1. 1
Something Old and Something New
An air sampling experiment comparing the particulate matter between three
indoor air samples.
Joni Rorije
Prepared for:
Dr. Troy Stuckey
GEOL 3363: Environmental Geology Seminar
Southern Methodist University
2. 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
1.1. ProjectPurpose………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………4
1.2. AirQualityHistoryandRegulation……………………………………………………………………………………………4
1.3. Particulate Matter…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
1.4. Purpose of Experiment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4
1.5. Relevance of Particulate Matter……………………………………………………………………………………………….5
1.6. Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5
1.7. ExperimentalSites……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
1.7.1. Location
1.7.2. Observations
2. Project Implementation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9
2.1. Schedule………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
2.2. Equipment……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9
2.3. Personnel Roles……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
2.4. Site Selection…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11
2.4.1. Site Preparation
3. Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….12
3.1. EquipmentPreparation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………12
3.2. Measurements………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
3.2.1. Table of Data CollectedatSample Sites
3.3. Slide Preparation……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..12
4. Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
4.1. Temperature trends…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13
4.2. SamplingDataDiscussion………………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
4.2.1. Table of Coarse Particle Counts,Site 1
4.2.2.Table of Fine Particle Counts,Site 1
4.2.3.Figure of Particle CountsbySize,Site 1
4.2.4. Site 1 Data Discussion
4.2.5.Table of Coarse Particle Counts,Site 2
4.2.6.Table of Fine Particle Counts,Site 2
4.2.7.Figure of Particle CountsbySize,Site 2
4.2.8.Site 2 Data Discussion
4.2.9.Table of Coarse Particle Counts,Site 3
4.2.10. Table of Fine Particle Counts,Site 3
4.2.11. Figure of Particle CountsbySize,Site 3
4.2.12. Site 3 Data Discussion
4.3. HypothesisDiscussion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
4.3.1.Hypothesis1Discussion
4. 4
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of project: The purpose of this projectisto learnaboutair qualitysampling
procedures,especiallyforsamplingandanalysisof particulate matterinairsamples.Throughthe
processof air sampling,we will learnbothaboutairquality measurementprocedures andproper
scientificexperimentalprocedures.Usingthe informationobtainedfromthisexperiment,we will
gaininsightandknowledge aboutthe airqualitywe experience everyday.
1.2 AirQualityHistoryandRegulation: Airqualityfirstbecame aconcerninthe mid-20th
century,
afterthe Industrial Revolution hadfilledmanycitieswithsmokestacks,factories,andothersources
of smogand pollutants. However,regulationof airpollutiondevelopedonlyslowlyuntilthe Clean
AirAct of 1963 waspassed.It hassince beenamendedmanytimesinthe pastfew decades to
accommodate changingconditionsandaddimprovements,suchasthe additionof the National
AmbientAirQualityStandards(NAAQS)andthe requirementforState ImplementationPlans(SIPs)
to be put intoplace by the states.These standardsrequire statestodraw upa planto eitherreduce
or maintainlevelsof pollutantsemitted. Inordertomonitorthe levelsof these pollutants,scientists
and researchersrelyontechniquessuchasthose usedinthisexperimenttomeasure the qualityof
the air.
1.3 Particulate Matter: Particulate matter,putsimply,isanythinginthe airthat isnot dissolved
inthe gaseousphase,andmayvary widelyintermsof composition,size,mass,andoccurrence.
Particulate matterisconsidereda classof pollutantsdue topotential toxicorallergiceffectson
humanhealth,the reductionof visibilityinhighenoughconcentrations,andthe effectsonglobal
climate systemsandthe pollutionof local ecosystems,andtheirpotential toaccumulate in high
concentrationswhentheysettle outof the atmosphere asdust.Particlescancome froma varietyof
sources,andhave a variable speciation.Someexamplesof commonparticulate matterinclude plant
fibers,plantpollens,mineral dust,soil particles, combustionproducts(suchassoot),skincells,
fungal cells,syntheticfibers,algal cells,andmanymore.Particulate matterisoftenclassifiedbysize
of the particles –according to the EPA,coarse particlesare definedasbeing>2.5 µm inlength, while
fine particlesare definedasbeing<2.5µmin length.
