Advertisement

Characterisation of urban inhalation exposures to benzene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the European Union

Comparison of measured and modelled exposure data
  • Yuri Bruinen de Bruin
  • Kimmo Koistinen
  • Stylianos Kephalopoulos
  • Otmar Geiss
  • Salvatore Tirendi
  • Dimitrios KotziasEmail author
AREA 7 • RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT, HEALTH • RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Background, aim and scope

All across Europe, people live and work in indoor environments. On average, people spend around 90% of their time indoors (homes, workplaces, cars and public transport means, etc.) and are exposed to a complex mixture of pollutants at concentration levels that are often several times higher than outdoors. These pollutants are emitted by different sources indoors and outdoors and include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbonyls (aldehydes and ketones) and other chemical substances often adsorbed on particles. Moreover, legal obligations opposed by legislations, such as the European Union’s General Product Safety Directive (GPSD) and Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), increasingly require detailed understanding of where and how chemical substances are used throughout their life-cycle and require better characterisation of their emissions and exposure. This information is essential to be able to control emissions from sources aiming at a reduction of adverse health effects. Scientifically sound human risk assessment procedures based on qualitative and quantitative human exposure information allows a better characterisation of population exposures to chemical substances. In this context, the current paper compares inhalation exposures to three health-based EU priority substances, i.e. benzene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.

Materials and methods

Distributions of urban population inhalation exposures, indoor and outdoor concentrations were created on the basis of measured AIRMEX data in 12 European cities and compared to results from existing European population exposure studies published within the scientific literature. By pooling all EU city personal exposure, indoor and outdoor concentration means, representative EU city cumulative frequency distributions were created. Population exposures were modelled with a microenvironment model using the time spent and concentrations in four microenvironments, i.e. indoors at home and at work, outdoors at work and in transit, as input parameters. Pooled EU city inhalation exposures were compared to modelled population exposures. The contributions of these microenvironments to the total daily inhalation exposure of formaldehyde, benzene and acetaldehyde were estimated. Inhalation exposures were compared to the EU annual ambient benzene air quality guideline (5 μg/m3—to be met by 2010) and the recommended (based on the INDEX project) 30-min average formaldehyde limit value (30 μg/m3).

Results

Indoor inhalation exposure contributions are much higher compared to the outdoor or in-transit microenvironment contributions, accounting for almost 99% in the case of formaldehyde. The highest in-transit exposure contribution was found for benzene; 29.4% of the total inhalation exposure contribution. Comparing the pooled AIRMEX EU city inhalation exposures with the modelled exposures, benzene, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde exposures are 5.1, 17.3 and 11.8 μg/m3 vs. 5.1, 20.1 and 10.2 μg/m3, respectively. Together with the fact that a dominating fraction of time is spent indoors (>90%), the total inhalation exposure is mostly driven by the time spent indoors.

Discussion

The approach used in this paper faced three challenges concerning exposure and time–activity data, comparability and scarce or missing in-transit data inducing careful interpretation of the results. The results obtained by AIRMEX underline that many European urban populations are still exposed to elevated levels of benzene and formaldehyde in the inhaled air. It is still likely that the annual ambient benzene air quality guideline of 5 μg/m3 in the EU and recommended formaldehyde 30-min average limit value of 30 μg/m3 are exceeded by a substantial part of populations living in urban areas. Considering multimedia and multi-pathway exposure to acetaldehyde, the biggest exposure contribution was found to be related to dietary behaviour rather than to inhalation.

Conclusions

In the present study, inhalation exposures of urban populations were assessed on the basis of novel and existing exposure data. The indoor residential microenvironment contributed most to the total daily urban population inhalation exposure. The results presented in this paper suggest that a significant part of the populations living in European cities exceed the annual ambient benzene air quality guideline of 5 μg/m3 in the EU and recommended (INDEX project) formaldehyde 30-min average limit value of 30 μg/m3.

