Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 857–864, 2017

Copyright © Taiwan Association for Aerosol Research

ISSN: 1680-8584 print / 2071-1409 online
doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2016.03.0128

Particulate Air Pollution at Schools: Indoor-Outdoor Relationship and

Determinants of Indoor Concentrations

Mahmoud Mohammadyan1, Ahmad Alizadeh-Larimi2, Siavash Etemadinejad1,

Mohd Talib Latif3,4, Behzad Heibati5*, Kaan Yetilmezsoy6, Sabah Ahmed Abdul-Wahab7,
Payam Dadvand8,9,10
1
Health Sciences Research Center, Faculty of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
2
Faculty of Health, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran
3
School of Environmental and Natural Resource Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
4
Institute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
5
Health Sciences Research Center, Faculty of Health, Student Research Committee, Mazandaran University of Medical
Sciences, Sari, Iran
6
Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey
7
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat 123,
Sultanate of Oman
8
ISGlobal, Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona 08003, Spain
9
Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona 08003, Spain
10
Ciber on Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid 28029, Spain

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to assess the relationship between indoor and outdoor particulate air pollution at primary schools, and
identify the determinants of indoor pollution concentrations. The study was conducted in six classrooms within six primary
schools in Sari, Northern Iran. Indoor concentrations of particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter of less than
10 µm (PM10), 2.5 µm (PM2.5), and 1 µm (PM1.0) were assessed in classrooms, and outdoor concentrations of PM2.5 on the
school playgrounds were monitored simultaneously by using two real-time and portable dust monitors during autumn,
winter, and spring, yielding 26 sampling days for each school in total. The highest outdoor and indoor PM2.5 concentrations
were found in winter and spring, respectively. The mean indoor PM2.5 concentration (46.9 ± 32.9 µg m–3) was higher than
that measured outdoors (36.8 ± 33.2 µg m–3). Indoor PM2.5 and PM1.0 were moderately correlated with outdoor PM2.5
concentrations, which was the main determinant for all indoor particulate concentrations, however, a distinct pattern was
observed for PM10 and PM2.5 compared to PM1.0. While meteorological variables (i.e., ambient temperature, relative
humidity) could predict indoor PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations, the total area of the windows and the number of students in
a classroom were predictors for PM1.0 levels. The findings of this study could inform policymakers in implementing
evidence-based targeted interventions aimed at reducing air pollution in school settings.

Keywords: Classrooms; Particulate matter; PM2.5; PM10; Iran.

INTRODUCTION exposure to air pollution in schools with adverse health

impacts in schoolchildren, and potential effects of elevated
Air pollution is a major environmental contributor to the air pollution levels include impaired neurodevelopment
global burden of disease and is associated with a wide (Sunyer et al., 2015), behavioral and emotional problems,
range of adverse health outcomes (Lim et al., 2012). More and respiratory problems (Forns et al., 2016). Children spend
recently, an emerging body of evidence has associated a large part of their time at school during hours when traffic
pollution is at its daytime peak, and children are likely to
be physically active at school (e.g., during sports classes,
and break times), which can increase their inhaled doses of
*
Corresponding author. air pollution (McConnell et al., 2010). Consequently, air
Tel.: +98 11 33543493; Fax: +98 11 33542473 pollution concentrations at schools can play a large role in
E-mail address: [email protected] the total dose of airborne contaminants to which children
858 Mohammadyan et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 857–864, 2017

