Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

The AIRMEX study - VOC measurements in public buildings and schools/

kindergartens in eleven European cities: Statistical analysis of the data
Otmar Geiss, Georgios Giannopoulos*, Salvatore Tirendi, Josefa Barrero-Moreno, Bo R. Larsen,
Dimitrios Kotzias
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Chemical Assessment and Testing Unit, Via E. Fermi 2749, Ispra 21027 (VA), Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Indoor and outdoor air concentrations as well as personal exposure concentrations of volatile organic
Received 7 December 2010 compounds (VOCs) have been measured during 2003e2008 in public buildings, schools, kindergartens
Received in revised form and private homes in eleven cities over Europe covering geographic areas in north, central and south
8 April 2011
Europe during different seasons within the frame of the AIRMEX (European Indoor Air Monitoring and
Accepted 15 April 2011
Exposure assessment) study. A database is presented containing the results for 23 VOCs based upon
approximately 1000 samples taken from 182 different working environments (offices, classrooms,
Keywords:
waiting halls) in public buildings, schools and kindergartens, from 103 private homeplaces and from
VOCs
Database
adult volunteers (148 samples). The statistical analysis of the data demonstrated that sources in the
Indoor air quality indoor environment are prevailing for most of the investigated VOCs with indoor/outdoor (I/O)
Geographical variation concentration ratios following the order: hexanal z D-limonene [ formaldehyde > acetone > 1-
Seasonal variation butoxy-2-propanol > acetaldehyde > propanal > 1-butanol > n-undecane > methylcyclohexane > n-
dodecane. For aromatic hydrocarbons the main impact was shown to be penetration from outdoor air as
indicated by I/O ratios near one and is characterised by significantly higher indoor as well as outdoor
concentrations in the south of Europe with respect to the north. For the terpenes, the lowest indoor
concentrations were measured during the warm season, which may be explained by higher ventilation
rates and reactions with ozone penetrated from outdoor air.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Studies have shown that indoor exposure to volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) can significantly contribute to adverse health
effects (Dockery et al., 1993; Pope et al., 1995; Laden et al., 2001).
The vast majority of human activities take place in indoor areas
such as private homes, offices, shops and cars. Thorough investi-
gations of the VOC pollution levels in such micro-environments are
essential for the understanding of population exposure to harmful
substances, for epidemiological work and the eventual ameliora-
tion of the indoor air quality. During the last decade three major
VOC exposure studies have assessed European indoor micro-
environments. In the frame of the EXPOLIS study, which took
place in several European cities a wide range of VOCs were
measured over 48 h in private homes, on the workplace, outdoors,
and near to the breathing zone of volunteers (Edwards and
Jantunen, 2001; Edwards et al., 2001a,b). In the MACBETH study
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: georgios.giannopoulos@jrc.ec.europa.eu (G. Giannopoulos).
(Cocheo et al., 2000) and the PEOPLE project (Ballesta et al., 2000)
the focus was exclusively on benzene. In the former project, carried
out in six European cities from 1996 to 1998, the exposure of 50
volunteers was studied by monitoring the concentrations in homes
over a time range of 108 h. In the latter project a shorter sampling
period (12 h) was used for personal exposure measurements in
combination with a high number of samples for each city.
Measurements were made during 2002e2003 outdoors, indoors
and close to the breathing zone of volunteers.
The AIRMEX study (Kotzias et al., 2009) aims at the identifica-
tion and quantification of main indoor air pollutants in European
public buildings - including schools and kindergartens - and at the
estimation of human exposure to these pollutants while working
and/or residing in these areas for a certain period of time. The study
focuses on 14 VOCs (hydrocarbons, aromatic compounds, alcohols
and carbonyls). Some of them have been identified in the INDEX
project as priority compounds in indoor environments (Kotzias
et al., 2005). VOCs were monitored in eleven European cities over
a five years period and in dedicated campaigns with a 7 days
duration outdoors, in public buildings and schools/kindergartens,
in private homes and with personal sampling devices near the

1352-2310/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.04.037
 O. Geiss et al. / Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684 3677

