Single Usage of a Kitchen Degreaser Can Alter Indoor Aerosol

Subscriber access provided by University of Colorado Boulder

Article

A single usage of a kitchen degreaser can alter indoor aerosol composition for days Jaroslav Schwarz, Otakar Makeš, Jakub Ondrá#ek, Michael Cusack, Nicholas Talbot, Petr Vodi#ka, Lucie Kubelova, and Vladimir Zdimal Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • Publication Date (Web): 27 Apr 2017 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on April 27, 2017

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 21

Environmental Science & Technology

1

A single usage of a kitchen degreaser can alter indoor

2

aerosol composition for days

3

Jaroslav Schwarz*, Otakar Makeš, Jakub Ondráček, Michael Cusack, Nicholas Talbot, Petr

4

Vodička, Lucie Kubelová, Vladimír Ždímal

5

Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, Prague, Czech Republic

6

7

Abstract

8

To the best of our knowledge, this study represents the first observation of multi-day persistence

9

of an indoor aerosol transformation linked to a kitchen degreaser containing mono-ethanol amine

10

(MEA). MEA remaining on the cleaned surfaces and on a wiping paper towel in a trash can was

11

able to transform ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate into (MEA)2SO4 and (MEA)NO3. This

12

influence persisted for at least 60 hours despite a high average ventilation rate. The influence was

13

observed using both offline (filters, impactors, and ion chromatography analysis) and online

14

(compact time-of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer) techniques. Substitution of ammonia in

15

ammonium salts was observed not only in aerosol but also in particles deposited on a filter before

16

the release of MEA. The similar influence of other amines is expected based on literature data.

17

This influence represents a new pathway for MEA exposure of people in an indoor environment.

18

The stabilizing effect on indoor nitrate also causes higher indoor exposure to fine nitrates.

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1


19

Page 2 of 21

TOC art

20 21 22

Introduction

23

Indoor aerosol studies are important because people spend approximately 80% of their lives

24

indoors, and aerosols can have negative health effects, as observed in many studies1. Indoor

25

aerosols can originate as outdoor aerosol transported through windows and wall leaks2. In the

26

absence of indoor aerosol sources, the levels of indoor aerosol are always lower than outdoor

27

aerosol levels, and the difference depends on the natural air exchange rate in the absence of

28

filtration devices. The size dependence of the indoor/outdoor ratio resulting from different particle

29

removal processes is well known.

30

However, when indoor sources, such as smoking, cooking, open fire heating or cleaning, are

31

present, these sources can easily dominate indoor aerosol concentrations and affect the overall

32

aerosol chemical composition. Even humans act as aerosol source that adds particles to the overall

33

indoor aerosol content.

34

The chemical transformation of particles transported from outside to the indoor environment is

35

well known and frequently observed for the case of ammonium nitrates3–5. However, little is

36

known about transformations of indoor aerosols under the influence of the broad collection of

37

chemicals we use to keep our homes clean and at the desired level of sterility.


2

Page 3 of 21


38

One family of substances often found in the domestic environment is aminium salts, which are

39

used in different surface active detergents. By examining manufacturer data and chemically

40

analyzing this cleaner, we found that not only aminium salts are used in the water solution of

41

degreasing solutes but also free amines such as mono-ethanol amine (MEA).

42

The role of amines and aminium salts in ambient atmospheric aerosols has been recognized

43

relatively recently6, leading to a growing number of papers dealing with this subject. The influence

44

of amines on ambient atmospheric nucleation has been studied both theoretically7 and

45

experimentally8,9. Amines have been found in the ultrafine fraction of ambient aerosol, and there

46

are only a few papers dealing with their possible effects. Recently, aminium salts were suggested

47

to be at least partially responsible for new particle formation events10, and their ability to thermally

48

stabilize nitrates was studied by Salo et al. (2011)11. The growing interest in aminium salts in

49

atmospheric aerosol has also led to studies of their relevant properties12–14 and their chemical

50

reactions with atmospherically relevant compounds9,15–19. Very recently Chu and Chan (2017)20

51

studied uptake of dimethyl amine by ammonium sulphates and its mixture with sucrose. The

52

toxicology of amines was reviewed by Knaak et al. (1997)21; more recently, the toxicology of

53

MEA was studied by Kamijo et al. (2007)22.