are routinely exposed (Hubal et al., 2010; Buonanno et al., Participating Schools
2012a; Borgini et al., 2015). Indoor and outdoor air pollution evaluations were
During the school time day, children spend much of conducted in all six public primary schools located in Sari’s
their time in indoor classrooms, where the air pollution city centre (Fig. 1). All schools were located in the vicinity
concentrations can be different from outdoor air pollution of one of four major roads in the city center. School buildings
concentrations. The association between indoor and were 10–40 years old, and each school had 8–11 classrooms
outdoor air pollution could, therefore be informative for accommodating between 27–32 pupils. The classrooms
epidemiological studies that mainly rely on estimates of had similar designs with tile floors and total floor areas
ambient outdoor air pollution to assess total exposure to air ranged from 24 m2–34.2 m2. No mechanical ventilation or
pollution. Furthermore, characterizing the determinants of air conditioning was in use during the monitoring periods.
indoor concentrations of air pollutants are of importance However, all classrooms were heated by a central heating
for policymaking as it can inform policymakers’ effective system (radiators) in the cold months, with boilers located
and targeted interventions. However, the available body of in separate rooms in schools’ basements.
evidence on these determinants and the relation between
indoor and outdoor air pollution in schools is still limited Air Pollution Sampling
(Rivas et al., 2014). Indoor PM concentrations were measured with an
Air quality is deteriorating in several developing countries aerodynamic diameter less than 10 µm (PM10), 2.5 µm
(Naerher et al., 2000; Yetilmezsoy and Abdul-Wahab, 2012; (PM2.5), and 1 µm (PM1.0) and outdoor concentrations of
Abdul-Wahab et al., 2015). According to the World Health PM2.5. Real-time monitoring was carried out simultaneously
Organization (WHO) report published in 2014 (WHO, for indoors and outdoors in each school. Monitoring was
2014), many cities in developing countries are currently in conducted over 26 days of the school year including 10 days
breach of WHO guidelines on air pollution levels. Although in the autumn, 11 days in the winter and 5 days in the spring.
developing countries generally endure a greater burden of Because of the logistical limitations (such as limitations in
air pollution compared to developed countries (Wilkinson monitoring instruments, accessibility to classrooms, and
et al., 2007), the available evidence on the scale and limitations in the numbers of technicians), we monitored
characteristics of this problem, particularly in relation to indoor and outdoor PM concentrations in one school at a time.
schools, is still limited. Therefore, the main objective of The indoor monitor was placed in the center of the classroom
this study was to assess the relationship between indoor (i.e., (about 0.8 m above the floor), which corresponds to the
within classrooms) and outdoor (i.e., playground) particulate breathing zone of the sitting schoolchildren, and the
air pollution concentrations at schools and to identify the outdoor monitor in the school yard at least 1 m away from
main determinants of indoor air pollution concentrations in any obstacle and 1.5 m above the ground. Both indoor and
Sari, Northern Iran. outdoor monitoring started and ended with the regular
school time (from 8:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.). The average
MATERIAL AND METHODS monitoring time was 4.4 hours (range: 3.0–4.7 hours),
depending on the duration of a particular class.
Study Domain For outdoor measurements, a real-time monitor (MicroDust
The study was conducted in Sari, a city located in Northern Pro, Casella, Bedford, UK) was used to measure outdoor
Iran between the Alborz Mountains and the Caspian Sea PM2.5 concentrations. This instrument was calibrated to a
(latitude 36°33′48′′ north and longitude 53°3′36′′ east). Sari known reference dust standard, or the Casella Measurement.
is the capital of Mazandaran Province with approximately This calibration involved the collection of a gravimetric
300,000 people residing in town and 180,000 in the suburbs, (filtered) sample of dust after it had passed through the
for a population density of 135 people km–2. Sari’s average probe optics. To measure the PM2.5 concentrations, a size-
minimum and maximum temperatures in 2015 were –1°C selective sampling cyclone was used in combination with a
and +32°C, respectively. In the same year, the total annual particle size adaptor (Casella) and a 7 mm Poly Urethane
rainfall was 711.8 mm. There are two main industrial Foam (PUF) filter (Casella) that was designed for PM2.5-size
sources of air pollution in this area: a paper factory located fraction monitoring. An Apex Pro personal sampling pump
in the north of the city, 10 km from the city center, and a (Casella) was used to provide continuous airflow through the
gas and coal-fired power plant located about 20 km from gravimetric adaptor and a photodetector (Cassella). For
the city center, south east of Sari. There is no fixed site station gravimetric calibration, particles were then collected on a
for air pollutant monitoring in Sari and, consequently, the 37 mm teflon polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filter (Gelman
general background concentrations of air pollutants are still Science), measuring 2.0 µm and 37 mm, and was assembled
unknown. In recent studies conducted in Sari, high levels in the cassette behind the air sample stream. For the
of exposure to PM10 were found among taxi and bus drivers gravimetric analysis a microbalance with a high resolution
and also in shops located in Sari’s city centre. of one μg was used. To obtain mean PM2.5 concentrations,
In consideration of the foregoing facts, exploring PM we divided particle mass (in µg) obtained by weighing the
emissions in Sari’s residential areas is vital to estimating filter, with the volume of sampled air drawn through the
environmental changes and evaluating future scenarios that instrument (in m3). The average PM2.5 concentration obtained
include the impact of changing populations and new industrial from the direct reading from the MicroDust Pro monitor
developments. could then be compared with the mean PM2.5 concentrations
 Mohammadyan et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 857–864, 2017 859

Fig. 1. Map of the study area showing the location of six public primary schools in Sari’s city centre.