breathing zone of volunteers. Schools and kindergartens have been
included in the present study since children spend a large amount
of time in this type of public buildings and since children’s health is
particularly susceptible to hazardous pollutants (Guzelian et al.,
1992; Aprea et al., 2000; Commission, 2004).
Studies done in the past in Munich, Hannover, Cologne and
Leipzig have indicated that indoor concentrations for most VOCs
are highest during winter and lowest during summer (Schlink et al.,
2004; Ilgen et al., 2001). Schlink et al. (2004) concluded from their
study on seasonal VOC concentration variations that a correct
assessment of indoor air quality must take into account the season
when the sampling takes place. For this reason the AIRMEX project
included two campaigns in each city; one in the cold and one in the
warm period of the year. A first analysis of the AIRMEX data with
focus on the potential health effects of formaldehyde and benzene
(Kotzias et al., 2009) indicated that air pollution concentrations are
consistently higher indoors than outdoors for formaldehyde (and to
a lesser extent for benzene) and that personal exposure concen-
trations are higher or similar to indoor concentrations and that in
some cases, indoor concentrations in homes by far exceed those of
public buildings and school/kindergartens, thus dominating
personal exposures. Moreover it was indicated that non-
carcinogenic responses from formaldehyde and benzene like
inflammation may be enhanced by the presence of toluene in the
indoor air VOC mixtures (Kotzias et al., 2009).
In the current paper we provide detailed information on all
measured concentrations of the compounds investigated within
the AIRMEX study, which is intended to serve as a reference for
future indoor air investigations and exposure studies. The statistical
analysis of the dataset demonstrates the influence of geographical
and seasonal variations on the indoor air concentrations of VOCs in
public buildings, school/kindergartens and homes.
2. Materials and methods
A detailed description of sampling and measurement tech-
niques has been presented elsewhere (Kotzias et al., 2009). A short
overview of the analytical procedures and the sampling strategy is
given below.
Measuring campaigns were carried out in public buildings
located in urban areas with high traffic density, and in kindergar-
tens/schools mostly situated in suburbs with reduced (medium)
traffic impact. The characteristics of the studied indoor micro-
environments were similar for all cities (for example buildings
with public access). However, no attention was paid to the age of
methylcyclohexane, 2-butoxyethanol, butanol, n-decane, n-
undecane and n-dodecane).
2.1. Sampling
Simultaneous sampling of indoor/outdoor concentrations and
exposure concentrations was carried out by diffusive sampling in
campaigns with the duration of a full 7-day week including week-
ends. For exposure-concentration sampling devices were placed on
the body of volunteers nearby the breathing zone during daytime
and close to bed during night-time. For convenience, volunteers
were asked to wear the exposures samplers for only three days. Only
in a few cases did volunteers agree to wear two passive personal-
samplers (one for VOC and one for carbonyls). For this reason the
data coverage for personal exposure concentrations to carbonyls is
lower than for the other VOCs. Indoor concentration samplers were
distributed inside the buildings at a height of 2e2.5 m in order to
cover the areas of main access by the occupants. In public buildings
the samplers were placed in the entrance halls and offices. In
kindergartens and schools the samplers were mounted in class-
rooms. In the homes of the volunteers the samplers were placed in
the living room during the daytime and in the bedroom at night.
Outdoor concentration samplers were placed at rain-protected
positions in close vicinity to the studied buildings. For all
measurements radial type diffusion samplers were used. Hydro-
carbon and alcohol sampling was carried out with charcoal based
cartridges (Radiello code 130, Supelco 3050 Spruce Str., St. Louis,
MO, USA) whereas carbonyl sampling was done by 2,4-dini-
trophenyl-hydrazine based cartridges (Radiello code 165, Supelco,
St. Louis, MO, USA). The precision and accuracy of diffusive sampling
of VOCs in air have been studied in detail (Ballesta et al., 2000;
Strandberg et al., 2006; Meininghaus et al., 2003; Clarisse et al.,
2003). For the utilised Radiello diffusive samplers the total
measurement uncertainty has been found to be in the order of about
16% for a measuring time period of 7 days (Plaisance et al., 2008).
2.2. Sample preparation and analysis
2.2.1. Analysis of hydrocarbons and alcohols
Samples were prepared and analysed following the ISO/FDIS
16200-2 method (ISO/FDIS 16200-2). The gas chromatographic
system used was the Agilent 6890 (Agilent Technologies, Santa
Table 1
Airmex locations and dates where measurement campaigns took place.

the buildings. In a very few exceptional cases samples were taken in City Country Campaign North South Warm Cold Comments
single offices or entrance halls where smoking was allowed Arnhem/ NL March 2004  
(Greece, Catania). Volunteers were identified among the employees Nijmegen August 2006  
and/or teachers working in the selected indoor environments for Athens GR December 2003  
October 2005  
personal exposure monitoring. The cities included in this project
Brussels BE September 2004   Only public
were selected to give a good representation of typical European March 2007   buildings,
indoor environments. The cities are listed in Table 1. Measurements no schools
were done twice in each city: in the warm and in the cold season of Budapest HU May 2007  
the year and on average three public buildings and two schools January 2008  
Catania IT October 2003  
were monitored in each city. May 2004  
The list of priority substances to be measured was defined Dublin IE May 2007  
following the selection criteria of the INDEX project (Kotzias et al., February 2008  
2005), namely that the compounds had to be present in the indoor Helsinki FI August 2007  
April 2008  
air and that they have shown adverse health effects being hence
Leipzig DE April 2005  
a potential hazard to European populations. Benzene, toluene, July 2006  
ethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, o-xylene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, Nicosia CY July 2004   In 2004 only
n-hexane, a-pinene, D-limonene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, schools
propanal and hexanal were always measured in every campaign. January 2007  
Thessaloniki GR November 2004  
Additionally a set of other chemicals were measured as well based May 2006  
on the characteristics of the area under evaluation (i.e. styrene,
3678 O. Geiss et al. / Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684

Table 2
Statistical information for each compound for all measurements done in the frame of the AIRMEX project.

Values Min Max Arith. Mean 5th Percentile 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile 95th Percentile

[n] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
]
Acetaldehyde Outdoor (Ambient) 105 0.1 5.1 1.8 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.4 4.2
Public Buildings/Schools 186 1.4 29.1 8.5 2.5 5.0 7.2 10.1 18.8
Private houses 96 3.7 41.3 12.8 4.9 7.6 11.2 15.9 24.8
Personal Inhalation 58 5.1 29.1 13.7 6.1 9.4 12.4 15.6 23.7

Acetone Outdoor (Ambient) 66 0.3 12.8 0.3 1.7 4.5 6.2 9.3 4.5
Public Buildings/Schools 129 1.4 336.8 5.7 11.9 19.5 29.6 59.6 30.6
Private houses 88 10.4 165.1 11.6 22.7 31.0 47.4 94.2 38.6
Personal Inhalation 45 11.8 225.9 16.4 30.1 31.0 51.6 66.7 44.5

Benzene Outdoor (Ambient) 108 0.4 15.2 3.2 0.6 1.2 2.1 4.6 8.0
Public Buildings/Schools 188 0.5 63.7 4.4 0.8 1.6 2.6 4.9 11.9
Private houses 96 0.4 32.1 2.8 0.7 1.2 1.9 3.3 4.9
Personal Inhalation 146 0.7 26.4 4.7 1.2 2.2 3.5 6.0 13.6

2-Butoxyethanol Outdoor (Ambient) 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Public Buildings/Schools 74 0 136.5 4.5 0 0 0.25 1.3 8.3
Private houses 50 0 11.0 0.6 0 0 0 0 2.7
Personal Inhalation 53 0 7.9 0.5 0 0 0 0.25 2.4

1-Butoxy-2-propanol Outdoor (Ambient) 12 0 1.6 0.4 e e e e e

Public Buildings/Schools 21 0.5 33.9 4.7 0.5 0.9 4.7 3.0 18.6
Private houses 8 1.9 39.6 12.5 e e e e e
Personal Inhalation e e e e e e e e e

