Skip to main content
Log in

Baltimore PM2.5 Supersite: highly time-resolved organic compounds—sampling duration and phase distribution—implications for health effects studies

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 17 August 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

As part of the Baltimore PM2.5 Supersite study, intensive three-hourly continuous PM2.5 sampling was conducted for nearly 4 weeks in summer of 2002 and as well in winter of 2002/2003. Close to 120 individual organic compounds have been quantified separately in filter and polyurethane foam (PUF) plug pairs for 17 days for each sampling period. Here, the focus is on (1) describing briefly the new sampling system, (2) discussing filter/PUF plugs breakthrough experiments for semi-volatile compounds, (3) providing insight into phase distribution of semi-volatile organic species, and (4) discussing the impact of air pollution sampling time on human exposure with information on maximum 3- and 24-h averaged ambient concentrations of potentially adverse health effects causing organic pollutants. The newly developed sampling system consisted of five electronically controlled parallel sampling channels that are operated in a sequential mode. Semi-volatile breakthrough experiments were conducted in three separate experiments over 3, 4, and 5 h each using one filter and three PUF plugs. Valuable insight was obtained about the transfer of semi-volatile organic compounds through the sequence of PUF plugs and a cut-off could be defined for complete sampling of semi-volatile compounds on only one filter/PUF plug pair, i.e., the setup finally used during the seasonal PM2.5 sampling campaign. Accordingly, n-nonadecane (C19) with a vapor pressure (vp) of 3.25 × 10−4 Torr is collected with > 95% on the filter/PUF pair. Applied to phenanthrene, the most abundant the PAH sampled, phenanthrene (vp, 6.2 × 10−5 Torr) was collected completely in wintertime and correlates very well with three-hourly PM2.5 ambient concentrations. Valuable data on the fractional partitioning for semi-volatile organics as a function of season is provided here and can be used to differentiate the human uptake of an organic pollutant of interest via gas- and particle-phase exposure. Health effects studies often relay on PM2.5 exposure measurements taken over 24 h or longer. We found that maximum 3-h concentrations are frequently two to five times higher than that found for maximum 24-h concentrations, an important aspect when considering that short-term exposure to higher air pollution levels are more likely to overpower defense mechanisms in the human lung with subsequent adverse effects even at lower pollutant levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 17 August 2019

    The authors would like to call the reader���s attention to the fact that unfortunately Orhan Sevimoglu���s affiliation was wrong in the original publication.

  • 17 August 2019

    The authors would like to call the reader���s attention to the fact that unfortunately Orhan Sevimoglu���s affiliation was wrong in the original publication.

References

  1. Oberdörster G, Sharp Z, Atudorei V, Elder A, Gelein R, Kreyling W, Cox C (2004) Inhal Toxicol 16:437–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Oberdörster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova K, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J, Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai D, Olin S, Monteiro-Riviere N, Warheit D, Yang H (2005) Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2005(2):8. doi:10.1186/1743-8977-2-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Semmler-Behnke M, Takenaka S, Fersch S, Wenk A, Seitz J, Mayer O, Oberdorster G, Kreyling WG (2007) Environ Health Persp 115(5):728–733

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Shimada A, Kawamura N, Okajima M, Kaewamatawong T, Inoue H, Morita T (2007) Toxicol Pathol 34:949–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD (2002) J Am Med Assoc 287:1132–1141

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Peters A, Dockery DW, Muller JE, Mittleman MA (2001) Circulation 103:2810–2815

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nawrot TS, Perez L, Künzli N, Munters E, Nemery B (2011) Lancet 377:732–740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vockens J (2003) Leith, D. Ann Occup Hyg 47:157–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Suarez AE, Ondov JM (2002) Energy Fuel 16:562–568

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ondov JM, Buckley TJ, Hopke PK, Ogulei D, Parlange MB, Rogge WF, Squibb KS, Johnston MV, Wexler AS (2006) Atmos Environ 40:224–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Oguleia D, Hopkea PK, Zhoua L, Paaterob P, Park SS, Ondov JM (2005) Atmos Environ 39:3751–3762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Park SS, Kleissl J, Harrison D, Kumar V, Nair NP, Adam M, Ondov J, Parlange M (2006) Aerosol Science Technol 40:845–860

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bidleman TF, Billings WN, Foreman WT (1986) Environ Sci Technol 20:1038–1043

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. McDow SR, Huntzicker JJ (1990) Atmos Environ 24:2563–2571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang L, Atkinson R, Arey J (2007) Atmos Environ 41:2025–2035

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. William BJ, Goldstein AH, Kreisberg NM, Hering SV (2010) PNAS 107:6676–6681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rogge WF, Hildemann LM, Mazurek MA, Cass GR, Simoneit BRT (1991) Environ Sci Technol 25:1112–1125

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rogge WF, Hildemann LM, Mazurek MA, Cass GR, Simoneit BRT (1998) Environ Sci Technol 32:13–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Liang F, Lu M, Birch ME, Keener TC, Liu Z (2006) J Chromatogr A 1114:145–153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Lippmann M (2009) J Exposure Sci Environ Epi 19:235–247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency through cooperative agreement number R-82806301. Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly or in part by the US Environmental Protection Agency, it has not been subjected to the Agency’s required peer-and-policy review and therefore, does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang F. Rogge.

Additional information

Published in the special issue Aerosol Analysis with guest editor Ralf Zimmermann.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM. 1

(PDF 150 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rogge, W.F., Ondov, J.M., Bernardo-Bricker, A. et al. Baltimore PM2.5 Supersite: highly time-resolved organic compounds—sampling duration and phase distribution—implications for health effects studies. Anal Bioanal Chem 401, 3069–3082 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-011-5454-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-011-5454-9

Keywords

Navigation