54

Two papers have also described the influence of sulfuric acid emissions on MEA aerosol during

55

the CO2 capture process23,24, suggesting the formation of MEA sulfate in the aerosol phase.

56

In this study, and we believe for the first time in the context of a common indoor environment, we

57

describe the ability of mono-ethanol amine, a constituent of a commercial degreaser solution for

58

cleaning kitchens, to replace ammonium in inorganic salts in the indoor environment. In this case,

59

ammonium is replaced mainly in its sulfate and nitrate salts in the inorganic aerosol that usually

60

forms up to half of PM2.5 aerosol mass in indoor environments. Both complete and partial


3


Page 4 of 21

61

replacement was recorded in our experiment, depending on the mode of degreaser usage and the

62

indoor activities that followed. Moreover, the dynamics of the pollution are described using a

63

combination of different aerosol instrumentation and analytical techniques during a

64

comprehensive indoor/outdoor experiment using both offline and online sampling techniques in

65

an experimental room at an Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals (ICPF) facility. This

66

configuration is similar to one used in our previous paper4, but here, the investigation was

67

substantially enriched using a in house built humidity tandem differential mobility analyzer

68

(HTDMA)25, field OC/EC analyzer (Sunset Laboratory Inc., Tigard, USA), and compact time-

69

of-flight aerosol mass spectrometer (C-ToF-AMS, referred further as AMS, Aerodyne Research,

70

Inc., Billerica, USA)26. A complete overview of the campaign and its results are provided

71

elsewhere26. In this paper, the newly recognized effects of cleaning chemicals used indoors are

72

described with focus on change in indoor aerosol chemical composition.

73 74

Experimental procedures

75

The offline sampling used PM1 and PM10 sampling heads with Leckel pumps (Sven Leckel

76

GmbH, Berlin, Germany) and SDI and BLPI cascade impactors to collect aerosol samples in both

77

indoor and outdoor environments in parallel. Samples were collected for 23 h. The filter holders

78

were loaded with pre-combusted (800°C, 3 h) quartz fiber filters (Pall Tissuquartz, 47 mm). For

79

PM1, two filters in series were used to mitigate the possible adsorption artifacts for the OC/EC

80

analyses. The filters and BLPI samples were analyzed using gravimetry and ion chromatography.

81

More details about the sampling campaign can be found in Talbot et al. (2016)27. Here, the

82

description concentrates only on the experimental details relevant to this paper.


4

Page 5 of 21


83

In addition to other sources, the influence of a W5 degreaser (Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, Neckarsulm,

84

Germany) sprayed on kitchen furniture surfaces was studied. Similar degreasers are sold under

85

different names globally. The spray composition, as declared by the producer, is as follows

86

(without concentrations): water, sodium C13-17 alkane sulfonate, mono-ethanolamine, MEA-

87

palm kernelate, trisodium n,n-bis (carboxymethyl)-ß-alanine, perfume, limonene. The IC

88

chromatography analysis showed more than 5% (w/w) of MEA in the solution.

89

The following experiment was completed twice. During the first cleaner usage on September 1,

90

2014, the cleaner was applied at 6:30 p.m. for 1 min. At that time, 24 h filter sampling of PM1 and

91

PM10 aerosol was already underway, beginning at 10 a.m. The AMS, SMPS, APS, and HTDMA

92

were also continuously running during that whole period. The next day (September 2, 2014),

93

between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., the filters were changed, and the BLPI and SDI were turned on at the

94

same time. The micro-ventilation and ventilator above the electrical stove were also turned on. No

95

additional indoor source was used over the next 24 h, but the micro-ventilation and ventilator were

96

switched off at 15:59 because a coal-burning smell was detected at the site. On the third day

97

(09/03/2014) at 9:44 a.m., the surface was wiped, and new filters were loaded. At 16:00, an outdoor

98

barbecue was used to visualize the entrainment of aerosols to the indoor space. No impactors were

99

running during that time. On September 4th and 5th, other indoor sources were tested. On September

100

6th, the same cleaning solution was used at 9:50 a.m., and the doors were closed at 10 a.m. Only

101

the online instruments, including the AMS, were running at that point and continued to run until

102

the end of campaign, on September 8th at 11:08.