1.4 Purpose of Experiment: The purpose of thisexperimentistomeasure andanalyze the
particulate matterpresentineverydaylocations,lookingfortrendsinthe dataobtained.Inthis
5. 5
particularexperiment,the datafromthree indoorlocationsare analyzedinordertocompare the
particulate matterfoundineachsample,lookingfortrendsthatmightarise basedonthe age of the
buildingthatthe sample wastakenin.
1.5 The Relevance of Particulate MatterinthisExperiment: Particulatematterhasimportant
effectsonhumanhealth;ahigherdensityof particulate matterinthe airof an area posesgreater
risksto those withallergiesorbreathingproblemssuchasasthma.Areaswithhigherparticulate
matterin the air are oftenalsoconsideredtobe more “dirty”.It isnot unreasonable tobelieve that
a buildingthathasbeenrecentlybuiltmighthave cleanerfacilitiesandtherefore cleanerair;this
experimentwill determine whetherornotthat is the case.
1.6 Hypotheses:
Hypothesis1: The total concentrationof particleswill be greaterinairsamplestaken
fromolderbuildingscomparedtoairsamplestakenfromnewerbuildings.
Null (Ho):Total particle concentrationisnotdifferentin airsamplestakenfrom olderbuildings
than insamplestakenfrom newerbuildings.
Alternate (Ha):Total particle concentrationisgreaterin airsamplestakenfrom olderbuildings
than insamplestakenfrom newerbuildings.
Hypothesis2: The concentration of largercoarse particleswill be greaterinairsamples
takenfromolderbuildingscomparedtoairsamplestakenfromnewerbuildings.
Null (Ho):Total particle concentrationinairsamplesisnotaffectedbywhetherthe sample was
takeninan olderbuildingcomparedtoanewerone.
Alternate (Ha):Airsamplesfromolderbuildingswill have ahigherconcentrationof large coarse
particlescomparedtoair samplesfromnewerbuildings.
Hypothesis3: There will be anotable difference inthe speciationof particlesfromair
samplestakenfromolderbuildingscomparedtonewerbuildings.
Null (Ho):Airsamplesfromolderbuildingswillhave the same particle speciationasairsamples
takenfromnewerbuildings.
6. 6
Alternate (Ha):Airsamplesfromolderbuildings will have differentparticlespeciationasair
samplestakenfromnewerbuildings.
1.7 ExperimentalSites:
The slideswere takenfromthree locations:The CollinsAtriuminthe AnnetteCaldwellSimmons
Hall, the AnthropologyLabinHeroyHall,and the RotundainDallasHall.
1.7.1 Location:
Site 1 – CollinsAtrium,Annette Caldwell SimmonsHall (openedSeptember2010). Sample was
takenon the floorinthe southeastcornerof the atrium, slightlyelevatedonabox,5 feetfromthe
wall. The sample wastakenonMarch 29, 2012 from8:02 to 8:07pm. NoGPS coordinate was
available.
Photo 1.7.1.1 – Site 1, Collins Atrium, Annette Caldwell Simmons Hall, viewed from above
Site 2 – AnthropologyLab, 434A HeroyHall.Sample wastakenonthe centertable,3 feet from
the ground,on March 29, 2012, from 8:45 – 8:50pm. NoGPS coordinate wasavailable.
7. 7
Photo 1.1.7.2 – Site 2, 434A Heroy Hall (Anthropology Lab)
Site 3 – Main Rotunda,DallasHall (opened1915).Sample wastaken2 inchesfromthe seal in
the centerof the floor, withthe equipmentonthe floor,onMarch 22, 2012 from 8:37 – 8:42 pm. No
GPS coordinate wasavailable.
8. 8
Photo 1.1.7.3 – Site 3, Dallas Hall Rotunda, viewed from above.