that were obtained by gravimetric measurements during the time-microenvironment-activity-diary via a questionnaire in
same continuous sampling and, if necessary, a correction one-minute time segments were recorded by a study
factor could be applied. Finally, all real-time data were technician who was present in the classroom through the
multiplied by the calibration factor obtained for instrument entire sampling period. In the present study following
to calculate corrected particle concentrations. information were recorded: (a) times and durations for
For indoor measurements, a GRIMM dust monitor which windows and doors were open; (b) the nature of
(GRIMM Aerosol Technik Gmbh & Co. KG, Ainrig, students’ activities; (c) the number of students in each
Germany, model 1.108) and a Microdust Pro monitor classroom; (d) areas of the buildings in which classrooms
(Casella, Bedford, UK, model CEL-712) were used to were situated; (e) types of windows and doors, and heaters;
measure PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 concentrations. These and (f) types of mechanical ventilation systems. Since all
real-time and portable dust monitors were run side by side schools in the study used central heating systems and none
in six classrooms for 4.4 hours, one day a month over the had air conditioners, these variables were not included as
study period. The correction factor for data displayed by predictors in the multiple regression analysis performed
the GRIMM dust monitor was then calculated as the within the scope of this study. The durations for which
average of the actual PM2.5 concentrations obtained from windows were open per hour were recorded by the study
the Microdust Pro monitor divided by the average PM2.5 technician using a chronometer. The measured areas in m2
concentrations for the GRIMM monitor. All real-time data of doors windows, and classrooms were obtained by a
were multiplied by the correction factor to calculate the study technician using a retractable tape measure, as was
corrected concentrations. Mean correction factors of 1.03 the area occupied by doors and windows that were open to
and 1.14 were applied for the GRIMM and Microdust Pro the outside during school hours. Information on daily wind
monitor data, respectively. speed, temperature and relative humidity (RH) were obtained
from a nearby meteorological station.
Determinants of Indoor PM Concentrations
Data on potential determinants of indoor PM Statistical Analyses
concentrations, including the number of students and the One-hour data on pollutant concentrations were used as
ventilation used in the classrooms, were obtained through a the unit of analyses. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
860 Mohammadyan et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 857–864, 2017

(named after Charles Spearman, and often denoted by the that the Probability-of-F-to-enter (or PIN) and the
Greek letter ρ (rho) or rS, a non-parametric measure of Probability-of-F-to-remove (or POUT) are two statistics
correlation) was used to test the relationship between outdoor that can be used as threshold values (the maximum acceptable
PM2.5 and indoor PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 concentrations. It significance levels), both for adding or removing variables
assesses how well an arbitrary monotonic function could from the model, respectively. For the Probability-of-F-to-
describe the relationship between two variables, without enter, if the computed significance level (probability) is
making any assumptions about the frequency distribution lower than the entered value, the variable is added, otherwise
of the variables. In other words, it is a non-parametric measure it is not. For the Probability-of-F-to-remove, if the computed
of the strength and direction of association that exists between significance level (probability) is higher than the entered
two variables measured on at least an ordinal scale. value, the variable is removed (Huizingh, 2007). Statistical
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is calculated as Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 19 (IBM
follows (Spellerberg, 2005): Corp., Chicago, IL, USA) was used to perform these analyses.

n RESULTS
6 d i 2
  rS  1  i 1
(1) Description of PM Concentrations and Classroom
n(n 2  1) Characteristics
In total, 136 one-hour indoor and outdoor PM
where ρ (–1 to +1) is the Spearman’s rank correlation concentration readings were obtained from the participating
coefficient, di is the difference between the two ranks of schools during one school year. Table 1 shows descriptive
each ith observation, n is the total number of species in the statistics of the outdoor PM2.5 and indoor PM1.0, PM2.5 and
paired comparison. PM10 concentrations. The mean indoor PM2.5 concentrations
Mann-Whitney U test (named after Henry Berthold Mann (46.9 ± 32.9 µg m–3) were higher (Mann-Whitney U test, p
and Donald Ramson Whitney, a non-parametric test that is = 0.02) than the mean of outdoor PM2.5 concentrations
used to compare two population means that come from the (36.8 ± 33.2 µg m–3).
same population, and it is also used to test whether two Table 2 describes characteristics of classrooms included
population means are equal or not) was used to compare in this study. The average measured classroom and door areas
indoor and outdoor PM concentrations. All measured data were about 29.8 m2 and 1.6 m2, respectively. The measured
were log-transformed to obtain a normal distribution. A areas for windows and corridors, which exposed to outdoor
stepwise multiple regression model was employed with and indoor atmosphere, were approximately 3.6 m2, 0.5 m2,
indoor PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 concentrations as dependent and 0.63 m2, respectively. The number of students in the
variables (one at a time) and outdoor PM2.5, meteorological classrooms during the monitoring periods ranged between
variables, and class characteristics as independent variables. 14–37. Similarly, Guo et al. (2010) studied particle and PM2.5
The stepwise criterion Probability-of-F-to-enter ≤ 0.05 or concentration in a classroom with a measured area of 50 m2
PIN(0.05) was used to enter a variable into the model, and the with 50 students. The mean reported ambient temperature,
condition Probability-of-F-to-remove ≥ 0.10 or POUT(0.10) RH, and wind speed were 11.4°C, 77.8% and 2.96 m s–1.
was used to remove a variable from the model. It is noted

