This paper derives the analytical solutions to multi-compartment indoor air quality models for predicting indoor air pollutant concentrations in the home and evaluates the solutions using experimental measurements in the rooms of a single-story residence. The model uses Laplace transform methods to solve the mass balance equations for two interconnected compartments, obtaining analytical solutions that can be applied without a computer. Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) sources such as the cigarette typically emit pollutants for relatively short times (7-11 min) and are represented mathematically by a “rectangular” source emission time function, or approximated by a short-duration source called an “impulse” time function. Other time-varying indoor sources also can be represented by Laplace transforms. The two-compartment model is more complicated than the single-compartment model and has more parameters, including the cigarette or combustion source emission rate as a function of time, room volumes, compartmental air change rates, and interzonal air flow factors expressed as dimensionless ratios. This paper provides analytical solutions for the impulse, step (Heaviside), and rectangular source emission time functions. It evaluates the indoor model in an unoccupied two-bedroom home using cigars and cigarettes as sources with continuous measurements of carbon monoxide (CO), respirable suspended particles (RSP), and particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAH). Fine particle mass concentrations (RSP or PM_3.5) are measured using real-time monitors.In our experiments, simultaneous measurements of concentrations at three heights in a bedroom confirm an important assumption of the model-spatial uniformity of mixing. The parameter values of the two-compartment model were obtained using a “grid search” optimization method, and the predicted solutions agreed well with the measured concentration time series in the rooms of the home. The door and window positions in each room had considerable effect on the pollutant concentrations observed in the home. Because of the small volumes and low air change rates of most homes, indoor pollutant concentrations from smoking activity in a home can be very high and can persist at measurable levels indoors for many hours.

A number of studies indicate cooking is a major source of exposure to particulate matter, but few studies have measured indoor air pollution in restaurants, where cooking predominates. We made 73 visits by car to 65 different nonsmoking restaurants in 10 Northern California towns while carrying portable continuous monitors that unobtrusively measured ultrafine (down to 10 nm) and fine (PM_2.5) particles to characterize indoor restaurant exposures, comparing them with exposures in the car. The mean ultrafine number concentrations in the restaurants on dinner visits averaging 1.4 hours was 71,600 particles cm⁻³, or 4.3 times the mean concentration on car trips, and 12.3 times the mean background concentration in the residence. Restaurants that cooked dinner in the same room as the patrons had higher ultrafine concentrations than those with separate kitchens. Restaurant PM_2.5 mass concentrations averaged 36.3 μg m⁻³, ranging from 1.5 to 454 μg m⁻³, but were relatively low on most visits: 43% of the indoor means were below 10 μg m⁻³ and 66% were below 20 μg m⁻³, with 5.5% above 100 μg m⁻³. Exposure to fine and ultrafine particles when visiting a restaurant exceeded the exposure a person received while traveling by car to and from the restaurant.

The widespread legalization of recreational marijuana raises growing concerns about exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke. An important location for marijuana smoking is the home, but few measurements of air pollutant concentrations in the home are available for a marijuana joint fully smoked in one of its rooms. We used research grade calibrated real-time continuous PM_2.5 air monitors in controlled 5-hour experiments to measure fine particle concentrations in the 9 rooms of a detached, two-story, 4-bedroom home with either a tobacco cigarette or a marijuana joint fully smoked in the home's living room. The master bedroom's door was closed, and the other bedroom doors were open, as was the custom of occupants of this residence. In two experiments with a Marlboro tobacco cigarette smoked by a machine in the living room, the 5-hour mean PM_2.5 concentrations in 9 rooms of the home were 15.2 μg/m³ (SD 5.6 μg/m³) and 15.0 μg/m³ (SD 3.7 μg/m³). In contrast, three experiments with pre-rolled marijuana joints smoked in the same manner in the living room produced 5-hour mean PM_2.5 concentrations of 38.9 μg/m³ (SD 10.6 μg/m³), 79.8 μg/m³ (SD 25.7 μg/m³) and 80.7 μg/m³ (SD 28.8 μg/m³). In summary, the average secondhand PM_2.5 concentrations from smoking a marijuana joint in the home were found to be 4.4 times as great as the secondhand PM_2.5 concentrations from smoking a tobacco cigarette. Opening 3 windows by 12.7 cm reduced the high PM_2.5 concentrations from marijuana smoking by 67 %, but the PM_2.5 levels still exceeded those produced by tobacco smoking with the windows closed.

