Evaluation of Indoor Air Quality Improvement by Formaldehyde Emission Rate in School Indoor Environment Using Mass Balance

(1)

gt+qqhJS+q 7(1 xj1153 4]38(2005* 12%) J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2005;15(3):16@165

(HCHO) ~flsq 434 451

^l-

%q%7)9 714 ⁹³⁷⁾

Evaluation of Indoor Air Quality Improvenlent by Formaldehyde Emission Rate in School Indoor Environment Using Mass Balance

Won-Ho Yangt . Bu-Soon Son1)

.

Dae-Won Kim2)

.

Young-Hee Kim . Jae-Cheol Byeon . Soon-won Jungl)

Department of Occupational Health, Catholic University of Daegu .

"Department of Environmental Health Science, Soonchyunhyang University . Z'Department of Environmental Science, Catholic University of Daegu .

Schools have significant and serious indoor environmental health problem, of which indoor air quality (IAQ) in school building may affect the health of the students and indirectly affect learning performance. Schools are of special concern when regarding indoor exposure to air pollutants, because students are particularly sensitive to pollutants and spend a significant amount of time in that environment. Therefore researches for improvement of indoor air quality have been developed such as installation of air cleaning device, ventilation system, titanium dioxide(X02) coating and

so

on. However, it is cult to evaluate the magnitude of improvement of indoor air quality in field study because indoor air quality can be _affected by source generation, outdoor air level, ventilation, decay by reaction, temperature, humidity, mixing condition and

so

on.

In this study, evaluation of reduction of formaldehyde emission rate in school indoor environments by far-Infixed ray

coating material was carried out using mass balance model in indoor environment. we proposed the evaluation method of magnitude of improvement in indoor air quality, considering outdoor level and ventilation. Since simple indoor concentration measuements could not properly evaluate the indoor air quality, outdoor level and ventilation should be considered when evaluate the indoor air quality.

Key Words

:school, indoor air quality, evaluation,

forrnaldehyde(HCHO), ventilation

(2)

4 gLH37I P $ % E 7 F + 4 q q 44 dil719goz 9 @ 941 9 sk2q ^;F ³ 4720dskS 833

+ ⁹ ^q(Jones, ^1999).

q-qqqq Z 5 5 q A J q - q

^3%

'6FAJgS 44pF 344 47$!g$

6)

%Ad@

^A17171

~ 1 5 4 1 2aq

4 6 1 + A @ 97492-61q 33 A J $ q q + g % 3 4 q 4 2 q i l

9 O E z 3 4 4 4 q g - q $ + 4 + UHP e + i q ( e + g 5,

2003). 6 1 4 % q i z a g q 8 % 9 4 q q g ? - H + I ~ + ! o ~ 23 PI-g

?-Hz ~ ) # q + ~Hsz+~j +4-lg

$61

! g A J $ q . 614@ % g z %

2 g

$J

q]

-111 5

( f o r m a l d e h y d e :

HCHO

)

, 4

!g

+

⁷¹^]

³ ^(volatile

organic compunds: VOCs)

,

4

y!

5

61

9 0 q , A$%! k!*J7174lAj 9- A J q k +471& 5 4 ]q-4 96) % A J $ ~ .

61

HCHO+ -g

q q 9414 gqaq ~z

g71E4 a* 241 z \ % ( $ % , 714% W 7 F % > $ ?!St. 4

$24 HCHO41 k % q q 2, a , q , q+g z \ q z \ q , 8 4 4 1 ;F yll9 + 9q. H a 3 0 5 5 9 4 g $ q 3 q 9% 90715 %?$

z 9 4 4 4 q-l/-dq+ %W' s

$(Group 2 A ) z g G q 3 9 O q ,

% 5 7 F ulB

²⁷¹

W 4 1 d7-11 4 gq zl q

^{8 7 1}

S o l +-+ ³ a+- ^,3441 3GiiFZ1] q q a7d-

41 1 1 s

^~1317l1

q q q A J 5 6 1 f

5% a&%)? 5 h j q z 9 ~ 3

(New School Building Syndrome:

NSBS) g q o l q E # q 3 sr;F(&

$^? +5,2004).

qz 4q5713q q @ 5 7 % 44 qqg +4oz q0,tg 9 771 + s J W %di. 01240F dil q 3 q rAj$+4]Aj

^{3 A ) g}

VOCS

% r + sJ$ 433k267 g / m 3 % E# 4 2 ^uj (Fantuzzi et a1 .