1-Butanol Outdoor (Ambient) 46 0 10.9 1.5 0 0.2 0.6 1.7 5.0

Public Buildings/Schools 82 0.3 41.4 3.7 0.5 1.1 1.8 3.7 11.2
Private houses 46 0.4 9.8 2.5 0.6 1.0 1.8 3.5 7.5
Personal Inhalation 40 0.4 8.2 2.8 0.5 1.4 2.3 3.5 6.8

n-Decane Outdoor (Ambient) 22 3.0 9.9 6.2 3.0 4.3 5.7 7.7 9.4
Public Buildings/Schools 46 7.7 32.8 14.4 8.8 11.4 13.1 16.2 22.4
Private houses 40 8.8 32.7 17.3 9.8 13.1 15.6 20.9 30.5
Personal Inhalation 37 11.6 47.6 24.5 15.5 20.7 22.7 27.0 35.2

n-Dodecane Outdoor (Ambient) 22 3.0 9.9 6.2 3.0 4.3 5.7 7.7 9.4
Public Buildings/Schools 46 7.7 32.8 14.4 8.8 11.4 13.1 16.2 22.4
Private houses 40 8.8 32.7 17.3 9.8 13.1 15.6 20.9 30.5
Personal Inhalation 37 11.6 47.6 24.5 15.5 20.7 22.7 27.0 35.2

Ethylbenzene Outdoor (Ambient) 108 0.2 17.9 2.2 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.6 6.1
Public Buildings/Schools 178 0.2 26.9 2.4 0.5 0.7 1.3 3.0 7.4
Private houses 88 0.2 12.8 1.5 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.7 3.8
Personal Inhalation 146 0.4 44.7 3.2 0.5 1.1 1.8 3.8 8.2

Formaldehyde Outdoor (Ambient) 105 0.3 7.3 2.6 0.6 1.7 2.4 3.2 4.9
Public Buildings/Schools 185 1.5 49.7 16.7 4.5 10.4 14.1 22.7 31.5
Private houses 97 3.9 57.2 21.5 7.9 13.6 19.7 25.3 44.2
Personal Inhalation 58 7.4 29.9 16.6 8.3 12.7 15.3 19.7 25.7

n-Hexane Outdoor (Ambient) 73 0.3 6.0 1.6 0.4 0.8 1.1 2.2 3.6
Public Buildings/Schools 134 0.3 33.3 3.0 0.5 1.0 1.7 3.1 7.6
Private houses 84 0.2 78.4 2.5 0.5 0.9 1.4 2.1 3.5
Personal Inhalation 92 0.6 50.8 4.0 0.9 1.5 2.4 4.2 9.7

n-Heptane Outdoor (Ambient) 22 0 0.7 0.4 0 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7

Public Buildings/Schools 46 0.2 9.7 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.6 1.0 3.1
Private houses 40 0.2 8.9 1.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.2 2.4
Personal Inhalation 37 0.5 10.5 1.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.2 3.8

Hexanal Outdoor (Ambient) 102 0.2 3.3 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.4 2.1
Public Buildings/Schools 185 1.2 159.6 16.4 3.0 6.8 11.4 21.6 39.6
Private houses 96 6.2 198.1 32.3 8.5 14.8 24.4 39.4 82.0
Personal Inhalation 66 1.0 68.0 22.2 1.8 14.0 20.2 28.3 44.1

D-Limonene Outdoor (Ambient) 102 0 2.4 0.3 0 0 0.2 0.3 1.2

Public Buildings/Schools 179 0 175.7 9.4 0.3 1.2 2.6 9.1 33.0
Private houses 96 0 492.9 29.2 1.6 4.9 9.5 31.0 87.6
Personal Inhalation 146 0.4 276.9 26.1 1.4 4.3 10.4 32.1 88.4

Methylcyclohexane Outdoor (Ambient) 44 0 2.0 0.4 0 0.1 0.3 0.5 1.2

Public Buildings/Schools 86 0.1 36.6 2.9 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.2 14.1
Private houses 68 0 6.2 0.9 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 3.7
Personal Inhalation 67 0 23.0 2.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.6 9.2

Propanal Outdoor (Ambient) 104 0 1.9 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.4
Public Buildings/Schools 185 0.5 26.0 3.0 0.8 1.4 2.3 3.0 9.1
Private houses 96 0.4 12.7 3.0 0.9 1.8 2.7 3.3 5.9
Personal Inhalation 58 1.5 28.0 4.5 1.5 2.3 2.6 3.7 18.0
 O. Geiss et al. / Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684 3679

Table 2 (continued )

Values Min Max Arith. Mean 5th Percentile 25th Percentile Median 75th Percentile 95th Percentile

[n] [mg m ] [mg m

3 3
] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
] [ mg m 3
] [ mg m 3
] [mg m 3
] [mg m 3
]
a-Pinene Outdoor (Ambient) 89 0 1.5 0.1 0 0 0 0.2 0.6
Public Buildings/Schools 160 0 47.3 3.2 0 0.6 1.5 3.1 12.3
Private houses 97 0.2 214.1 14.5 0.6 2.6 6.1 16.9 47.3
Personal Inhalation 129 0 58.9 8.3 0.5 2.3 4.5 9.2 32.2

Styrene Outdoor (Ambient) 66 0 2.0 0.1 0 0 0 0 1.1

Public Buildings/Schools 128 0 3.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 2.4
Private houses 88 0 22.1 0.4 0 0 0 0 1.0
Personal Inhalation 83 0 5.4 6.4 0 0 0 0.1 2.5

Toluene Outdoor (Ambient) 108 0.8 207.8 11.5 1.2 2.3 4.8 12.9 33.2
Public Buildings/Schools 188 1.0 103.8 12.6 1.7 3.3 7.1 15.5 47.6
Private houses 96 1.3 160.6 11.7 2.5 4.5 6.5 11.1 28.4
Personal Inhalation 146 1.4 291.0 22.4 3.4 6.7 11.7 27.5 55.3