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of outdoor PM2.5 and indoor PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 concentrations in classrooms.
Concentration (µg m–3) n Mean (µg m–3) Range 25% 50% 75%
Outdoor PM2.5 136 36.8 0.0–418.0 5.9 18.1 43.1
Indoor PM1.0 136 17.9 3.1–83.7 8.7 13.6 24.3
Indoor PM2.5 136 46.9 10.2–251.8 25.5 40.4 59.7
Indoor PM10 136 397.2 117.0–1606.5 79.7 323.9 511.0

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the environmental air pollution related variables in schools.
Variable Mean SDa Minimum Maximum
Classroom’s area (m2) 29.8 4.5 24.0 34.2
Door area (m2) 1.6 0.2 1.30 2.0
Windows’ area (m2) 3.6 1.0 2.0 4.5
Corridor to outdoor (m2) 0.5 1.11 0.0 4.3
Corridor to indoor (m2) 0.63 0.54 0.0 2.0
Number of students 30 5.0 14 37
Ambient temperature (°C) 11.8 7.3 2.7 26.0
Ambient RH (%) 77.8 8.6 58.0 94.0
Ambient wind speed (m s–1) 3.0 2.2 0.0 10.0
a
Standard deviation.
 Mohammadyan et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 857–864, 2017 861

Relationship between Indoor and Outdoor Concentrations concentrations. Ambient temperature and RH, and outdoor
As presented in Table 3, the Spearman’s rank correlation PM2.5 concentrations were the strongest predictors for indoor
coefficient (ρ) between outdoor PM2.5 and indoor PM1.0, PM10 concentrations (Table 4). These three variables could
PM2.5, and PM10 concentrations ranged from 0.13 for PM10 predict 23% (R2 = 0.23) of the variation in indoor PM10
to 0.60 for PM1.0. There was a moderate to strong correlation concentrations. Indoor PM1.0 concentrations were best
(p ≤ 0.01) between indoor PM levels with Spearman’s predicted by outdoor PM2.5 level, measured window area,
correlation coefficients ranging from 0.37 between PM1.0 and the number of students in the classroom (Table 4).
and PM10 to 0.82 between PM2.5 and PM1.0. There was also These variables could predict 38% (R2 = 0.38) of the variation
a moderate significant correlation (p < 0.01) between in indoor PM1.0 concentrations. The result of the multiple
indoor and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations. Higher relationship regression model showed that these variables did not
between outdoor PM2.5 and PM1.0 was due to penetration of predict a high fraction of indoor PM concentrations. This
fine particles from outdoor to the classrooms through was mainly due to different indoor activities of children.
openings. However, lower correlation coeficient between Moreover, it could also attributed to the fact that temporal
outdoor PM2.5 and PM10 could be explained by indoor source variations in all of the PM fractions in classrooms were
of coarse fraction of PM because of the resuspension of very high, and did not follow the outdoor PM concentrations
particles during individuals activities in the classroom. A and other air pollution related variables.
lower correlation between indoor fine and coarse fractions
of PM could be also explain by indoor activities that DISCUSSION
increase coarse fraction of PM.
We evaluated the relationship between indoor and outdoor
Determinants of Indoor PM Concentrations particulate pollution and determinants of the indoor
A multiple regression analysis showed that indoor PM2.5 particulate air pollution at six schools across Sari, Northern
concentrations were best predicted by outdoor PM2.5 Iran, based on simultaneous measurements of indoor and
concentrations and ambient temperature (Table 4). These outdoor particulate pollution during different seasons over
two variables could predict about one-fourth (R2 = 0.24) of the a school year. We observed weak to moderate correlations
variation in indoor PM2.5 concentrations. Other environmental between outdoor PM2.5 and indoor PM concentrations and
variables had no significant effect on indoor PM2.5 moderate to strong correlations between indoor PM

Table 3. Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ) between indoor PM10, PM2.5, and PM1.0 concentrations and outdoor PM2.5
concentration.
Particulate matter (PM) PM10 PM2.5 (indoor) PM1.0 PM2.5 (outdoor)
PM10 (indoor) 1.00
PM2.5 (indoor) 0.77* 1.00
PM1.0 (indoor) 0.37* 0.82* 1.00
PM2.5 (outdoor) 0.13 0.48* 0.60* 1.00
*
p-value < 0.01.