103

The quartz fiber filter samples and the BLPI impactor foils were weighted and stored in a freezer

104

until the analysis of water soluble ions was completed using a Dionex 5000 system that enables

105

parallel analysis of both anions and cations. Two different calibrations were used for cations; one


5


Page 6 of 21

106

of them included six amine standards in addition to the standard cations (Na+, NH4+, K+, Mg2+,

107

Ca2+). All amines (mono-ethanolamine (MEA), tri-ethanolamine (TEA), tri-ethylamine (TA), tri-

108

methylamine (TMA), methoxypropylamine (MPA), and tetra-methylammonium (TMAH)) used

109

in calibration were separated from other cations; however, complete separation of ammonium and

110

MEA was not achieved (Fig. 1).

111 112

Figure 1. IC separation of basic cations and six amines.

113

AMS determination of MEA aerosol concentrations

114

The AMS data were first evaluated using standard procedures described in Allan et al. (2004)28

115

and for our instrument in Kubelová et al. (2015)29. Although c-ToF-AMS is not normally used for

116

the determination of individual substance concentrations, with the exception of certain inorganic

117

species, we have found a semi-quantitative way to determine MEA concentrations in the aerosol

118

phase during part of the sampling period. The determination was based on the difference in ratio

119

of m/zNO3 30 and m/zNO3 46, for normal ambient conditions (the ratio is normally relatively stable

120

in ambient aerosol for a given AMS instrument) and the same ratio for period under the MEA

121

influence. The concentration of MEA in aerosol was determined from balance of masses m/zNO3

122

30 and m/zNO3 46 originally attributed to nitrates and their ambient ratio and the ratio of same

123

masses found during calibration using MEA sulfate aerosol. The details of this procedure are


6

Page 7 of 21


124

similar to those reported by Murphy et al. (2007)30, who characterized aminium nitrate salts

125

(including MEA nitrate) in a chamber study using c-ToF AMS and noted the influence of amines

126

on m/z 30, and are given in Supplement 1. The ratio is influenced by the presence of other sources

127

(particularly combustion); thus, only data without the strong influence of another source are

128

presented. Comparison of mass spectra measured for MEA sulfate showed a substantial effect on

129

mass m/z 30 that is normally attributed to nitrates (Fig. S2). No species dependent collection

130

efficiency (CE) was applied here.

131 132

Results and discussion

133

Average ratios of PM1, PM10, and compounds with no indoor sources in the indoor and outdoor

134

environments

135

Several sampling days throughout the campaign were devoted to determining the indoor/outdoor

136

relationship of aerosol without the influence of any major indoor source. Various ventilation

137

scenarios were used during these sampling days to test the influence of ventilation rate on indoor

138

concentrations. Table 1 contains the results of the average indoor-to-outdoor ratios of the main

139

aerosol species in PM1 and PM10.

140 141

Table 1. Average ratios of indoor and outdoor PM1 and PM10 species. PM10_in/PM10_out PM1_in/PM1_out Average

St. dev.

Average

St. dev.

SO42-

58%

4%

60%

9%

NO3-

19%

4%

19%

9%

Oxalate

52%

7%

54%

9%


7


Na+

28%

8%

77%

68%

NH4+

46%

6%

45%

8%

K+

37%

10%

63%

40%

Mg2+

23%

9%

37%

15%

Ca2+

31%

18%

55%

100%

Page 8 of 21

142 143 144

In the case in which the indoor sources are absent, the average indoor concentrations are lower

145

than the outdoor concentrations for all the main species. The average ratio is given by the air

146

exchange rate and particle losses during the air exchange and by the strength of the indoor particle

147

sink. As all particle losses are size dependent, the compounds present in accumulation mode of the

148

particle size distribution (sulfates, oxalates, and ammonium) have similar PM1 and PM10 indoor-

149

to-outdoor ratios. Nitrates, although also present in accumulation mode in ambient aerosol, have

150

much lower ratios in both size fractions. This result is caused by the dissociation of ammonium

151

nitrate indoors, which is driven by a shift in thermodynamic equilibrium caused by nitric acid

152

deposition on indoor walls3. The results are similar to those presented in Smolik et al. (2008)4,

153

which were obtained at the same location. The differences between the two studies are probably

154

caused by differences in meteorological conditions, different types of windows (changed between

155

studies), and the installation of a cooker hood with a vent made directly through the wall, which

156

changed the ventilation rates.