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Outdoor (Ambient) 105 0.2 16.3 2.2 0.2 0.4 0.9 2.0 8.2
Public Buildings/Schools 185 0.2 44.3 3.3 0.3 0.6 1.2 3.1 13.6
Private houses 96 0.3 58.9 2.7 0.3 0.6 1.1 2.9 6.6
Personal Inhalation 143 0 35.1 3.1 0.5 0.8 1.6 3.0 8.8

n-Undecane Outdoor (Ambient) 22 0 2.7 0.6 0 0 0.5 0.8 1.9

Public Buildings/Schools 46 0 19.5 2.2 0 0.9 1.4 2.1 6.3
Private houses 40 0 113 7.2 0.8 1.2 2.3 5.0 20.0
Personal Inhalation 37 0 11.1 3.0 0 1.6 2.4 3.2 8.4

m/p-Xylene Outdoor (Ambient) 108 0.5 36.5 5.7 0.6 1.4 2.5 7.2 16.2
Public Buildings/Schools 188 0.7 75.1 6.2 1.1 1.8 2.9 7.1 21.5
Private houses 96 0.5 28.1 3.8 0.9 1.7 2.8 4.6 9.3
Personal Inhalation 146 0.8 144.2 10.5 1.3 2.8 4.7 12.2 31.0

o-Xylene Outdoor (Ambient) 108 0.2 12.3 2.0 0.3 0.5 0.9 2.6 5.5
Public Buildings/Schools 188 0.2 22.2 2.2 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.4 7.1
Private houses 96 0.2 20.5 1.8 0.5 0.9 1.2 2.0 3.7
Personal Inhalation 146 0.4 61.6 4.2 0.6 1.4 2.0 5.0 11.3

Clara, CA, USA) equipped with a flame ionisation detector. Chro-
matographic separation was achieved using a J&W Scientific
capillary column (DB-5, 60 m, 0.25 mm i.d., 1 mm film thickness,
Agilent J&W columns, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The detection limit for
all compounds ranges from 0.2 to 0.3 mg m 3.
2.2.2. Analysis of carbonyls
Samples were prepared and analysed following the ISO/FDIS
16000-4 method (ISO/FDIS 16000-4, 2004). Analysis of carbonyl
compounds was conducted using the Agilent Series 1100 liquid
chromatographic system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA,
USA) coupled to a diode array detector (DAD) set at 360 nm.
Chromatographic separation was achieved using a Waters Nova-
Pak C18, 60 Å. 4 mm (3.9  300) mm column (Waters Corpora-
tion, 34 Maple Street, Milford, MA, USA). The detection limit for all
carbonyls ranges from 0.2 to 0.3 mg m 3.
2.2.3. Fitting of the experimental data
Experimental data obtained through the measurement
campaigns are plotted using cumulative probability plots. Addi-
tionally, fitted plots have been also elaborated using the mean and
standard deviation values calculated from the measured data. The
data follow a log-normal distribution. The fitting has been
produced using MS-ExcelÒ. Using the random number generator
function with a defined number of data and providing the type of
distribution (log-normal) and the corresponding standard devia-
tion and mean values, it has been possible to reproduce the theo-
retical form of these distributions.
3. Results and discussion
Table 2 summarises all data collected within the frame of the
AIRMEX project. The table contains minimum, maximum,
arithmetical averages and percentiles of concentrations observed in
all eleven cities for each compound and in each micro-environment
(outdoors, indoors, personal). The information contained in the
table may serve as reference for typical European exposure
scenarios and is essential for probabilistic exposure assessment
through timeeactivity analysis. The data are not claimed to be
exhaustive and representative for all European possible situations.
However, it can be used for exposure assessment in the investi-
gated areas and may also give a good indication for the average
European exposure to VOCs.
VOCs with the highest absolute concentrations include acetone
(median concentration in private houses 47.4 mg m 3 and
51.6 mg m 3 in personal samples), n-decane (median concentration
in personal inhalation samples 22.7 mg m 3), n-dodecane (median
concentration in personal samples 22.7 mg m 3), formaldehyde
(median concentration in private houses 19.7 mg m 3) and hexanal
(median concentration in private houses 24.4 mg m 3 and 20.2 in
personal samples).
In Table 3 the levels of selected VOCs measured in AIRMEX study
are compared with a similar study (Expolis-Helsinki).
First of all, it is clear that concentrations measured in the two
studies are on a similar level. However, some minor differences are
worth noting, namely that the outdoor concentrations in the AIR-
MEX study tend to be higher for the aromatic compounds than in
the Expolis-Helsinki study, and vice-versa for the residential,
workplaces and personal exposure concentrations. This can be
explained by differences in the traffic fleet as discussed later in the
paper and by differences in ventilation rates. Furthermore differ-
ences of only minor nature can be observed for terpenes. This is
confirmed by the cumulative probability plots discussed in Section
4.2.
The data obtained in the AIRMEX study are comparable to the
indoor data from similar studies in Oxford (Lai et al., 2004) and
3680 O. Geiss et al. / Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684

Table 3
Comparison of mean VOC concentrations (mg m 3
) from the AIRMEX study and the Expolis-Helsinki study.

Airmex (Arithmetic Mean) Expolis-Helsinki (Arithmetic Mean)

(Edwards et al., 2001a; Jantunen et al., 1999)

Outdoor Residential Workplace Personal Outdoor Residential Workplace Personal

Benzene 3.2 4.4 2.8 4.7 1.7 2.2 3.9 3.4
Toluene 11.5 11.7 12.6 22.4 5.6 20.4 32.3 25.3
Ethylbenzene 2.2 1.5 2.4 3.2 1.0 2.9 16.1 7.7
m/p-Xylene 5.7 3.8 6.2 10.5 3.1 7.8 38.8 25.0
Hexanal 0.9 32.3 16.4 22.2 2.1 11.6 5.0 8.2
n-Decane 6.2 17.3 14.4 24.5 1.1 5.3 13.9 16.5
n-Undecane 0.6 7.2 2.2 3.0 0.7 5.1 13.0 14.3
2-Butoxyethanol n.d. n.d 4.5 n.d e 2.5 e e
a-Pinene 0.1 14.5 3.2 8.3 2.1 16.1 5.5 10.2
D-Limonene 0.3 29.2 9.4 26.1 e 31.6 14.2 18.7