Table 4. Multiple regression results of the best-fit models for indoor PM2.5, PM10 and PM1.0 concentrations predicted by
outdoor PM2.5 concentrations (both log-transformed) and environmental characteristics.
Models Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t-ratio p-valueb
B SEa β
Indoor PM2.5
Constant 1.45 0.04 32.69
Outdoor PM2.5 0.20 0.03 0.525 6.36 0.00
Temperature –0.007 0.003 –0.203 –2.46 0.01
Indoor PM10
Constant 3.16 0.19 16.95 0.00
Outdoor PM2.5 –0.02 0.003 –0.51 –5.70 0.00
Temperature 0.11 0.028 0.33 3.95 0.00
Relative humidty –0.007 0.002 –0.27 –3.21 0.00
Indoor PM1.0
Constant 0.80 0.16 4.99 0.00
Outdoor PM2.5 0.23 0.03 0.52 7.62 0.00
Windows’ area –0.07 0.02 –0.23 –3.30 0.00
Number of student 0.01 0.004 0.18 2.67 0.00
a
Standard error.
b
p-values < 0.01 were considered to be significant.
862 Mohammadyan et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 857–864, 2017

concentrations. PM2.5 concentration was the main determinant model for all three indoor particulate pollutants. It should
for indoor different sizes particulate concentrations. be noted that a distinct pattern was observed for the rest of
The mean outdoor PM2.5 levels in the study schools was the determinants. For PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations
slightly higher than the 24-hour PM2.5 standards (35 µg m–3) meteorological factors including ambient temperature and
recommended by the United States Environmental Protection RH were the main predictors. On the other hand, the
Agency (US EPA, 2006). The mean indoor PM2.5 and PM10 windows’ measured area and the number of students in the
concentrations were also higher than the EPA's 24-hour classroom were predictors for PM1.0 in the final model. It
standards (US EPA, 2006). The observed indoor PM2.5 was observed that ambient temperature during the monitoring
concentration (47 µg m–3) was comparable to the 42 µg m–3 period had an inverse association with indoor PM2.5 and
indoor PM2.5 concentration reported for classrooms in Tehran, PM10 particle concentrations. One explanation could be
Iran. Similar studies conducted in Barcelona, Spain and that in cold conditions, the windows were closed, therefore,
Stockholm, Sweden, have found considerably lower indoor the presence of indoor sources and activities/movements of
PM2.5 concentrations in classrooms (16.3 µg m–3 and 8.3 the occupants could generate higher indoor PM2.5 and PM10
µg m–3), respectively. concentrations. Relative humidity has also an inverse effect
Wichmann et al. (2010) studied indoor and outdoor PM2.5 on indoor PM10 levels. Higher humidity in wet seasons
concentrations in 18 homes, six schools and 10 daycares in may cause lower level of resuspension of coarse fraction of
Stockholm, Sweden, and concluded that the median indoor PM and therefore, lower indoor PM10 concentrations.
PM2.5 concentration was lower than outdoor levels. Rovelli The study showed that number of students did not affect
et al. (2014) measured PM2.5 and PM10 in seven schools in indoor PM10 and PM2.5, but had a weak effect of indoor
Milan, Italy, and concluded that, in general, the mean PM2.5 PM1.0 (see Table 4). The main reason of high concentration
indoor concentrations were lower than the average outdoor of PM1.0 in classrooms was resuspension of of PM due to the
PM2.5 levels, with indoor/outdoor (I/O) ratios being generally students’ movements. Buonanno et al. (2012b) characterized
< 1. Rivas et al. (2014) studied indoor and outdoor air there suspension of particles in school gyms and concluded
quality in 36 schools in Barcelona, Spain, and concluded that student activity was the main predictor of particle
that indoor mean PM2.5 concentrations were higher than resuspension and among the various PM fractions, coarse