,

1996)

,

Daiseyeta1.(2003)$ 3 k 3 4 l A j h1.g

7 3 3 4*4 q s il $ r q

HCHOk$ 7)9~-jg

J L ~ L Z ) ~ ~ . EE@

zg& q3 3 4 44571

?$

4 u+ S 8

^7J

4 q Ad (Meininghaus, 2003), g q q 3 3 4 q 4q371

3 q q 4 1 qs 4 4 5 $71

(Rosen and Richardson, 1999

)

, 9 3

3)

3 4 l A j g$g@ 337141 4s

3

$54 ^COz %r(LeeandChang,2000)

s 2 3 z ) + 5 q q . q 4 o s q-3 3 4 4 q 5 7 ] g q 575

q A J g 0 1

441pF ;T14q A/%%+

01

% ~ 2 @

A] 71

41 9Onz 3-4 qqoz %Q@ 9749-6171 q eqq (q'&+!, 1911.

qzagq q 4 2 4q 8 3 % Q-371 +lq 4141 6c1E51 LFq"11."1

+ ¹⁹⁹ % g q q 0 ) 3 4 7 1 8 % 3 4 q - 1 ~ 4 1 u+q 33 513 % O q , ?-jgz)q q 4 4 g q @ q k @ q ?gQ$471 g+ 33 9 q . + + - + q q l A j r 4 2 'qzxdq"7H34) qq 3 4 4

~ H I A J ~ I W 4 1 71414 ~ ~

8 7 1 ~ 1 4 %

^{6 ] # @}

93 $ 5 4

8 7 1 %

%)SF %)3 97.1

D,F

01 7 1 5 %

Q-+%)+

q3+

^7-l

4 $5 4301q.

g $l?$ q~~gg(rernode1ing)

@

% q k g q q g q 4 q % b g 7

$ @ 35q-3 ~ ~ j g g z f l + j o ~ HCHO xl]q# 3 4 4 3

^*JA)

3 9

""2

o)#%)q HCHO !g~J$q

x z z

7,Fh 3 2 s 442713 Q941

4-1q-q

^5$j7)Z)5

g q q .

⁶¹

g 71*J%& 4~437144 4 4 % ~ 2

9 7 1

5 q 0 d 3 k g g g 3 4 @ 3 0 s q 3 3 4 4 q g q 39 61 q

^hfl

4 q 3 (Sick House

-- -

g+g : m g 49 49, >(qg ^: m g

9 9 129

7 i z 4 x j 4 : Ojga(g+ 8 3 ~ 1

^-~;FO~%

r;H1-7FWr;Hq~ 36d~zjqq

Tel: 053-85@3739, Fax: 053-W3736, E-mail, [email protected])

Syndrome: SHS

) i+ @ 01

4 + a ⁹

Aj ! g A J q + 3 7 ] 9 $ 3 $

q e& 3lg g7\g + 9 3 VJgg 4193 + ^;I$ ^g01q.

a . g p g y

q%F+rq 4313 A % q z q q y . g g + q q 4 q q 7 4 1 4%)

@

B x % q 3 q

^{h ] ] g}

4 q%%

7~ ~ ~ j g g q g O z $ 4 4

+j

v J h \ g g q 3g41 ol]@ HCHO

HI$% 7,Fh 32s 3% &!$'i;F

9 q . g $l'Fq."l dil* 3 4 s 4E$g%)71 3 ( 4 4 3 F 7"d

a ) , q E 3 g @ S ( 4 4 3 ?q S ) , 3 4 3 2.443

* J h ) g 3

3 % 8 7-FZF 3 4 4441Aj 27H

q z l q A ] s , 3 4 4q

^{3 7 1}

1 3 4 ) A j HCHOS +$ F , SAl 8

71

8 % +3i;F9q. A 5 3 k 3 qq 4 4 414s 230m3, B 3 5 5 ) ~ 5

~jaq 414s 2 6 5 m 3 0 z +JGq 2q.