a number of German cities (Schlink et al., 2004). The biggest
differences found from these studies are the somewhat higher
concentrations in the German study for toluene and lower
concentrations for n-decane and n-dodecane, which might be
attributed to local sources but needs to be further studied.
Using the data provided in the Table 2, indoor/outdoor (I/O) and
private house/office (Ho/Of) ratios were calculated with the aim to
identify compounds that are typical for these micro-environments.
3.1. Indoor/Outdoor (I/O) ratios and home to office ratios
The I/O ratio shown in Fig. 1 was calculated by dividing the
median indoor concentrations (offices and classroom) by the
median outdoor concentrations for each location and compound.
The data are extracted from Table 2.
A practical implication of the findings shown in Fig. 1 and
Table 4 may be that when investigating indoor pollutants the
sampling strategy should especially focus on those compounds
which have an I/O ratio of >2. However, from the I/O ratio values
the compounds can also be divided into categories ranging from
being predominantly indoor pollutants (ratio > 6) to being
pollutants not deriving from indoor sources (ratio approaching 1).
In Table 4 these ratios are listed. In the first category we find
formaldehyde, D-limonene and hexanal, which are mainly origi-
nating from indoor sources. The findings for formaldehyde and
hexanal are in agreement with Barguil et al. (1990) who confirmed
the existence of indoor aldehyde sources in residential homes and
identified formaldehyde and hexanal as being among the main
aldehydes detected in indoor air.
Formaldehyde has recently been identified as carcinogenic to
humans (IARC, 1982, 2006), and its median I/O ratio of approxi-
mately 6 underlines the need to minimize emissions from building
products, household products and furnishings inside closed envi-
ronments. Other compounds of concern are 2-butoxyethanol and D-
limonene that are skin contact allergens (class III and IIB, respec-
tively NKB, 1994). 2-butoxyethanol is used as a solvent in spray
lacquers, enamels, varnishes, and latex paints and as an ingredient
in paint thinners, paint strippers, and varnish removers (ATSDR,
1999), whereas D-limonene is widely used in cleaning products
(Steinemann, 2009; Rodrigues et al., 2009). Besides its contact-
allergenic properties, D-limonene has been proven to add ultra-
fine particles to indoor environments through formation of ozone
mediated secondary aerosol (Weschler and Shields, 1999), which
has also been connected with sensory irritation in office environ-
ments (Wolkoff et al., 2006). In the category of compounds with
a ratio of almost 1 we find benzene, toluene, the xylenes and the
trimethylbenzenes. The levels found for these compounds indoors
originate predominantly from the polluted outdoor air penetrating
into the indoor environment and they are associated with auto-
mobile emissions (Chan et al., 1991; Barrefors and Petersson, 1993;
Lawryk et al., 1995). Benzene is of concern as known human
carcinogen, and the common practice of improving indoor air
quality by opening windows is not applicable for this pollutant. The
only practical way to abate this category of compounds in the

Fig. 1. Ratio median concentration indoor working/school environment against median concentration outdoors for all data collected in the frame of the AIRMEX project.
 O. Geiss et al. / Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684
Table 4
Ratio-categories obtained by dividing median indoor concentration of offices/
classrooms by median outdoor concentrations.
Category Compounds
Ratio > 6a Formaldehyde, hexanal, D-limonene, a-pinene,
2-butoxyethanol
Ratio 6 > x < 4 Acetaldehyde, acetone, 1-butoxy-2-propanol
Ratio 4 > x < 2 n-Undecane, propanal, methylcyclohexane, n-dodecane,
1-butanol
Ratio < 2 Benzene, ethylbenzene, n-hexane, n-heptane, toluene,
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, m/p-xylene, o-xylene
a
Ratio > 6 or ambient air concentration close to zero.
indoor environment is through forced ventilation with filtering of
the air.
Analogue to the I/O ratio, a home to office ratio (Ho/Of) is ob-
tained by dividing the median concentrations calculated for each
compound in the private homes by the median concentration
calculated for offices/classrooms.
The Ho/Of ratio is displayed for all compounds in Fig. 2 and
Table 5. It is evident that the two most abundant compounds in the
private-house micro-environment are the terpenes a-pinene and
D-limonene. Apparently such uses are more common in private
homes than in offices/classrooms. a-Pinene is frequently used in
perfumes, cleaning products and fragrances (Steinemann, 2009;
Rodrigues et al., 2009) and just as D-limonene it may cause skin
and eye irritation and contributes to the formation of strong airway
irritants in terpene/ozone reaction mixtures (Wolkoff et al., 2006).
Although a large number of terpene ozonolysis products have been
identified (Calogirou et al., 1999; Glasius et al., 2000) it is not
known, which are responsible for the irritation of skin, eye, and
airway. However, the present findings of high Ho/Of as well as I/O
ratios for terpenes may be of relevance for future indoor air quality
guidelines (Kephalopoulos et al., 2007).
4. Geographical and seasonal variations in indoor
concentrations of the measured compounds
4.1. Introduction
A number of variables must be taken into account when setting
up probabilistic European exposure scenarios. Data on different
body characteristics (e.g. bodyweight) for the various populations
fi
Fig. 2. Distribution of home/office ratios.
3681
Table 5
Ratio-categories obtained by dividing median indoor concentrations in private
houses by median indoor concentrations in offices/classrooms (Ho/Of ratios).
Category Compounds
Ratio > 2 Hexanal, D-limonene, a-pinene
Ratio 2 > x < 1 n-Decane, n-undecane, acetone, acetaldehyde,
formaldehyde, propanal, n-heptane, n-dodecane
Ratio  1 Benzene, methylcyclohexane, ethylbenzene,
n-hexane, toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzne, 1-butanol,
m/p-xylene, o-xylene
in Europe (EXPOFACTS) is important together with timeeactivity
patterns and may differ between geographical locations and
between seasons of the year. However, also potential geographical
and seasonal variations in indoor concentrations must be consid-
ered. The degree of scattering in the present indoor air concen-
tration dataset for individual compounds and for individual indoor
micro-environments can mask geographical and seasonal trends.
Thus data were pooled for public buildings, private homes, schools
and kindergartens assuming that any geographical and seasonal
variation would equally affect concentrations in these indoor
environments. Furthermore, three groups of individual compounds
were examined as the sum of the individual concentrations, namely
aromatic hydrocarbons, terpenes and aldehydes (Table 6).
4.2. Geographical variation
The geographical variation was analysed by dividing the data
into two groups (Central-North and South Europe) and visualized in
the form of cumulative probability plots of observed concentrations
and fitted curves assuming log-normal distributions. In Table 7 the
utilised parameters are presented.
A clear difference between north and south was evident for the
indoor concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons (Fig. 3). In absence
of indoor sources for this group of compounds (Table 4) the
northesouth difference is attributed to a similar trend for outdoor
concentrations. In fact the ambient air pollution levels around the
investigated public buildings were notably higher in the southern
European cities of Athens, Thessaloniki and Catania. Higher
concentration of aromatic hydrocarbons in outdoor environments
in the south of Europe may be explained by different traffic patterns
3682 O. Geiss et al. / Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684

Table 6
Groups of substances evaluated for geographical and seasonal variations.