Low-cost monitors make it possible now for the first time to collect long-term (months to years) measurements of potential indoor exposure to fine particles. Indoor exposure is due to two sources: particles infiltrating from outdoors and those generated by indoor activities. Calculating the relative contribution of each source requires identifying an infiltration factor. We develop a method of identifying periods when the infiltration factor is not constant and searching for periods when it is relatively constant. From an initial regression of indoor on outdoor particle concentrations, a Forbidden Zone can be defined with an upper boundary below which no observations should appear. If many observations appear in the Forbidden Zone, they falsify the assumption of a single constant infiltration factor. This is a useful quality assurance feature, since investigators may then search for subsets of the data in which few observations appear in the Forbidden Zone. The usefulness of this approach is illustrated using examples drawn from the PurpleAir network of optical particle monitors. An improved algorithm is applied with reduced bias, improved precision, and a lower limit of detection than either of the two proprietary algorithms offered by the manufacturer of the sensors used in PurpleAir monitors.

As indoor smoking bans have become widely adopted, some U.S. communities are considering restricting smoking outdoors, creating a need for measurements of air pollution near smokers outdoors. Personal exposure experiments were conducted with four to five participants at six sidewalk bus stops located 1.5–3.3 m from the curb of two heavily traveled California arterial highways with 3300–5100 vehicles per hour. At each bus stop, a smoker in the group smoked a cigarette. Gravimetrically calibrated continuous monitors were used to measure fine particle concentrations (aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5 µm; PM_2.5) in the breathing zones (within 0.2 m from the nose and mouth) of each participant. At each bus stop, ultrafine particles (UFP), wind speed, temperature, relative humidity, and traffic counts were also measured. For 13 cigarette experiments, the mean PM_2.5 personal exposure of the nonsmoker seated 0.5 m from the smoker during a 5-min cigarette ranged from 15 to 153 µg/m³. Of four persons seated on the bench, the smoker received the highest PM_2.5 breathing-zone exposure of 192 µg/m³. There was a strong proximity effect: nonsmokers at distances 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 m from the smoker received mean PM_2.5 personal exposures of 59, 40, and 28 µg/m³, respectively, compared with a background level of 1.7 µg/m³. Like the PM_2.5 concentrations, UFP concentrations measured 0.5 m from the smoker increased abruptly when a cigarette started and decreased when the cigarette ended, averaging 44,500 particles/cm³ compared with the background level of 7200 particles/cm³. During nonsmoking periods, the UFP background concentrations showed occasional peaks due to traffic, whereas PM_2.5 background concentrations were extremely low. The results indicate that a single cigarette smoked outdoors at a bus stop can cause PM_2.5 and UFP concentrations near the smoker that are 16–35 and 6.2 times, respectively, higher than the background concentrations due to cars and trucks on an adjacent arterial highway. Implications: Rules banning smoking indoors have been widely adopted in the United States and in many countries. Some communities are considering smoking bans that would apply to outdoor locations. Although many measurements are available of pollutant concentrations from secondhand smoke at indoor locations, few measurements are available of exposure to secondhand smoke outdoors. This study provides new data on exposure to fine and ultrafine particles from secondhand smoke near a smoker outdoors. The levels are compared with the exposure measured next to a highway. The findings are important for policies that might be developed for reducing exposure to secondhand smoke outdoors.