H C H O ~ A J S g & 4 ] 0OJg~l a g g s g g 2 g z ) q a+$bqg

@ 3 + A ] 7 ] 3

ggq q q x 1 3 9 3

+L%\+

* q q x ] g g 4 4 g s

DF

L = q

^s

01E q941 2 . q q + j % v J h \ g q 9 % 27)s YA'i3'Fk

$x)q g%*Jq)q Ad"?% tl)yq 414 QE+&G gAd]gozq

HCHOS 3q40z 3 q g + 9

5 71%% 71x12 41

0406650, % q 3 , 2 0 0 3 ) . q 4 q 3

* J h ) g 3 &

q*OZ g?i?l)Aj (cornpressor)g 01#%)q A + q 3 41 A j 5 q Q g g @ q-gq ^{g q o ]}

Zz)717 xgg, q 5 4 7

3£

q41 3 g % ) g 3 , B iL5q34'.1 5 4 4 g q q - xgq 3 g q 9 q . 43713& 20059 1 3 - 2 3

59 + B 4 % q .

(3)

X ~ ~ L I ] % ~ S ( H C H O ) ~

~ l s 3 I )

4 2 8 3 q - 4 443713 % 3 A ]

g*Jqq 2zl-q +gz)%q(8?!

,"-, 2004). Fig. 1 4 g o ) 4 4 5 3

g ,

% k g

5%

7fl*J%)iJ 01

h,Fq g 3 0 3 019 ;i]+2 q , 9l79 7lsF g 4 2 7fl?+(%BFa, $9

g , g7]7 5)s ^{5 4 3}

^o]aF

⁹

f- 9 1 449l $714 ol%% *J

43 B 3 5 4 q 9 q .

( 2 ) HCHO $ 3 2 2 4 4471 ^+6])* P x l % ) k e g g q 1

%]G

% E g

+33\7]

4 3

^{A ] %}

p J q 0 3 + % q % 4 4 8 3 9 4 q4i+ E A j 9 q A j q q 1000 mL/minq + g o 1 30% +$9 jI)

#%)q 2 , 4 - q q K Z 4 ] $ % ] S ~ + 3 (2,4 -DNPH

;

2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine, Supelco, USA) 2 ₃ + ⁵ ⁴¹ ⁴ ⁹ $ ,

01

2,4-DNPH + ~ q J ] g X J j + q 41 Z Z ~ \ E Z ~ ~ ( H p L C l o l l f 9 4 q zpq$-&%7;1571q

&$-.I+%

360nmol]Aj d $ q k 3 1 ~ ~ 5 . 1 ~

4 q2qs

2

xg.gq]%]"q +x

g =?z)9q. 4S4 g y a7Fzl d"L2.3 % f d O q , 442713 S B A ] ~ ~ g MOSH2016pJQ$

3 s z \ d r ] g y g % q ( p a q - , 2W,iuIOSH,2003j.

A ] S ~

3.~0)

41 E q

⁰¹^E

3

(

acetonitrile ql

⁰¹-$

q +??jg%q. +8 -$qS ^{2 mP}

~ ) 0 ]

9 4) q , HPLC/UV4 360 nmqlAj % Y l i i F % q . % % S

C8(150mm x 3.9mm x 5 vm) q.1F 2

%2 ol-$z)%q. 01%ab+ 4-4

E q o l g g i q e G $ = g 4 5 5 5 4

-11

83 gg9 -$qg o]-$z)%0

q , ++P 1.5 rnt/min03

+xli3'F9q. gyA1

^{A 1 S}

? 3 %

$

20

'do1

2 q .

717)

T g ! . s l ; - ' g

$

Table 1 4 @ q . 9$j-$q$

2,4-DNPH ?j$gg~j]%]S

s$j-$j-q (100 ppm, Supelco, USA)$

6)41Eq~JggZ q y 4 q

^01%

~ ) 9 ~ + . 0 . 0 6 - 3 . 8 5 p p m @ q q 471

% s + 2 0 2 4 1 3 % k % O q , 7-F '"'4 35s o1-$*q 4 3 4

^{$ 7}

4 83% q A d % \ 2 1 q .

( 3 )

8 7 1

3 93

8

7-71

9s

^f

4

7)

."(tracer gas) g

01

-$z\q 4% 9 8 % $= 2 q . 3 7 qaF9 A +TLyJ q T F 4 2 B

iJ++qa r A j a q ~ 7 1 . 1 ~ q 4

⁷¹

414

@-713!X17F

35271 4 l F q 1

q 3 ~ 1 3 8 7 1 9 pxNz)2 302 a ) q % q . 3 3 7 o l l A - l 9 HCHO$;ZI $

+ A ]

Co2%$j7F

."s 014j-%)q q q 4 CQ % E 7 )

Fig. 1. Sampling process for formaldehyde in schoolroom.