1.7.2 Observations:
Site 1 – The atriumwas recordedas containingbenches,atrashcan andrecyclingbin,potted
plants,anda large portraitof Annette Caldwell Simmons.Alsowithinthe areawasa longhallway,
windoweddoors,ventilationunits,andastairwell,aswell asentrancestootherrooms.As the
sample wastaken,the rotameterwassurroundedbythe people inthe projectteam, andthere were
variouspassersby,including5people thatwere recordedtocome downthe stairs at 8:04pm. The
atmospherictemperaturewasmeasuredtobe 75.9o
to 77o
F.
Site 2 – The lab consistedof one large table surroundedbychairs(inwhichourprojectteam
were sitting) andvariouslabequipmentandmaterials,includingbottlesof waterandhydrochloric
acid,shelvesholdingbone andfossil specimens,afume hood, sink,cabinets,more samplesinplastic
bags,and a cart. The room wasnotedas not seemingdusty.The atmospherictemperature was
79.7o
– 81.6o
F.
Site 3 – The rotundais a large openindoorspace withthe seal inthe center.The sample was
takenon the marble floor,asa fewpeople passedbyaroundthe classrooms.There wasaheater
about20 feetaway.Goldpaintwasrecordedinthe area. The atmospherictemperature was
measuredtobe 72.8o
– 74.8o
F.
9. 9
2. Project Implementation
2.1 Schedule:The dataforthisexperimentwascollectedonMarch 22, 2012 and March
29, 2012, bothinthe evening.The sampleswerestudiedand analyzedinthe followingweeks,
endingonApril 26, 2012.
2.2 Equipment:The samplesweretakenusinganEMS air pumpand rotameterwith
EMS samplingcassettes.AlsousedwereaGPS locator,stopwatch,thermometer,anemometer,
extensioncords,anddigital cameras.Toanalyze the samples,polarized-lightmicroscopeswere
used.
Photo 2.2.1 – Air pump, rotameter, and sampling cassette used to obtain air samples.
10. 10
2.3 Personnel Roles
Photo 2.3.1 – Project Team
Time Keeper:Enrique
GPS Recorder:Emily
Photographers:JoeyandAndres
ExtensionCordTeam
Haulers:ChrisandMike
Scouts:Joni and Brandi
Meteorologists:Lincoln
SamplingEquipmentManager:James
SamplingCassette Installers:All Membersof Team,one persite
Site Describers:Maddie andDon
Data Recorder:Maureen
11. 11
2.4 Site Selection:The siteswere selectedbyDr.Stuckeyandthe projectteamso that
each memberhadat leastone site thattheypreferredtosample.Factorsdeterminingthe
selectionof eachsite includeproximitytothe lab,potentialforvariedparticulatematter,and
varietyintypesof sample sites.
The three sitesI chose forfurtheranalysis were samplestakeninthe oldestbuildingon
campus(DallasHall),one of the newestbuildingsoncampus(SimmonsHall),andone building
that wasbuiltsomewhere inbetween(HeroyHall).Thisprovidesabroadage range so that if
there isany majordifferenceinthe samplesdue tothe age of the buildingthe samplewastaken
in,those differencesshouldbe maximized.The samplefromHeroyHall could potentially be
treatedas a control in thatit isnot at either extreme of the age spectrum;however,Ichoose to
simplycompare italongside the othersamplesdue tothe highamountof variablesotherthan
buildingage thatmay affectthe resultsfrom HeroyHall differentlythanthe resultsfrom
SimmonsorDallas.
2.4.1 Site Preparation: Eachsite wasleftmostlyundisturbedbeforethe sample
was taken,withnocleaningorotherspecial preparationstothe sites.Beforethe sample could
be taken,an electrical outletwaslocated,extensioncordwaspluggedinasneeded,andthe
rotameterwascalibratedto5 litersperminute.The pumpwasthenfittedtothe sampling
cassette,andair waspumpedthroughfor5 minutes,meaningatotal of 25 litersof airwas
pumpedthroughthe cassette. Noteswere takenonthe featuresof the site,includingevents
occurringduringthe samplingsuchas people walkingby.The date,time, cassette number,
location, andtemperature were recorded.Foroutdoorsamples,windspeedandGPSwere also
recorded,butthere are no outdoorsamples inthisparticularanalysis.