urban background levels. In the present study, mean indoor particles (PM2.5 and PM10) were found to be the most
PM2.5 levels were higher than the mean outdoor PM2.5 relevant. Guo et al. (2010) did not find any influence on
concentrations. The use of chalk on blackboards and the indoor PM2.5 concentrations of the number of students in
lack of air conditioning systems in our participating schools the classroom, which is consistent with our findings. The
might explain, at least in part, the higher indoor PM observed impact of the measured window area on indoor
concentrations observed in this study. Thus, it is noted that PM1.0 concentrations is in line with findings by Zwozdziak
students and teaching activities in the classroom may cause et al. (2015), which showed that indoor PM1.0 concentrations
the higher PM concentrations in classroom than those in at schools were mainly influenced by the infiltration of
outdoor environment. In comparison, the use of filtration ambient particles, and the classrooms’ measured windows
systems at participating schools in the Stockholm study area showed a negative association with indoor PM1.0
might explain lower indoor PM2.5 levels in those schools. concentrations.
There were moderate correlations between indoor PM1.0 Finally, it should be noted that the present study faced a
and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations (ρ = 0.60, p < 0.01), and number of limitations. We used different instruments for
indoor PM2.5 and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations (ρ = 0.48, p measuring indoor and outdoor PM concentrations which
< 0.01). However, outdoor PM2.5 concentrations had no might have affected the present comparison of indoor and
significant relationship with indoor PM10 concentrations. outdoor PM2.5 concentrations. However, in this study, we
Different sources of coarse (PM10) and fine particles (PM2.5) applied correction factors by running these two monitors
are the main reason of the poor relationship between PM10 side by side in order to obtain comparable measurements.
and PM2.5. Small particles also can be emitted to indoor Because of logistic limitations, we could not obtain
environment due to other sources such from industrial and measurements simultaneously in all schools.
vehicular emissions. Resuspension mechanism of particle
with different size due to student activities will determine CONCLUSIONS
the variability of particle exist in indoor air. Coarse particle
is more prone to exist in short time compare to fine particles In this research, we measured the indoor and outdoor
which are able to float within longer period. In line with concentrations of particulate air pollution in six schools in
findings of the present study, Hassanvand et al. (2014) Sari, Northern Iran, to evaluate the association between the
reported a significant relationship between outdoor PM2.5 and indoor and outdoor PM levels and identify the predictors of
indoor PM2.5 and PM1.0 concentrations in a school dormitory the indoor levels. Indoor PM2.5 concentrations were higher
and a retirement home in Tehran, Iran in 2012–2013. than outdoor PM2.5 levels. We observed weak to moderate
Wichmann et al. (2010) also found a significant association correlations (ρ = 0.13–0.60) between outdoor PM2.5 and
between indoor and outdoor PM2.5 concentrations in indoor PM concentrations. Outdoor PM2.5 was the main
classrooms located in Stockholm’s city center. predictor for all indoor particulate pollutants. Meteorological
Outdoor PM2.5 level was the only determinant among our variables were also among the predictors for indoor PM2.5 and
studied factors that remained a predictor in the final best-fit PM10 concentrations but not for indoor PM1.0 concentrations.
 Mohammadyan et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 857–864, 2017 863