Recommendations and perspectives

To reduce exposures and consequent health effects, adequate measures must be taken to diminish emissions from sources such as materials and products that especially emit benzene and formaldehyde in indoor air. In parallel, measures can be taken aiming at reducing the outdoor pollution contribution indoors. Besides emission reduction, mechanisms to effectively monitor and manage the indoor air quality should be established. These mechanisms could be developed by setting up appropriate EU indoor air guidelines.

Keywords

AIRMEX Exposure assessment Exposure determinants Exposure modelling INDEX Indoor air quality Inhalation exposure Time–activity data 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors greatly acknowledge the valuable contribution and overall help by the execution of the AIRMEX (Phase I) measuring campaigns of the colleagues from national authorities, research centres and organisations: Dr. Cuccia and Dr. Nastri (Catania, Italy), Dr. Bloemen (Arnhem and Nijmegen, The Netherlands), Dr. Rehwagen, Prof. Herbarth (Leipzig, Germany), Dr. Kalabokas, Dr. Papadopoulos (Athens, Greece), Dr. Nikolaou (Thessaloniki, Greece), Dr. Michael, Dr. Michaelidou (Nicosia, Cyprus).

References

  1. Báez AP, Belmont R, Padilla H (1995) Measurements of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in the atmosphere of Mexico City. Environ Pollut 89(2):163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Báez AP, Padilla HG, García RM, Belmont RD, Torres Mdel C (2004) Measurements of carbonyls in a 13-story building. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 11(6):400–404Google Scholar
  3. Barrefors G, Petersson G (1996) Exposure to volatile hydrocarbons in commuter trains and diesel buses. Environ Technol 17:643–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown VM, Coward SKD, Crump DR, Llewellyn JW, Mann HS, Raw GJ (2002) Indoor air quality in English homes—formaldehyde. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, vol 4, pp 473–476Google Scholar
  5. Bruinen de Bruin Y, Hänninen O, Carrer P, Maroni M, Kephalopoulos S, Scotto-di-Marco G, Jantunen M (2004) Simulation of urban population exposures to carbon monoxide using the EXPOLIS-Milan microenvironment CO concentrations and time activity data. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 14(2):154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruinen de Bruin Y, Kotzias D, Kephalopoulos S (2005) Human exposure characterization of chemical substances (HEXPOC); quantification of exposure routes. EUR 21501 EN. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Italy, pp 1–82Google Scholar
  7. Bruinen de Bruin Y, Hakkinen P, Lahaniatis M, Papameletiou D, del Pozo C, Reina V, van Engelen J, Heinemeyer G, Viso AC, Rodriguez C, Jantunen M (2007) Risk management measures for chemicals in consumer products: documentation, assessment, and communication across the supply chain. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 17(Suppl 1):55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brunekreef B, Hoek G, Janssen N (1995) Time–activity patterns in air pollution epidemiology. In: Ackermann-Liebrich U, Viegi G, Nolan C (eds) Time–activity patterns in exposure assessment, air pollution epidemiology, reports series, report no. 6 (EUR 15892 EN). European Commission Directorate General XII, Office for Official Publications, Luxembourg, p 92Google Scholar
  9. Bunke D, Oldenburg C (2005) Indicators for chemicals: sources, impacts and policy performance. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 12(5):310–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cocheo V, Sacco P, Boaretto C, de Saeger E, Ballesta P, Skov H, Goelen E, Gonzalez N, Caracena A (2000) Urban benzene and population exposure. Nature 404:141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Directive 2000/69/EC Directive 2000/69/EC (2000) European Parliament and the Council of 16 November relating to limit values for benzene and carbon monoxide in ambient airGoogle Scholar
  12. Directive 2001/95/EC (2001) European Parliament and the Council of 3 December on general product safetyGoogle Scholar
  13. Duan N (1981) Microenvironment types: a model for human exposure to air pollution. Technical Report No. 47, SIMS, Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) (1989) World Health Organization. ISBN 92 4 154289 6, ISSN 0250-863XGoogle Scholar
  15. Field RA, Pérez Ballesta P, Baeza Caracena A, Nikolova I, Connolly R, Cao N, Gerboles M, Buzica D, Amantini L, Lagler F, Borowiak A, Marelli L, De Santi G, De Saeger E (2005) Population exposure to air pollutants in Europe (PEOPLE). Methodological strategy and basic results. EUR 21810 EN. Available at http://ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/fileadmin/Documentation/Reports/Emissions_and_Health/EUR/2005/EUR_21810_EN.pdf