12. 12
3. Methods
3.1 EquipmentPreparation: Before the sample couldbe taken,anelectrical outletwaslocated,
extensioncordwaspluggedinas needed,andthe rotameterwascalibratedto5litersperminute.The
pumpwas then fittedtothe samplingcassette,andairwaspumpedthroughfor5 minutes,meaninga
total of 25 litersof airwas pumpedthroughthe cassette.Noteswere takenonthe featuresof the site,
includingeventsoccurringduringthe samplingsuchaspeople walkingby.The date,time,cassette
number,location,andtemperature were recorded.Foroutdoorsamples,windspeedandGPSwere also
recorded,butthere are no outdoorsamplesinthisparticularanalysis.
3.2 Measurements:
Table 3.2.1: Data collectedatsample sites.
Site Cassette Number Temperature (o
F) Date and Time
Collins Atrium,
Simmons Hall
01851278 75.9 – 77 3/29/12
8:02 – 8:07 pm
AnthropologyLab, 434A
Heroy Hall
01827890 79.7 – 81.6 3/29/12
8:45 – 8:50 pm
Dallas Hall Rotunda 01836634 72.8 – 74.8 3/22/12
8:37 – 8:42 pm
3.3 Slide Preparation: Slideswere createdbyremovingthe adhesivefilm fromthe sampling
cassettes, transferredtoacleanglassslide,andcoveredandsealedwithacoverslip.Thisprocesswas
the same for all samples.It wasnotedthat the slidescontainedairbubbles,oftenonthe orderof
hundredsof µm.Several particlesfromthe original sample wouldappeartostickto these bubbles,
makingthemmore difficulttosee andmeasure.Therefore,these bubblesare alimitingfactorinthe
accuracy of the particle countsand can be treatedas a source of error.
On eachmicroscope,the eyepiece scale wasusedtomeasure the lengthof particles.After
calibration,itwasdeterminedthatat10x magnification,eachtickequaled 10microns;at 20x, each tick
equaled5microns;at 40x, eachtick equaled2.5microns;andat 63x, 1 tickequaled1.59 microns.
13. 13
4. Results
4.1 Temperature Trends:The temperaturesrecordedateachof the sitesdidnotvary by
any wide margin,anditis notbelievedthatthe differencesintemperature contributedtoany
notable trendsinthe data obtainedfromthe samples.Asaresult,temperature isnotavariable
inany of the hypothesesdiscussedinthisanalysis.
4.2 SamplingDataDiscussion:The sampleswere analyzedbycountingthe numberof
particlesineachsize category.Forlargerparticles,usually>50 microns(µm),the total number
of particleswascounted.Forsmallerparticles,onlyasectorof the slide wascountedandthe
numberwasextrapolatedbasedonthe size of the sectorcounted.
Table 4.2.1: Particle counts – coarse particlesat Site 1 (>2.5 µm).
Coarse Particle Size (microns) Count
>100 16
80-100 8
60-80 9
50-60 9
40-50 15
25-40 36
10-25 116
2.5-10 738
Total Coarse Particles 947
Table 4.2.2: Particle counts – fine particlesat Site 1 (0-2.5 µm).
Fine Particle Size (microns) Count
1-2.5 1150
0-1 1154
Total Fine Particles 2304
14. 14
Figure 4.2.3: Particle compositionby size in Site 1.*
*Note:for the sake of readabilityIshow onlythe total amountof coarse particles(>2.5
microns) insteadof eachof the partitionedsize categoriesforcoarse particles;the countsfor
those categoriesare listedinthe tablesabove.
4.2.4 Site 1 Discussion: Aslisted above,atotal of 3251 particleswere countedinthe
sample forSite 1 (CollinsAtriuminSimmonsHall). 947(29%) of those particleswere coarse
particles,and 2304 (71%) of those particleswere fine particles.