Table 1. lnstrwmen t and a.nafysis condition for HCHO concentration Instrument HPLC (Waters 2690)

UV Detector ( W a t e ~ 2487), 360 nm

Column C8(Symme&y HPLC column), Reversed-phase Effluent Acetonitn1e:DW

=

4555

Flow rate 1.5 nla/min Injection Volume 20 fit

",t 1500ppmol) ~ 3 3 % rrH C02 9

$ 7 ) & g

~ Z ] A ] ~ ) Z

5 g u \ q C02

g % r g +$qq qqgq C02 3 ~ 7 ) O,t m p p m 3~611 o ] s @

g3g % z ] q % q . C02

937\h g h )

4 g

g h \

% q F a n 6 q S

o]-$z);F6Cl A+$Vii!q i$'6;F4 g B i l 5 q - a q s A j g % q7-F @ a $ g(completemixing) abqz 330 q C02 % s 7 F 63 1500ppmq

0 1 s

@ F a n g 3 ~ 1 ~ 1 7 1 3 6$ l o g B q q C02 +ss 43i3'F%i~, 9 3 4 9 s data-loggerq 4

4%02 z j " b F q r g z ) % q . C02

% r g + j P lpoint41Aj s)%Oq i+q-44 E A j 3 +$!"11Aj q7-F

5 3 4 9 q .

8 7 1 %

%i-;z)$ f ?

7 ) 5

% E g k q 0 3 qI;rl*Jq (regression method

)

3 o] -$q q 2

71

8

71

3 +(Air Change per Hour; ACH) S Al+iiF%di("2+!3 5, 2000).

cc] 71

Aj , Ci=indoor concentration (fig / m'

)

, Co= outdoor concentration (fl g/m3), I=air exchange per hour (hr-I), SER=sourceemissionrate(g/hr), R=

removal rate ( B / h

) ,

V

=

volume of the space (m') , t =time

(

hr

)

, and m

=

mixing factor (0 <m

5

1

)

.

4 ( 1 1 4 4 44 $71P$S"?

q g & g (R)

$

g - & + + ( K , hr-'

)

(4)

4 (21% 4 ( 1 ) 4 ] ~Hgga dil

9 4 q z 7 , t q ~ j 9 8 . g ~ ~

(completely mixed condition, m= 1

)

g

7l-48\'3, 4 (11% qg4-

^{2 0 1}

+ ( 3 1 0 3 L F ~ % 9 aq.

4 4 2 7 1 3 ! z g q ] ~ j HCHO4

% 5 7 \

g 9 g t l l J ( t = a ) 4 ] ~ 3 9 rrH A17,tql qs %E @*+ ^{3 + J F}

3)-q(dCi/dt=O)jz 7\49 9 92 nl, H a 0 9 4 3 9 4148% 3 5 3 ( K : = O ) - s z

^?A\%\fil

7\44 '3 HChO

Gl Id,c 4

g (source emissio~

rate:SEK)-s y-$q @ q .

SER --VI(Ci 40) ₍₄ 1

III. g T g q 2 23

1.1

) , j

,

Cz, :Indoor HCHO ma ar?Ooc. Tr: meanmmtemperallure(~), CT :

nleasured

indm HCHO m n t m t i o n

Table 1. bstrumen t and a.nalysis condition for HCHO concentration Sample site

Outdoor

^4.1

Before 0.130 0.002

remodeling Indoor 7.3 (R2=0.954

)

Indoor

After remodehg

Outdoor Indoor Indoor

1 day after coating

Outdoor Indoor Indoor

-

Mmisq of Education

(Japan 1

: 0.08ppm

(5)

S E R S 3341.39 g / h r S 2Afi);FFd

3 ,

2 9 , 3 9 $6115 q q 2811.12 g / h r , 2130.20 g / h r O z A] +q

0

e 7,~a + t q s

^L ^F ^~ ^L ^H^61%^~ ^~ ^.

q7-F 12.8%, 26.6%, 44.4% 4

$i&

4$ L F q 4 l 2 q . ^?!-@ 44%3 4 l A ) + % @ 44 HCHO

%I;*

298olJ 36.5 @ / m 3 9 * e , 3 9

$5 51.9

@/m3,

51.7 K/m3, 42.45

@ / m 3 C j Z Q ' i i l q q 2 33%4 5 7 F g 8 x@+.