  16. Golliot F, Annesi-Maesano I, Delmas MC (2003) The French national survey on indoor air quality: sample survey design. In: Proceedings of Healthy Building, 7th International Conference 3, pp 712–717Google Scholar
  17. Hänninen OO, Kruize H, Lebret E, Jantunen M (2003) EXPOLIS simulation model: PM2.5 application and comparison with measurements in Helsinki. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 13:74–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IEH (1999) IEH report on benzene in the environment (report R12). MRC Institute for Environment and Health, Leicester, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. Ilgen E, Karfich N, Levsen K, Angerer J, Schneider P, Heinrich J, Wichmann HE, Dunemann L Begerow J (2001a) Aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmospheric environment—part I: indoor versus outdoor sources, the influence of traffic. Atmos Environ 35(7):1235–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ilgen E, Karsten L, Angerer J, Schneider P, Heinrich J, Wichmann HE (2001b) Aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmospheric environment, part II—univariate and multivariate analysis and case studies of indoor concentrations. Atmos Environ 35(7):1253–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ilgen E, Levsen K, Angerer J, Schneider P, Heinrich J, Wichmann HE (2001c) Aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmospheric environment, part III—personal monitoring. Atmos Environ 35:1265–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jantunen MJ, Katsouyanni K, Knöppel H, Künzli N, Lebret E, Maroni M, Saarela K, Srám R, Zmirou D (1999) Final report—air pollution exposure in European cities. The EXPOLIS study—publications of KTL B16/1999, 127 pp and 4 annexesGoogle Scholar
  23. Jenkins PL, Phillips TJ, Mulberg EJ, Hui SP (1992) Activity patterns of Californians: use of and proximity to indoor pollutant sources. Atmos Environ 26A(12):2141–2148Google Scholar
  24. Jurvelin J, Vartiainen M, Jantunen M, Pasanen P (2000) Personal exposure levels and microenvironmental concentrations of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde in Helsinki metropolitan area, Finland. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 51:17–24Google Scholar
  25. Kephalopoulos S, Bruinen de Bruin Y, Arvanitis A, Hakkinen P, Jantunen M (2007) Issues in consumer exposure modeling: towards harmonization on a global scale. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 17(Suppl 1):S90–S100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim YM, Harrad S, Harrison RM (2001) Concentrations and sources of VOCs in urban domestic and public microenvironments. Environ Sci Technol 35:997–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kingham S, Meaton J, Sheard A, Lawernson O (1998) Assessment of exposure to traffic-related fumes during the journey to work. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 3:271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kirchner S, Pasquier N, Derbez M, Golliot F, Ramalho O, Iannaccone C, Cochet C (2004) Rapport exécutif Démarrage de la campagne nationale dans les logements. Rapport CSTB N° DDD/SB 2004-03Google Scholar
  29. Kotzias D (2005) Indoor air and human exposure assessment—needs and approaches. Exp Toxicol Pathol 57:5–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kotzias D, Geiss O, Tirendi S, Bruinen de Bruin Y, Kephalopoulos S (2005a) The AIRMEX (European indoor air monitoring and exposure assessment) project report—phase I. European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  31. Kotzias D, Koistinen K, Kephalopoulos S, Schlitt C, Carrer P, Maroni M, Jantunen M, Cochet C, Kirchner S, Lindvall T, McLaughlin J, Mølhave L, Fernandes E, Seifert B (2005b) The INDEX project critical appraisal of the setting and implementation of indoor exposure limits in the EU. EUR 21590 ENGoogle Scholar
  32. Kruize H, Hänninen OO, Breugelmans O, Lebret E, Jantunen M (2003) Description and demonstration of the EXPOLIS simulation model: two examples of modeling population exposure to particulate matter. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 13(2):87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lau WL, Chan LY (2002) Commuter exposure to aromatic VOCs in public transportation modes in Hong Kong. Sci Total Environ 308:143–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Letz R, Ryan PB, Spengler JD (1984) Estimating personal exposures to respirable particles. Environ Monit Assess 4:351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leung PL, Harrison RM (1999) Roadside and in-vehicle concentrations of monoaromatic hydrocarbons. Atmos Environ 33:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. LIFE 96 (2002–2004) MACBETH—monitoring of atmospheric concentrations of benzene in European towns and homes. Available at http://www.fsm.it/padova/homepage.html