On the other hand, windows’ measured area and the Garcia-Esteban, R., Esnaola, M., Cirach, M., Grellier, J.,
number of students in a classroom predicted indoor PM1.0 Basagana, X., Querol, X., Guxens, M., Nieuwenhuijsen,
concentrations but not indoor PM10 or PM2.5 concentrations. M.J. and Sunyer, J. (2016). Traffic-related air pollution,
The observed moderate correlation between indoor and noise at school, and behavioral problems in Barcelona
outdoor PM2.5 levels have implications for epidemiological schoolchildren: A cross-sectional study. Environ. Health
studies of the health effects of school air pollution that, to Perspect. 124: 529–535.
date, have mainly relied on measurements of outdoor levels. Guo, H., Morawska, L., He, C., Zhang, Y.L., Ayoko, G.
The findings of this study indicated that some specific and Cao, M. (2010). Characterization of particle number
control measures, such as installation of ventilation or concentrations and PM2.5 in a school: Influence of outdoor
heating systems in the classroom, decreasing the number of air pollution on indoor air. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 17:
students or windows areas in one classroom, may need to 1268–1278.
be considered to control PM concentrations in classrooms. Hassanvand, M.S., Naddafi, K., Faridi, S., Arhami, M.,
Future studies are required to replicate the reported findings in Nabizadeh, R., Sowlat, M.H., Pourpak, Z., Rastkari, N.,
other settings while characterizing source/composition of Momeniha, F., Kashani, H., Gholampour, A., Nazmara,
particulate air pollution and including other air pollutants S., Alimohammadi, M., Goudarzi, G. and Yunesian, M.
such as nitric oxides, ozone, and volatile organic compounds (2014). Indoor/outdoor relationships of PM10, PM2.5, and
(VOCs) in their analyses. Seasonal and temporal variations PM1 mass concentrations and their water-soluble ions in a
of particles in the classrooms also need to be considered to retirement home and a school dormitory. Atmos. Environ.
investigate the influence of background activities and 82: 375–382.
meteorological factors on the variation of indoor dust. Hubal, E.C., Sheldon, L.S., Burke, J.M., McCurdy, T.R.,
Since that was beyond the scope of the present study, this Berry, M.R., Rigas, M.L., Zartarian, V.G. and Freeman,
has been left for future studies. N.C. (2000). Children's exposure assessment: A review
of factors influencing children's exposure, and the data
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS available to characterize and assess that exposure.
Environ. Health Perspect. 108: 475–486.
We thank principals, teachers, and students of all Huizingh, E. (2007). Applied Statistics with SPSS. Sage
participating schools for their cooperation throughout the Publications Ltd., London, UK.
course of the study. We are grateful to Mazandaran University Lim, S.S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A.D., Danaei, G., Shibuya,
of Medical Sciences for financial support. Payam Dadvand K., Adair-Rohani, H., AlMazroa, M.A., Amann, M.,
was funded by a Ramón y Cajal Fellowship (RYC-2012- Anderson, H.R., Andrews, K.G., Aryee, M., Atkinson,
10995) awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and C., Bacchus, L.J., Bahalim, A.N., Balakrishnan, K.,
Competitiveness. Also, the authors thank Ioar Rivas Lara, Balmes, J., Barker-Collo, S., Baxter, A., Bell, M.L.,
Alessandro Borgini, Andrea Tittarelli and Professor Ian Blore, J.D., Blyth, F., Bonner, C., Borges, G., Bourne,
Colbeck for their helpful suggestions. R., Boussinesq, M., Brauer, M., Brooks, P., Bruce, N.G.,
Brunekreef, B., Bryan-Hancock, C., Bucello, C.,
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Buchbinder, R., Bull, F., Burnett, R.T., Byers, T.E.,
Calabria, B., Carapetis, J., Carnahan, E., Chafe, Z.,
Supplementary data associated with this article can be Charlson, F., Chen, H., Chen, J.S., Cheng, A.T.A., Child,
found in the online version at http://www.aaqr.org. J.C., Cohen, A., Colson, K.E., Cowie, B.C., Darby, S.,
Darling, S., Davis, A., Degenhardt, L., Dentener, F., Des
REFERENCES Jarlais, D.C., Devries, K., Dherani, M., Ding, E.L., Dorsey,
E.R., Driscoll, T., Edmond, K., Ali, S.E., Engell, R.E.,
Abdul-Wahab, S.A., En, S.C.F., Elkamel, A., Ahmadi, L. Erwin, P.J., Fahimi, S., Falder, G., Farzadfar, F., Ferrari,
and Yetilmezsoy, K. (2015). A review of standards and A., Finucane, M.M., Flaxman, S., Fowkes, F.G.R.,
guidelines set by international bodies for the parameters Freedman, G., Freeman, M.K., Gakidou, E., Ghosh, S.,
of indoor air quality. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 6: 751–767. Giovannucci, E., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Grainger, R.,
Borgini, A., Ricci, C., Bertoldi, M., Crosignani, P. and Grant, B., Gunnell, D., Gutierrez, H.R., Hall, W., Hoek,
Tittarelli, A. (2015). The EuroLifeNet Study: How different H.W., Hogan, A., Hosgood, H.D., III, Hoy, D., Hu, H.,
microenvironments influence personal exposure to PM2.5 Hubbell, B.J., Hutchings, S.J., Ibeanusi, S.E., Jacklyn,
among high-school students in Milan. Open J. Air Pollut. G.L., Jasrasaria, R., Jonas, J.B., Kan, H., Kanis, J.A.,
4: 16. Kassebaum, N., Kawakami, N., Khang, Y.H., Khatibzadeh,
Buonanno, G., Marini, S., Morawska, L. and Fuoco, F.C. S., Khoo, J.P., Kok, C., Laden, F., Lalloo, R., Lan, Q.,
(2012a). Individual dose and exposure of Italian children Lathlean, T., Leasher, J.L., Leigh, J., Li, Y., Lin, J.K.,
to ultrafine particles. Sci. Total Environ. 438: 271–277. Lipshultz, S.E., London, S., Lozano, R., Lu, Y., Mak, J.,
Buonanno, G., Fuoco, F.C., Marini, S. and Stabile, L. Malekzadeh, R., Mallinger, L., Marcenes, W., March,
(2012b). Particle resuspension in school gyms during L., Marks, R., Martin, R., McGale, P., McGrath, J.,
physical activities. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 12: 803–813. Mehta, S., Memish, Z.A., Mensah, G.A., Merriman, T.R.,
Forns, J., Dadvand, P., Foraster, M., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., Micha, R., Michaud, C., Mishra, V., Hanafiah, K.M.,
Rivas, I., Lopez-Vicente, M., Suades-Gonzalez, E., Mokdad, A.A., Morawska, L., Mozaffarian, D., Murphy,
864 Mohammadyan et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 17: 857–864, 2017

T., Naghavi, M., Neal, B., Nelson, P.K., Nolla, J.M., matter in school classrooms of northern Italy. Int. J.
Norman, R., Olives, C., Omer, S.B., Orchard, J., Osborne, Environ. Res. Public Health 11: 1398–1421.
R., Ostro, B., Page, A., Pandey, K.D., Parry, C.D.H., Spellerberg, I.F. (2005). Monitoring Ecological Change.
Passmore, E., Patra, J., Pearce, N., Pelizzari, P.M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Petzold, M., Phillips, M.R., Pope, D., Pope, C.A., III, Sunyer, J., Esnaola, M., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., Forns, J.,
Powles, J., Rao, M., Razavi, H., Rehfuess, E.A., Rehm, Rivas, I., López-Vicente, M., Suades-González, E.,
J.T., Ritz, B., Rivara, F.P., Roberts, T., Robinson, C., Foraster, M., Garcia-Esteban, R., Basagaña, X., Viana,
Rodriguez-Portales, J.A., Romieu, I., Room, R., Rosenfeld, M., Cirach, M., Moreno, T., Alastuey, A., Sebastian-
L.C., Roy, A., Rushton, L., Salomon, J.A., Sampson, U., Galles, N., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. and Querol, X. (2015).
Sanchez-Riera, L., Sanman, E., Sapkota, A., Seedat, S., Association between traffic-related air pollution in schools
Shi, P., Shield, K., Shivakoti, R., Singh, G.M., Sleet, D.A., and cognitive development in primary school children:
Smith, E., Smith, K.R., Stapelberg, N.J.C., Steenland, K., Aprospective cohort study. PLoS Med 12: 1001792.
Stöckl, H., Stovner, L.J., Straif, K., Straney, L., Thurston, US EPA (2006). Final Nonattainment Classification and
G.D., Tran, J.H., Van Dingenen, R., van Donkelaar, A., Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation Plan
Veerman, J.L., Vijayakumar, L., Weintraub, R., Weissman, Provisions for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particle Standards,
M.M., White, R.A., Whiteford, H., Wiersma, S.T., http://www3.epa.gov/pm/actions.html, Last Access: March
Wilkinson, J.D., Williams, H.C., Williams, W., Wilson, N., 2016.
Woolf, A.D., Yip, P., Zielinski, J.M., Lopez, A.D., Murray, WHO (2014). Ambient (outdoor) Air Quality and Health.
C.J.L. and Ezzati, M. (2012). A comparative risk Fact Sheet N°313, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/fac
assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable tsheets/fs313/en/, Last Access: March 2016.
to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, Wichmann, J., Lind, T., Nilsson, M.M. and Bellander, T.
1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden (2010). PM2.5, soot and NO2 indoor-outdoor relationships at
of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380: 2224–2260. homes, pre-schools and schools in Stockholm, Sweden.
McConnell, R., Islam, T., Shankardass, K., Jerrett, M., Atmos. Environ. 44: 4536–4544.
Lurmann, F., Gilliland, F., Gauderman, J., Avol, E., Kunzli, Wilkinson, P., Smith, K.R., Joffe, M. and Haines, A. (2007).
N., Yao, L., Peters, J. and Berhane, K. (2010). Childhood A global perspective on energy: Health effects and
incident asthma and traffic-related air pollution at home injustices. Lancet 370: 965–978.
and school. Environ. Health Perspect. 118: 1021–1026. Yetilmezsoy, K. and Abdul-Wahab, S.A. (2012). A
Naeher, L.P., Leaderer, B.P. and Smith, K.R. (2000). prognostic approach based on fuzzy-logic methodology
Particulate matter and carbon monoxide in highland to forecast PM10 levels in Khaldiya residential area,
Guatemala: Indoor and outdoor levels from traditional Kuwait. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 12: 1217–1236.
and improved wood stoves and gas stoves. Indoor Air Zwoździak, A., Sówka, I., Worobiec, A., Zwoździak, J. and
10: 200–205. Nych, A. (2015). The contribution of outdoor particulate
Rivas, I., Viana, M., Moreno, T., Pandolfi, M., Amato, F., matter (PM1, PM2.5, PM10) to school indoor environment.
Reche, C., Bouso, L., Àlvarez-Pedrerol, M., Alastuey, Indoor Built Environ. 24: 1038–1047.
A., Sunyer, J. and Querol, X. (2014). Child exposure to
indoor and outdoor air pollutants in schools in Barcelona,
Spain. Environ. Int. 69: 200–212. Received for review, April 16, 2016
Rovelli, S., Cattaneo, A., Nuzzi, C. P., Spinazzè, A., Piazza, S., Revised, July 22, 2016
Carrer, P. and Cavallo, D.M. (2014). Airborne particulate Accepted, August 21, 2016