61

2s"rk B 5q

a q A j 4 ~ ~ 9 3 i+qaq 3%

Q+

~)37\4e 4 4 S 7 1 4 q7F

*J%A) +jq57]4

8 7 ] $ $ &

$-5

A1 i l 4 4 q @& ^q-qg ^{3 q q .}

⁰ Before remodehg After remodeling 1 day after remodehg

^-1

⁰

Fig. 2. Comparison be tween indoor HCHO concentrations and source emission rates of HCHO.

4% q * q *

^BJA\

3q+k42

_O _Beforenewdesk Afternew desk 1 day after 2dayafter 3day after O

o]-$z)q HCHO !g~J$q. ⁷ ^, ^F ^k 4

installation instalIation coating coating coating

5s

+j4%71"?

Z P ~ 4 % ~ ^Fig. 3. Comparison between indoor HCHO concentrations and

% 7 \ 5 ) 3 d r . 341 W$-'6FollA-l 4 4 source em ission rates of HCHO.

Table 3. Source emission rate of HCHO in library with new purchased desk sampling

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . .

Conc. ACH SER

sampling Sample site i l h ) (&I Standard

ipdm3

Before Outdoor

new desk Indoor

installation Indoor

After Outdoor 7.0 0.49

^-

Mitustry of

new desk Indoor 3830.58

(R2=0.99

)

Environment

mtdation Indoor 36.5 (Korea 1

1 day Outdoor 5.2 : 0.lppm

0.27 after Indoor 3341.39

51.9 (Rd.89)

coating Indoor

_-

Ministry of

2 d a ~ Outdoor 7.5 0.24 Education

after Indoor 2811.12

(R'9.95

)

(Japan 1

coating Indoor 51.7 : 0.08ppm

3 day Outdoor 7.5 0.23

after Indoor 2130.20

coating 42.45 (R2=0.97

)

Indoor

(6)

REFERENCES

q%q. qizgg. @qq-izgaq-q

~1 1991;4: 31-38 kxa

wj A r p

1 - 0 I - O L ,

4?3g9

⁷^d^$^q⁹

³

$9, elm, w f .

A ~ Q A ~

9 ;?- 5)xq 44 2714 zhi 2 9 4 %

^327).

q@qAJqqX]

2003;18(3):101-110

oJqa.4q27) 1 $ g $ q kg

" ^-

^A3347).

q@f q2ht

^f

g 4 4 0 0

q g ~ ] 2003;79:1(n-117

O~+e,qgf, 61719, 3 s a . 48

A I ~ , F ~ I

rdrs i - f f q q -17126

A13 1%41 a@ 97. @qg

$ ~ A J % L ~ x ]

2000;26(3):50-54

$4,4~19,* ol%Q, @I-%+, ",F

f-9. +-qz+h]+jq 421 2 4L# .4q41 qE Zsgrj]%]S

%LE @3+.

@qggxaqqzl

2 W ;30(3

)

:259 -263

5 q + , q q q 4 JA)gq 413* J q g ~ 1 5 9* 5 q 04046650, 5 q 3 2 0 0 3 .

~ 7 j + . . ^ ? . q + 7 ] ~ ~ ; l j h ] ~ J $* 2004 ;46 -5 1

Chang M and Lee SC. Indoor and outdoor air qual~ty investigation at schools in Hong Kong. Chemosphere 2000,41:

109-113

Daisey JM, Angell WJ and Apte MG.

Indoor air quality, ventilation and health symptoms in schools: an analysis of existing information.

Indoor Air 2003;13: 53-64

F a n M G, Aggazzotti G, Righi E, Cavazzuti L, Predieri G and Franceschelli A. Indoor air quality in the university libraries of Modena (Italy). the Science of the Total Environment 19%,193: 49-56 Jones AP. Indoor air quality and health.

Atmospheric Environment 1999; 33;

45354564.

MeininghausR, Kouniali A, Mandin C and Cicolella A. Risk assessment of sensory initants in indoor air

-

a case study in a French school. Environment International 2003;28: 553-557 NIOSH. NIOSH Manual of Analytical

Methods(NMAM).htIp J/www.cdcCgov /niosh/ nmam 2003.

Rosen KG and Richardson G. Would removing indoor air particulates in children's environments reduce

I-dte