157 158

Degreaser spray source tests (Using a spray)

159

Besides other sources, the W5 degreaser spray was tested twice, first on September 1, 2014, at

160

6:30 p.m., second on September 6, at 10:00 a.m. The first experiment is described in detail only as


8

Page 9 of 21


161

very similar results were observed in the second test. The compositional results changed

162

substantially after using the degreaser spray (Fig. 2). IC results showed almost complete

163

replacement of the NH4+ cation with an mono-ethanol aminium cation (MEA+) both in PM1 (Fig.

164

2) and PM10 (Fig. S4). The MEA-containing degreaser W5 was applied 8 h after the beginning of

165

sampling. However, almost no NH4+ cation was detected in the sample from this day. Hence, the

166

replacement of the NH4+ cation happened not only in the airborne aerosol but also on aerosol

167

particles that had been deposited on the filter before the degreaser was applied.

168 169 Before W5 usage

After W5 usage

170 171

Figure 2. Relative equivalent ionic composition of PM1 indoor samples for days with no indoor

172

source (21/08 – 31/08) and after using an MEA-containing cleaner (01/09-03/09).

173

Fig. 2 contains ion chromatography results for PM1 filters on days when no indoor source was

174

present and days after the first usage of the degreaser. (Fig. S4 contains similar data for PM10.)

175

The results from the first day, when the degreaser was used, indicate almost complete


9


Page 10 of 21

176

transformation of NH4+ to MEA salts. Despite removing the degreaser from the surface and

177

ventilating the room on September 2nd, the partial replacement of NH4+ is observed throughout the

178

next few days. This finding seems even more striking if the high air exchange rate 1.26 air

179

exchanges per hour is taken into account when the no ventilation experiment was performed27.

180

However, the amount of MEA needed for complete replacement of ammonium in the indoor

181

aerosol inside small kitchen with 28 m3 volume for 24 hours is actually very small – 2.5 mg of

182

MEA. The other aerosol sources examined on September 3rd had no influence on this effect as they

183

did not content any MEA.

184

Ventilation is expected to cause an exponential decrease in the MEA concentration leading to a

185

decrease in concentration by orders of magnitude in the indoor environment; thus, there must have

186

remained a weak source of MEA. This source was a leftover on the kitchen surfaces after using a

187

paper towel or MEA deposited elsewhere and the paper towel used for cleaning and disposed in

188

the kitchen wastebasket. Another possibility is the slow release of MEA from the MEA organic

189

salt present in the degreaser.

190 191

Nitrate stabilization

192

In addition to the replacement of ammonia in sulfate salts, the replacement of ammonia in

193

ammonium nitrate was observed, leading to increased stability and increased concentrations of

194

fine nitrates indoors. This conclusion was deduced from almost complete replacement of NH4+ in

195

nitrates on September 1st and the differences in the average indoor/outdoor ratio of PM1 nitrate

196

concentrations in the period without MEA influence (0.18) and the period with MEA influence

197

(0.51). It appears that MEA partially stabilized fine nitrates in the aerosol phase. This effect is also

198

shown in Fig. 2 (especially September 1st data) and (less visibly) in Figs. 3 and S5 (AMS data).


10

Page 11 of 21


199

This result agrees with that reported by Salo et al. (2011)11, who measured the evaporation rate of

200

aminium nitrate compounds for various amines and found a lower rate of evaporation/dissociation

201

for aminium salts of nitric acid relative to ammonium nitrate.

202 203

Time-dependent data

204

Using the procedure described above, MEA+ concentrations from the AMS spectra were

205

determined. Figs. 3 and S5 shows the real concentrations of ammonium, nitrates, sulfates, and

206

organics together with the concentration of MEA+ before and after degreaser usage with

207

highlighted time of the degreaser usage. Clearly, the indoor MEA+ salt concentrations were

208

elevated immediately after using the degreaser, and this effect persisted for several days in the first

209

experiment and until the end of the second experiment (Fig. S5). The organic peak that appeared

210

just after using the degreaser spray arose from the aerosolized degreaser solution. Its sharp

211

decrease illustrates how standard short-term aerosol emissions behave indoors. In contrast, the

212

MEA aerosol concentration remained almost constant until the window was opened before 10 a.m.