  37. Loftness V, Hakkinen PJ, Adan O, Nevalainen A (2007) Elements that contribute to healthy building design. Environ Health Perspect 1(15):965–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Melse JM, de Hollander AEM (1996) Estimating population attributable benzene leukemia risk—assumptions and science policy. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the ISEE, Edmonton, AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  39. Ott WR (1990) A physical explanation of the lognormality of pollutant concentrations. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 40: 1378–1383Google Scholar
  40. Papameletiou D, Hakkinen P, Kephalopoulos S, Zenié A, Reina V, del Pozo C, Arvanitis A, Bruinen de Bruin Y (2005) The EIS-ChemRisks scenario-based exposure assessment approach for consumer products/articles. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the International Society of Exposure Analysis (ISEA), 30 October–3 November 2005, Tucson, AZ, USGoogle Scholar
  41. Pellizzari E, Lioy P, Quackenboss J, Whitmore R, Clayton A, Freeman N, Waldman J, Thomas K, Rodes C, Wilcosky T (1995) Population-based exposure measurements in EPA region 5—a phase I field study in support of the national human exposure assessment survey. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5(3):327–58Google Scholar
  42. Pérez Ballesta P, Field RA, Connolly R, Cao N, Caracena AB, De Saeger E (2006) Population exposure to benzene—one day cross-sections in six European cities. Atmos Environ 40(18):3355–3366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Raw GJ, Coward SKD, Llewellyn JW, Brown VM, Crump DR, Ross DI (2002) Indoor air quality in English homes—introduction and carbon monoxide findings. In: Proceedings of the 9th Int Conf Indoor Air Quality and Climate, vol 4, pp 461–466Google Scholar
  44. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December (2006) The registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH), establishing a European chemicals agency, amending directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. Official J European Union L 396Google Scholar
  45. Ryan PB, Spengler JD, Letz R (1986) Estimating personal exposure to NO2. Environ Int 12:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schneider P, Lorinci G, Gebefugi IL, Heinrich J, Kettrup A, Wichmann HE (1999) Vertical and horizontal variability of volatile organic compounds in homes in Eastern Germany. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 9:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schneider P, Gebefugi IL, Richter K, Wolke G, Schnelle J, Wichmann HE, Heinrich J, INGA Study Group (2001) Indoor and outdoor BTX levels in German cities. Sci Total Environ 267:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seifert B, Becker K, Hoffmann K, Krause C, Schulz C (2000) The German environmental survey 1990/1992 (GerESII): a representative population study. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 10:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sexton K, Kleffman DE, Callahan MA (1995) An introduction to the National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) and related phase I field studies. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 5(3):229–232Google Scholar
  50. van Leeuwen CJ, Vermeire TG (2007) Risk assessment of chemicals—an introduction, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, ISBN 978-1-4020-6101 1 (HB), ISBN 978-1-4020-6101-8 (ebook)Google Scholar
  51. Wallace L, Nelson W, Ziegenfus R, Pellizzari ED, Michael L, Whitmore R, Zelon H, Hartwell T, Perritt R, Westerdahl D (1991) The Los Angeles TEAM study—personal exposures, indoor–outdoor air concentrations of 25 volatile organic compounds. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 1:157–192Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuri Bruinen de Bruin
    • 1
  • Kimmo Koistinen
    • 1
  • Stylianos Kephalopoulos
    • 1
  • Otmar Geiss
    • 1
  • Salvatore Tirendi
    • 1
  • Dimitrios Kotzias
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Physical and Chemical Exposure Unit, Institute for Health and Consumer ProtectionJoint Research Centre of the Commission of the European CommunitiesIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations