Comparison of Geometrical Layouts for a Multi-Box Aerosol Model from a Single-Chamber Dispersion Study

Models are increasingly used to estimate and pre-emptively calculate the occupational exposure of airborne released particulate matter. Typical two-box models assume instant and fully mixed air volumes, which can potentially cause issues in cases with fast processes, slow air mixing, and/or large volumes. In this study, we present an aerosol dispersion model and validate it by comparing the modelled concentrations with concentrations measured during chamber experiments. We investigated whether a better estimation of concentrations was possible by using different geometrical layouts rather than a typical two-box layout. A one-box, two-box, and two three-box layouts were used. The one box model was found to underestimate the concentrations close to the source, while overestimating the concentrations in the far field. The two-box model layout performed well based on comparisons from the chamber study in systems with a steady source concentration for both slow and fast mixing. The three-box layout was found to better estimate the concentrations and the timing of the peaks for fluctuating concentrations than the one-box or two-box layouts under relatively slow mixing conditions. This finding suggests that industry-relevant scaled volumes should be tested in practice to gain more knowledge about when to use the two-box or the three-box layout schemes for multi-box models.

[1]  Erik Tielemans,et al.  'Stoffenmanager', a web-based control banding tool using an exposure process model. , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[2]  Asger W. Nørgaard,et al.  Quantitative material releases from products and articles containing manufactured nanomaterials: Towards a release library , 2017 .

[3]  Ester Segal,et al.  Occupational exposure during handling and loading of halloysite nanotubes – A case study of counting nanofibers , 2018 .

[4]  A. Fonseca,et al.  Particle release and control of worker exposure during laboratory-scale synthesis, handling and simulated spills of manufactured nanomaterials in fume hoods , 2018, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[5]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  Dip coating of air purifier ceramic honeycombs with photocatalytic TiO2 nanoparticles: A case study for occupational exposure. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[6]  Stefan Seeger,et al.  Nanotechnology in the market: promises and realities , 2011 .

[7]  Mark D. Hoover,et al.  Occupational safety and health criteria for responsible development of nanotechnology , 2013, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[8]  Gurumurthy Ramachandran,et al.  Bayesian modeling of exposure and airflow using two-zone models. , 2009, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[9]  Jianlei Niu,et al.  Modeling particle dispersion and deposition in indoor environments , 2007, Atmospheric Environment.

[10]  Paul Hewett,et al.  Models for nearly every occasion: Part II - Two box models , 2017, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[11]  Mark R. Wiesner,et al.  Estimating production data for five engineered nanomaterials as a basis for exposure assessment. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[12]  William W. Nazaroff,et al.  Mathematical Modeling of Indoor Aerosol Dynamics , 1989 .

[13]  Lawrence F. Shampine,et al.  The MATLAB ODE Suite , 1997, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[14]  C. Chao,et al.  A study of the dispersion of expiratory aerosols in unidirectional downward and ceiling-return type airflows using a multiphase approach. , 2006, Indoor air.

[15]  Wei Liu,et al.  Comparing the Markov Chain Model with the Eulerian and Lagrangian Models for Indoor Transient Particle Transport Simulations , 2015 .

[16]  M. Nicas,et al.  Estimating exposure intensity in an imperfectly mixed room. , 1996, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[17]  Alvin C.K. Lai,et al.  Modeling Indoor Particle Deposition from Turbulent Flow onto Smooth Surfaces , 2000 .

[18]  Nicholas L. Lam,et al.  Modeling indoor air pollution from cookstove emissions in developing countries using a Monte Carlo single-box model , 2011 .

[19]  Joakim Pagels,et al.  Limitations in the Use of Unipolar Charging for Electrical Mobility Sizing Instruments: A Study of the Fast Mobility Particle Sizer , 2015 .

[20]  Mikael Ehn,et al.  Modelling the contribution of biogenic volatile organic compounds to new particle formation in the Julich plant atmosphere chamber , 2015 .

[21]  T. Schneider,et al.  Validation of a New Method for Structured Subjective Assessment of Past Concentrations , 1999 .

[22]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change , 1997 .

[23]  Tareq Hussein,et al.  Range-Finding Risk Assessment of Inhalation Exposure to Nanodiamonds in a Laboratory Environment , 2014, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[24]  Kaarle Hämeri,et al.  Emission Rates Due to Indoor Activities: Indoor Aerosol Model Development, Evaluation, and Applications , 2005 .

[25]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  Revisiting the effect of room size and general ventilation on the relationship between near- and far-field air concentrations. , 2011, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[26]  Alexander C. Ø. Jensen,et al.  Exposure Assessment of Particulate Matter from Abrasive Treatment of Carbon and Glass Fibre-Reinforced Epoxy-Composites: Two Case Studies , 2015 .

[27]  Brian L. Murphy,et al.  Modeling Indoor Air Exposure from Short‐Term Point Source Releases , 1996 .

[28]  M Levin,et al.  Testing the near field/far field model performance for prediction of particulate matter emissions in a paint factory. , 2015, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

[29]  Bin Zhao,et al.  Deposition of Indoor Airborne Particles onto Human Body Surfaces: A Modeling Analysis and Manikin-Based Experimental Study , 2013 .

[30]  Gao Naiping,et al.  Spatial distribution of human respiratory droplet residuals and exposure risk for the co-occupant under different ventilation methods , 2011, HVAC&R Research.

[31]  Bjarke Mølgaard,et al.  Exposure to Airborne Particles and Volatile Organic Compounds from Polyurethane Molding, Spray Painting, Lacquering, and Gluing in a Workshop , 2015, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[32]  Keld Alstrup Jensen,et al.  Worker Exposure and High Time-Resolution Analyses of Process-Related Submicrometre Particle Concentrations at Mixing Stations in Two Paint Factories. , 2015, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[33]  Mark Z. Jacobson,et al.  Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling: Cloud thermodynamics and dynamics , 2005 .

[34]  J. Dormand,et al.  A family of embedded Runge-Kutta formulae , 1980 .

[35]  Steffen Foss Hansen,et al.  Nanoproducts – what is actually available to European consumers? , 2016 .

[36]  Kaarle Hämeri,et al.  Characterization of exposure to carbon nanotubes in an industrial setting. , 2015, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[37]  Thomas Armstrong,et al.  The Daubert Standard as Applied to Exposure Assessment Modeling Using the Two-Zone (NF/FF) Model Estimation of Indoor Air Breathing Zone Concentration as an Example , 2011, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[38]  Hans Kromhout,et al.  Advanced Reach Tool (ART): development of the mechanistic model. , 2011, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[39]  J. Behar,et al.  Modeling Indoor Air Concentrations Near Emission Sources in Imperfectly Mixed Rooms. , 1996, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[40]  Stefan Seeger,et al.  Industrial production quantities and uses of ten engineered nanomaterials in Europe and the world , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.