Group Compounds
Aldehydes Formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, hexanal, propionaldehyde
Aromatic HC Benzene, toluene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzne, ethylbenzene,
m/p-xylene, o-xylene
Terpenes a-pinene, D-limonene

Table 7
Parameters used for data fitting: Log-Normal distribution (mg m 3
).

Substance group Geographical Mean Median SD 95% confidence interval

seasonal
Aldehydes Warm 58.869 52.000 30.793 5.138
Cold 47.400 41.400 31.669 5.173
North 56.307 49.400 32.606 4.508
South 44.837 43.200 27.921 6.080

Aromatic HC Warm 24.613 15.900 22.723 3.764 Fig. 4. Geographical variation of terpenes.
Cold 31.863 18.500 36.126 5.963
North 15.559 13.300 9.051 1.258 There is a difference in the aldehydes concentrations between
South 59.051 49.650 40.385 8.741
north and south of Europe (Fig. 5), which fits well with the
Terpenes Warm 13.357 6.300 16.358 2.823 extended use of wood products in north Europe. Aldehydes sources
Cold 35.975 18.450 60.669 10.510
are predominantly pressed wood products and furniture made
North 23.994 11.350 47.338 6.696
South 26.478 12.000 40.749 9.906 with pressed wood products, ureaeformaldehyde foam insulation
(UFFI), combustion and environmental tobacco smoke, durable
press drapes, other textiles, and glues (WHO, 1989; Health Canada,
2005). In particular for hexanal a major source has been demon-
and a significant amount of passenger vehicles not equipped with strated to be the chemical reaction of oxidants in the air with
a catalytic converter (Karakitsios et al., 2006, 2007). The observed linoleic acid (Svedberg et al., 2004) deriving from wood products.
trend for aromatic hydrocarbons is in agreement with recent
studies on benzene, which investigated the relation between
pollution levels and the latitude of the place the samples were 4.3. Seasonal variations
taken from (Ballesta et al., 2000; Cocheo et al., 2000). In the latter,
the observed increase in annual average benzene concentrations In the work of Diez et al. (2003) a general increase of VOC
from north to south was explained with the difference in prevailing concentrations in the cold season is reported, mainly due to lower
meteorological conditions, such as local wind speeds. However, the ventilation and air exchange rates. However, this effect depends on
Cocheo study was conducted in Copenhagen, Antwerp, Padua, the specific VOC, of the emission sources, the building type, the
Murcia and Athens and did not include cities from eastern Europe, geographic location, the outdoor air quality and other factors
what makes a direct comparison difficult. (Schlink et al., 2004).
For the group of terpenes there was no substantial difference To identify a possible seasonal variation of the indoor air
between north and south (Fig. 4), which may be due to the fact that concentrations the division of the data into two groups was
their indoor sources are related to modern lifestyle which clearly complicated by the fact that the measurement campaigns for each
does not differ substantially between the various areas of Europe city did not take place simultaneously but they were spanned over
that have been included in the present study (terpenes sources: a period of several years. Thus, as criterion for the categorisation of
fragrances, cleaning products). the data, the ambient temperature of the city during the campaigns
was utilised. For each geographical location data were pooled
together for the warmest of the two campaigns and classified as the

Fig. 3. Geographical variation of aromatic HC. Fig. 5. Geographical variation of aldehydes.

 O. Geiss et al. / Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684
Fig. 6. Seasonal variation of terpenes.
warm period, whereas the rest of the data have been used to form
the so called cold period. In Table 1 the geographical and seasonal
division is presented.
For terpenes the analysis shows a clear difference between
warmer and colder seasons (Fig. 6) with indoor concentrations
being lower during the warm season. Terpenes react rapidly with
oxidants in the air such as ozone, which is much more abundant in
the warm season due to the higher photochemical activity and
penetrates from the outdoor air. This finding provides a good
indication of the importance of indoor air chemistry for the
concentration levels of various substances. An additional explana-
tion could be the increased ventilation rates during the warm
season. No difference between the warm and the cold season was
evident for the aromatic hydrocarbons (Fig. 7), which is expected
from the fact that they do not have significant indoor sources and
therefore an increased ventilation rate does not really influence
their indoor concentration.
During the warm season the indoor concentration of alde-
hydes appeared to be slightly higher than during the cold season
(Fig. 8), which may support the hypothesis of ozone penetration
(formaldehyde is an oxidation product in the terpene/ozone
reaction (Calogirou et al., 1999) and hexanal is an oxidation
product of ozone with linoleic acid). However, also increased
emission/evaporation/desorption rates from their indoor sources
may play a role.
Fig. 7. Seasonal variation of aromatic HC.
3683
Fig. 8. Seasonal variation of aldehydes.
5. Conclusions
The AIRMEX project is the most recent of a series of pan-
European projects aiming to assess personal exposure and taking
an inventory of VOC levels in indoor environments in several
European cities. Results presented in this work represent an elab-
oration of the whole set of raw-data and are hereby made publicly
accessible via a database (http://web.jrc.ec.europa.eu/airmex/).
Moreover, the statistical analysis of the data in the present paper
provides a good indication of a possible influence of indoor air
chemistry on the concentration levels of reactive substances, which
should be taken into consideration in future indoor air quality
guidelines. Attention should be taken in indoor air quality moni-
toring campaigns to pollutants with an indoor/outdoor ratio higher
than 2. A clear difference between north and south was evident for
the indoor concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons which can be
attributed to the different kinds of vehicle fleet in the studied cities.
For terpenes no similar trend was revealed for geographical varia-
tion but there was a significant difference between the values ob-
tained for the warm and the cold period with concentrations being
lower during the warm period. Besides potentially increased
ventilation rates in the warm period, this can be attributed to the
reactivity of terpenes with ozone penetrating from outdoor air,
which is more abundant during warm periods. Our findings of
higher concentration of aldehydes (ozone oxidation reaction
products) during the warm period support this hypothesis.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge all participants at this project.
Without the on-site local coordination this project could not have
been realized. Namely the coordinators are: Dr. Cuccia and Dr.
Nastri from the Regione Siciliana, Azienda Unita Sanitaria Locale
N.3 in Catania, Italy; Dr. Bloemen and his collaborators from the
RIVM in Bilthoven, Netherlands; Prof. Herbarth and his collabora-
tors from the Umweltforschungszentrum in Leizpig, Germany; Dr.
Kalabokas from the Research Centre for Atmospheric Physics and
Climatology Acacedmy of Athens in Greece; Dr. Nikolaou from the
Organisation for the Masterplan & Environment in Thessalonica,
Greece; Dr. Michael and his collaborators from the Ministry of
Health in Nicosia, Cyprus; Dr. Kauppi and her collaborators from the
Finnish Environment Institute, Dr. Putus from the Ministry of Social
Affairs and Health, Dr. Säteri and her collaborators from the
Ministry of Environment; Dr. Nurminnen and Dr. Jylkkä from the
City of Helsinki in Finland; Dr. McLaughlin and his collaborators
3684 O. Geiss et al. / Atmospheric Environment 45 (2011) 3676e3684

from the University College Dublin, Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Healy and Jantunen, M.J., Katsouyanni, K., Knoppel, H., Kuenzli, N., Lebret, E., Maroni, M.,
Saarela, K., Sram, R., Zmirou, D., 1999. Final Report: Air Pollution Exposure in
Dr. McCartan from the Dublin City Council in Dublin, Ireland; Prof.
European Cities: The Expolis Study. Kuopion Yliopiston Painatuskeskus, Kuopio.
Zaray and Dr. Mihucz from the Eötvös Lorand University in Buda- Karakitsios, S., Papaloukas, C., Kassomenos, P., Pilidis, G., 2006. Assessment and
pest, Hungary. prediction of benzene concentrations in a street canyon using artificial neural
networks and deterministic models. Their response to what if scenarios.
Ecological Modelling 193, 253e270.
References Karakitsios, S., Delis, V., Kassomenos, P., Pilidis, G., 2007. Contribution to ambient
benzene concentrations in the vicinity of petrol stations: estimation of the
associated health risk. Atmospheric Environment 41, 1889e1902.
Aprea, C., Strambi, M., Novelli, M.T., Lunghini, L., Bozzi, N., 2000. Biologic monitoring
Kephalopoulos, S., Kotzias, D., Koistinen, K., Carslaw, N., Carrer, P., Fossati, S.,
of exposure to organophosphorus pesticides in 195 Italian children. Environ-
Hoffmann, T., Langer, S., Larsen, B.R., Monn, C., Nicolas, M., Salthammer, T.,
mental Health Perspectives 108, 521e525.
Schlitt, C., Winterhalter, R., Wolkoff, P., 2007. Impact of Ozone-initiated Terpene
ATSDR, 1999. Toxicological Profile for 2-Butoxyethanol and 2-Butoxyethanol
Chemistry on Indoor Air Quality and Human Health. EUR 23052 EN.
Acetate. PB/99/102527/AS.
Luxembourg. OPOCE, Luxembourg.
Ballesta, P., Field, R., Connolly, R., Cao, N., Baeza-Caracena, A., De Saeger, E., 2000.
Kotzias, D., Koistinen, K., Kephalopoulos, S., Schlitt, C., Carrer, P., Maroni, M.,
Population exposure to benzene: one day cross-sections in six European cities.
Jantunen, M., Cochet, C., Kirchner, S., Lindvall, T., McLaughlin, J., Molhave, L., de
Atmospheric Environment 40, 3355e3366.
Oliveira Fernandes, E., Seifert, B., 2005. The INDEX Project. Critical Appraisal of
Barguil, S., Le Moullec, Y., Person, A., Laurent, A.M., Festy, B., 1990. Chemical char-
the Setting and Implementation of Indoor Exposure Limits in the EU. EUR
acterisation of indoor air quality in Parisian homes. Aerobiologia 6, 28e31.
Report. EUR21590EN, ISBN 92-894-9353-4.
Barrefors, G., Petersson, G., 1993. Assessment of ambient volatile hydrocarbons from
Kotzias, D., Geiss, O., Tirendi, S., Barrero-Moreno, J., Reina, V., Gotti, A., Cimino-
tobacco smoke and from vehicle emissions. Journal of Chromatography 643
Reale, B., Marafante, E., Sarigiannis, D., 2009. Exposure to multiple air
(1e2), 71e76.
contaminants in public buildings, schools and kindergartens the European
Calogirou, A., Larsen, B.R., Kotzias, D., 1999. Gas phase terpene oxidation products:
indoor air monitoring and exposure assessment (AIRMEX) study. Fresenius
a review. Atmospheric Environment 33A, 1352e2310.
Environmental Bulletin 18 (6), 1e12.
Chan, C.-C., Ozkaynak, J., Spengler, J.D., Sheldon, L., 1991. Driver exposure to volatile
Laden, F., Schwartz, J., Speizer, F.E., Dockery, D.W., 2001. Air pollution and mortality:
organic compounds, CO, ozone, and NO2 under different driving conditions.
a continued follow-up in the Harvard six cities study. Epidemiology 12 (S81).
Environmental Science and Technology 25 (5), 964e972.
Lai, H.K., Kendall, M., Ferrier, H., Lindup, I., Alm, S., HLnninen, O., Jantunen, M.,
Clarisse, B., Laurent, A.M., Seta, N., Le Moullec, Y., El Hasnaoui, A., Momas, I., 2003.
Mathys, P., Colvile, R., Ashmore, M.R., Cullinan, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2004.
Indoor aldehydes: measurement of contamination levels and identification of
Personal exposures and microenvironment concentrations of PM2.5, VOC, NO2
their determinants in Paris dwellings. Environmental Research 92, 245e253.
and CO in Oxford, UK. Atmospheric Environment 38, 6399e6410.
Cocheo, V., Boaretto, C., Sacco, P., De Saeger, E., Ballesta, P.P., Skov, H., et al., 2000.
Lawryk, J.L., Lioy, P.J., Weisel, C.P., 1995. Exposure to volatile organic compounds in
Urban benzene and population exposure. Nature 404, 141e142.
the passenger compartment of automobiles during periods of normal and
Commission of the European Communities, 2004. Communication from the
malfunctioning operation. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic
Epidemiology 5 (4), 511e531.
and Social Committee The European Environment & Health Action Plan
Meininghaus, R., Kouniali, A., Mandin, C., Cicolella, A., 2003. Risk assessment of
2004e2010. (COM/2004/416).
sensory irritants in indoor air - a case study in a French school. Environment