Since thissample wastakenat 5 litersperminute for5 minutes,atotal of 25 litersof air
was collected.Therefore,the densityof particlesinthissample was 3251/25 or 130.04 particles
per liter.
The typesof particlesinthisslide includedthe following:cellulose,skincells,pollen,
mineral dust (possiblygypsum),soil particles,and fungi.
29%
35%
36%
Particle Count by Size in µm - Site 1
Total Coarse Particles
1-2.5
0-1
15. 15
Table 4.2.5: Particle counts – coarse particlesat Site 2 (>2.5 µm).
Coarse Particle Size (microns) Count
>100 16
80-100 5
60-80 3
50-60 6
40-50 4
25-40 10
10-25 94
2.5-10 832
Total Coarse Particles 970
Table 4.2.6: Particle counts – fine particlesat Site 2 (<2.5 µm).
Fine Particle Size (microns) Count
1-2.5 983
0-1 2293
Total Fine Particles 3276
Figure 4.3.7: Particle compositionby size in Site 2.
23%
23%
54%
Particle Count by Size in µm - Site 2
Total Coarse Particles
1-2.5
0-1
16. 16
4.3.8 Site 2 Discussion: Aslistedabove,atotal of 4246 particleswere countedinthe
sample forSite 2 (AnthropologyLab,HeroyHall). 970 (23%) of those particleswere coarse
particles,and 3276 (77%) of those particleswere fine particles.
Since thissample wastakenat 5 litersperminute for5 minutes,atotal of 25 litersof air
was collected.Therefore,the densityof particlesinthissample was4246/25 or 169.84 particles
per liter.
The typesof particlesinthisslide includedthe following: syntheticfiber, mineral dust,
dirt particles,fungi,plant fibers(very few),anda bladedmineral.
Table 4.2.9: Particle counts – coarse particlesat Site 3 (>2.5 µm).
Coarse Particle Size (microns) Count
>100 9
80-100 6
60-80 2
50-60 5
40-50 10
25-40 8
10-25 52
2.5-10 163
Total Coarse Particles 255
Table 4.2.10: Particle counts – fine particles at Site 3 (0-2.5 µm).
Fine Particle Size (microns) Count
1-2.5 1123
0-1 1076
Total Fine Particles 2199
17. 17
Figure 4.2.11: Particle compositionby size in Site 3.
4.2.12: Site 3 Discussion:Aslistedabove,atotal of 2454 particleswere countedinthe
sample forSite 3 (DallasHall Rotunda). 255 (10%) of those particleswere coarse particles,and
2199 (90%) of those particleswere fine particles.
Since thissample wastakenat 5 litersperminute for5 minutes,atotal of 25 litersof air
was collected.Therefore,the densityof particlesinthissample was2454/25 or 98.16 particles
per liter.
The typesof particlesinthisslide includedthe following: syntheticfiber,fungi,plant
fiber,skin cells,mineral dust,and soil particles.
4.3 HypothesisDiscussion
Hypothesis1: The totalconcentration of particles will be greaterinair samplestaken
fromolderbuildingscomparedtoairsamplestakenfromnewerbuildings.
Null (Ho): Total particle concentration inairsamples isnotaffectedbywhetherthe
sample wastakeninan olderbuildingcomparedto anewerone.
Alternate (Ha): Total particle concentrationisgreaterinairsamplestakenfromolder
buildingsthaninsamplestakenfromnewerbuildings.
4.3.1 Hypothesis1Discussion:The sample fromoldestbuilding,DallasHall,hada total
particle countof 2454, witha particle concentration of 98.16 particles/L. The nextsample,takenfrom
10%
46%
44%
Particle Count by Size in µm - Site 3
Total Coarse Particles
1-2.5
0-1
18. 18
the slightlyyoungerbuildingof HeroyHall,hada total particle countof 4246, witha particle
concentrationof 169.84 particles/L.The sample fromthe newestbuilding,SimmonsHall,hadatotal
particle countof 3251, witha particle concentrationof 130.04 particles/L.The sample fromHeroyHall
had the greatestparticle concentration,andthe sample fromSimmonsHall hadagreaterparticle
concentrationthan the sample fromDallasHall.Therefore,the Ho was accepted.
Hypothesis2: The concentration of largercoarse particles will be greaterinairsamples
takenfromolderbuildingscomparedtoairsamplestakenfromnewerbuildings.
Null (Ho): Total particle concentrationinairsamplesisnotaffectedbywhetherthe
sample wastakeninan olderbuildingcomparedtoanewerone.
Alternate (Ha): Air samplesfromolderbuildingswillhave ahigherconcentrationof
large coarse particlescompared toair samplesfromnewerbuildings.
4.3.2 Hypothesis2Discussion: The sample fromthe oldestbuilding,DallasHall,hada
total of 947 coarse particles.The sample fromthe nextoldestbuilding,HeroyHall,hada total of 970
coarse particles.The sample fromthe newestbuilding,SimmonsHall,hadatotal of 255 coarse particles.
The samplesfromDallasHall and HeroyHall had similaramountsof coarse particles,andthe two
buildingsare relativelyclose inage.The sample fromSimmonsHall hada dramaticallylowernumberof
coarse particles.Therefore,the Ho was rejected.
Hypothesis3: There will be anotable difference inthe speciation of particles fromair
samplestakenfromolderbuildingscomparedtonewerbuildings.
Null (Ho): Airsamplesfromolderbuildingswill have the same particlespeciationasair
samplestakenfromnewerbuildings.
Alternate (Ha): Air samplesfromolderbuildingswillhave differentparticlespeciation
as air samplestakenfromnewerbuildings.
4.3.3 Hypothesis3Discussion: Mineral dust,plantfiber(cellulose)andfungi were found
inall three samples.Skincellsanddirtparticleswere foundinsamplesfromSimmonsHall andDallas
Hall.SyntheticfiberswerefoundinsamplesfromHeroyandDallasHall.There were some unidentified
19. 19
particlesthatwere unique toeachslide,suchasthe bladedmineral foundinthe sample fromHeroy
Hall.While some there issome subjectivityastothe magnitude of the difference betweenthe
speciationof these samples,the differencesdonot appearnegligibleandtherefore,Ho isrejected.
20. 20
5. Conclusions
5.1 Discussion:Consideringthe firsthypothesis,the dataindicates thatthere wasactuallyahigher
densityof particulate matterinthe airsample fromthe newestbuildingtested,Simmons Hall,compared
to the oldestbuildingtested,DallasHall.Thisdirectlycontrastedwiththe hypothesizedresult.However,
it shouldalsobe notedthatthe sample fromHeroyHall showedthe highestparticle concentrationout
of the three samples. Thisresultdoesnotappeartobe relatedtothe relative agesof the buildings.
Therefore,there mustbe otherfactorsatplay thatdetermine the particle concentrationof these indoor
sites;potential examplesmightincludesize of the room, locationwithinthe room, proximityof the
sample site toobjectssuchas ventilationunits,people,andfurniture,orproximityof the sample site to
doorsor windows.
Consideringthe secondhypothesis, the dataindicatesthatthe samplesfromHeroyandDallasHall
had significantlyhigherconcentrationsof large coarse particlesthanthe sample fromSimmonsHall.The
difference wasconclusiveenoughtodeclare the null hypothesisfalse.However,itisstill possiblethat
there maybe otherfactorsat playthat determinethe difference inparticle size,whichmightinclude
some of the variableslistedabove.
Consideringthe thirdhypothesis,the dataindicatesthatthere are infactdifferencesbetween the
particle compositionsof eachsample;however,thereisstill agooddeal of overlapinthe typesof
particlesseenineachslide. The rejectionof the null hypothesisistherefore limitedbyacertaindegree
of subjectivityindetermininghowlarge the difference is.
5.2 Discoveries:The overarchingdiscoverytocome outof these conclusions concernsthe general
assumptionthatnewlybuiltbuildingsare inherently“cleaner”andwouldtherefore have lessparticulate
matterpollution.However,itappearsthatthisisnotnecessarilythe case,especiallywhenconcerning
total particulate mattercount.Anotherimportantdiscoverymade throughthe processof analyzingthis
data was thatthere are manysourcesof errorthat may cause the experimenttoturnout differently.
5.3 Future Recommendations:There are manymore variablesinplaythatdetermine the samples’
particle count,composition,distribution,andpotential forerror. One notable factornotdiscussedin
thisexperimentisthe highlyvariable physical distributionof particleson asample slide;one mighthave
clustersof particlesinthe center,while anothermightbe more spreadout,althoughtheygenerallystill
have the highestdensitiesinthe center.Anothersource of error issimple mistakesincountingand
extrapolation;these errorscouldbe correctedoverthe course of manyrepeatedexperiments.
5.4 Final Thoughts:Ona personal level,Ifoundthatthe real learningexperience fromthisprojectcame
aboutnot fromthe resultsof the data analysisbutthe processof acquiringthatdata, fromthe sampling
itself tothe analysisof the samples.Thisprojectenabledusasa classto experience the techniquesand
importance of airsamplingandair qualityassessmentfirsthand.
21. 21
6. Appendices
6.1 Listof Photographs:
Photo 1.7.1.1 – Site 1………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
Photo 1.7.1.2 – Site 2………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
Photo 1.7.1.3 – Site 3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Photo 2.2.1 – Air pump, rotameter, and samplingcassette…………………………………………………………9
Photo 2.3.1 – Project Team……………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
6.2 Listof Tables:
Table 3.2.1 – Data collected from samplesites…………………………………………………………….12
Table 4.2.1 – Coarseparticlecounts,Site 1…………………………………………………………………..13
Table 4.2.2 – Fine particlecounts,Site 1………………………………………………………………………13
Table 4.2.5 – Coarseparticlecounts,Site 2…………………………………………………………………..15
Table 4.2.6 – Fine particlecounts,Site 2………………………………………………………………………15
Table 4.2.9 – Coarseparticlecounts,Site 3…………………………………………………………………16
Table 4.2.10 – Fine particlecounts,Site 3……………………………………………………………………16
6.3 List of Figures:
Figure 4.2.3 - Particlecomposition by size,Site 1……………………………………………..14
Figure 4.2.7 – Particlecomposition by size,Site 2…………………………………………….15
Figure 4.2.11 – Particlecomposition by size,Site 3…………………………………………..17
6.4 Data:
Original Particle CountSpreadsheets:
Site 1:
Coarse Particles
(microns)
Numberof
Particles Speciation:
>100 16 cellulose
80-100 8 skincells
60-80 9 pollen
22. 22
50-60 9 gypsum/mineral dust
40-50 15 soil particles
25-40 36 fungi
10-25 116
2.5-10 738
Total Coarse Particles 947
Fine Particles(microns)
1-2.5 1150
0-1 1154
Total Fine Particles 2304
Total Particles 3251
Site 2:
Coarse Particles(microns) Numberof Particles Speciation:
>100 16 syntheticfiber
80-100 5 mineral dust
60-80 3 dirt
50-60 6 fungi
40-50 4 plantfibers(veryfew)
25-40 10 bladedmineral
10-25 94
2.5-10 832
Total Coarse Particles 970
Fine Particles(microns)
1-2.5 983
0-1 2293
Total Fine Particles 3276
Total Particles 4246
Site 3:
Coarse Particles(microns) Numberof Particles Speciation:
>100 9 syntheticfiber
80-100 6 fungi
60-80 2 plantfiber
50-60 5 skincells
23. 23
40-50 10 mineral dust/dirt
25-40 8 Notes:
10-25 52
Particlesonthisslide
appearedmore
spreadout thanon
the otherslides,
where theyusually
clusteredtogether.
2.5-10 163
Total Coarse Particles 255
Fine Particles(microns)
1-2.5 1123
0-1 1076
Total Fine Particles 2199
Total Particles 2454
FieldDataSheets:
