at  the 68th Annual Meeting of
     APCA, Boston, Massachusetts. 3une 15-20, 1975.

47.   Haagen -  Smith,  A.3.  Carbon  Monoxide  Levels in  City Driving.   Arch.
     Environ. Health. Volume 12. 1966.

48.   Szalai, A. The Use of Time. Mouton,  Paris.  1972.

49.   Bridbord,  K.,  3.F.  Finklea,  3.K. Wagoner, 3.B.  Moran, and  P. Caplan. Human
     Exposure to Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Presented at  Symposium on
     Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Columbus, Ohio. October  17, 1975.
                                    -42-

-------
                               TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         fPlease nod Iitstnictions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-80-084
                                   3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Exposure to Pollutants from Domestic Combustion
 Sources: A Preliminary Assessment
                                   5. REPORT DATE
                                    April 1980
                                   6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Edward T. Brookman and Amnon Birenzvige
                                   8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 TRC - Environmental Consultants, Inc.
 125 Silas Deane Highway
 Wethersfield, Connecticut 06109
                                   10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

                                   TNE623
                                   11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                   68-02-3115, Task 112
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                   13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                   Task Final; 8/79-2/80
                                   14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                    EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES iERL_RTp project officer is John O. Milljken, Mail Drop 63, 919/
 541-2745.                '
 is. ABSTRACT The report gives results of a preliminary assessment of exposure to pol-
 lutants from domestic combustion sources, some of which emit airborne participate
 matter (PM), CO, and polycyclic organic matter (POM) near human receptors.
 Transient ambient concentrations of these pollutants at the receptor (and the cor-
 responding time-averaged exposures) have been determined for the following domes-
 tic combustion sources: lawn mowing, chain sawing, charcoal cooking, indoor gas
 cooking, and indoor side-stream smoke.  An experimental test program utilizing
 personal monitoring equipment was  conducted to acquire data for the lawn mower,
 chain saw, and charcoal grill sources. Literature data were used to assess the in-
 door sources of gas cooking and side-stream smoke. Transient ambient concentra-
 tions of total suspended  particulate  (TSP) matter encountered were as high as 35
 times  the 24 hour secondary ambient air quality standard of 150 micrograms/cu m
 for TSP. However, large quantities on noncombustion-related PM on the filters
 (e.g., grass particles,  sawdust), concurrent lower values of ambient CO relative to
 ambient air quality CO standards, and the absence of detectable POM indicate that
 these sources probably do not result in exposures to combustion-generated pollu-
 tants that are relatively significant.
17.
                            KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                         b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                 COSATi Field/Group
 Pollution
 Combustion
 Assessments
 Measurement
 Grasses
 Saws
 Gasoline
  Charcoal
  Stoves
  Cooking Devices
  Smoke
  Dust       _
Polycyclic Compounds
Organic Compounds
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Domestic Combustion
Lawn Mowers
Chain Saws
Side-stream Smoke
Particulate
 3B
|2 IB
 4B

 36C
 31
BID
13A
06H

11G
07C
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Release to Public
                                         19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
                                         Unclassified
                                               21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                    48
                       20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                       Unclassified
                        22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                      -43-

-------