Diez, Ulrike, Rehwagen, Martina, Rolle-Kampczyk, Ulrike, Wetzig, Heide,
International 28, 553e557.
Schulz, Rita, Richter, Matthias, Lehmann, Irina, Borte, Michael, Herbarth, Olf,
NKB, 1994. Testing and discussion of the proposed criteria for the ability of chemical
2003. Redecoration of apartments promotes obstructive bronchitis in atopy risk
substances to cause allergy and hypersensitivity in the skin and lower airways.
infants - results of the LARS study. International Journal of Hygiene and Envi-
In: NKB Committee and Work Reports 1994:03E, Nordic Committee on Building
ronmental Health 205 (3), 173e179.
Regulations, NKB, Indoor Climate Committee. Painatuskeskus OY, Helsinki,
Dockery, D.W., Pope III, C.A., Xu, X., Spengler, J.D., Ware, J.H., Fay, M.E., Ferris Jr., B.G.,
Finland.
Speizer, F.E., 1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in six US
Plaisance, H., Leonardis, T., Gerboles, M., 2008. Assessment of uncertainty of
cities. New England Journal of Medicine 329, 1753e1759.
benzene measurements by Radiello diffusive sampler. Atmospheric Environ-
Edwards, R.D., Jantunen, M.J., 2001. Benzene exposure in Helsinki, Finland. Atmo-
ment 42, 2555e2568.
spheric Environment 35, 1411e1420.
Pope III, C.A., Thun, M.J., Namboodiri, M.M., Dockery, D.W., Evans, J.S., Speizer, F.E.,
Edwards, R.D., Jurvelin, J., Saarela, K., Jantunen, M.J., 2001a. VOC concentrations
1995. Particulate pollution as a predictor pf mortality in a prospective study of
measured in personal samples and residential indoor, outdoor and workplace
US adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 151,
microenvironments in EXPOLIS-Helsinki, Finland. Atmospheric Environment
1743e1753.
35, 4531e4543.
Rodrigues, S.N., Martins, I.M., Fernandes, I.P., Gomes, P.B., Mata, V.G., Barreiro, M.F.,
Edwards, R.D., Jurvelin, J., Koistinen, K., Saarela, K., Jantunen, M.J., 2001b. VOC
Rodrigues, A.E., 2009. Scentfashion: microencapsulated perfumes for textile
source identification from personal and residential indoor, outdoor and work-
application. Chemical Engineering Journal 149 (1e3), 463e472.
place microenvironment samples in EXPOLIS-Helsinki, Finland. Atmospheric
Schlink, U., Rehwagen, M., Damm, M., Richter, M., Borte, M., Herbarth, O., 2004.
Environment 35, 4829e4841.
Seasonal cycle of indoor-VOCs: comparison of apartments and cities. Atmo-
http://expofacts.jrc.ec.europa.eu (accessed 19.10.10.).
spheric Environment 38 (8), 1181e1190.
Glasius, M., Di Bella, D., Lahaniati, M., Calogirou, A., Jensen, N.R., Hjorth, J.,
Steinemann, A., 2009. Fragranced consumer products and undisclosed ingredients.
Kotzias, D., Larsen, B.R., 2000. Carboxylic acids in secondary aerosols from
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 29 (1), 32e38.
oxidation of cyclic monoterpenes by ozone. Environmental Science & Tech-
Strandberg, B., Sunesson, A.L., Sundgren, M., Levin, J.O., SLllsten, H., Barregard, L.,
nology 34, 1001e1010.
2006. Field evaluation of two diffusive samplers and two adsorbent media to
Guzelian, P.S., Henry, C.J., Olin, S.S., 1992. Similarities and Differences between
determine 1,3-butadiene and benzene levels in air. Atmospheric Environment
Children and Adults: Implications for Risk Assessment. ILSI Press, Washington,
40, 7686e7695.
DC.
Svedberg, Urban R.A., Hogberg, Hans-Erik, Hogberg, Johan, Galle, Bo, 2004. Emis-
Health Canada, 2005. Proposed Residential Indoor Air Quality Guidelines for
sion of hexanal and carbon monoxide from storage of wood pellets, a potential
Formaldehyde. Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada. H128e1/05-432E.
occupational and domestic health hazard. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 48
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 1982. IARC monographs on the
(4), 339e349.
evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. In: Benzene, vol. 29.
Weschler, C.J., Shields, H.C., 1999. Indoor ozone/terpene reactions as a source of
IARC, Lyon, France.
indoor particles. Atmospheric Environment 33, 2301e2312.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 2006. IARC monographs on the
WHO, 1989. Formaldehyde, Environmental Health Criteria 89. World Health Orga-
evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. In: Formaldehyde,
nization, International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva, Switzerland.
vol. 88. IARC, Lyon, France.
Wolkoff, P., Wilkins, C.K., Clausen, P.A., Nielsen, G.D., 2006. Organic compounds in
Ilgen, E., Karfich, N., Levsen, K., Angerer, J., Schneider, P., Heinrich, J.,
office environments - sensory irritation, odour, measurements, and the role of
Wichmann, H.E., Dunemann, L., Begerow, J., 2001. Atmospheric Environment
reactive chemistry. Indoor Air 16, 719.
35, 1235e1252.