213

on the next day. This persistence is not possible without interactions that are described above, i.e.

214

the evaporation of MEA from a surface followed by the replacement of ammonia in salts present

215

in the aerosol.

216

The rate of ammonium sulfate transformation to aminium sulfate is strongly depending on

217

particle phase as shown by Chu et al. 2017. In our case presence of water in particles may be

218

supposed as indoor RH was between 40 and 75%, which favors faster transformation.

219

A non-zero concentration of MEA+ was found outdoor via AMS analysis but not on the outdoor

220

filter. Although part of the data may represent an artifact connected to the uncertainty of the MEA+

221

concentration determination, we cannot exclude the possibility of MEA+ transport to the outdoor


11


Page 12 of 21

222

environment. The differences between the outdoor filter data, where no MEA+ was found, and the

223

AMS data can be explained by the fact that the filter samplers are located 5 m from the building,

224

which is much farther than the outdoor AMS inlet (0.5 m).

225 226

After the windows were opened, the results significantly changed, but some trends remained. The ammonium appeared again, in salts, but part of the ammonium was still replaced by MEA+.

227

228


12

Page 13 of 21


229

Figure 3. Time series of recalculated AMS data indoor (top) and outdoor (bottom) environments

230

from the first application of the degreaser at 18:30. At 9:45 on September 2nd, the windows were

231

opened for 15 min.

232

233 234

Figure 4. Mass size distribution of ionic species on September 2, 2015.

235 236

Similar MEA behavior with the complete replacement of ammonium with indoor MEA+ was also

237

observed via AMS during the second experiment when the room was closed throughout the entire

238

weekend after the degreaser application at 10 a.m. on September 6th (Fig. S5).

239 240

Cascade impactor results

241

In addition to filter sampling and AMS measurement, the BLPI cascade impactor was used on

242

September 2nd. An analysis of the samples, shown in Fig. 4, revealed partial replacement of the

243

NH4+ cation with MEA+. The mass ratio of MEA+ to the NH4+ ions from impactor stages with

244

geometric mean diameters of 0.08, 0.13, 0.20, 0.33, and 0.61 µm were equal to 3.50, 2.02, 1.40,


13


Page 14 of 21

245

0.46, and 0.12, respectively. The size dependence of this ratio, regardless of any uncertainty caused

246

by the incomplete separation of the ammonium and MEA+ peaks especially for low values of the

247

ratio, clearly shows that the rate of replacement was higher for smaller particles. This finding

248

strongly supports the conclusion that the transformation occurred in the aerosol phase and was

249

limited by the available surface area.

250 251

Instruments intercomparisons

252

To confirm quantitative agreement between the filter samples, impactor samples, and AMS data,

253

the approximation of PM1 on the impactor (impactor stages 1-6, stage 6 upper cut diameter of 0.86

254

µm) and AMS (AMS total, CE= 0.7 was applied here, see Talbot et al. 201626) were calculated for

255

comparison with indoor PM1 filter results on September 2nd.

256

The comparison of the data is shown in Table 2 for the major species.

257 258

Table 2. Comparison of concentrations of PM1 aerosol species for different instruments [µg/m3] SO42Leckel PM1 1.53 impactor 1.52 AMS 1.61

NO30.22 0.16 0.23

NH4+ 0.29 0.53 0.19

MEA 0.82 0.26 0.49

259 260

In general, a good agreement was found for sulfates and nitrates. However, MEA+

261

concentrations higher than the ammonium cation concentrations were found on the filter, while

262

the opposite was true for the cascade impactor. There are two possible causes that have acted in

263

conjunction. First, MEA, similar to other organics, have been adsorbed onto the quartz fiber filter;

264

thus, part of the analyzed MEA have come from a gas phase. This effect can be deduced from the

265

backup filter analysis used for the PM1 filters in which MEA concentrations were found (1-3% of


14

Page 15 of 21


266

the amount found on the front filter), with the maximum on September 1st. Second, the ammonium

267

salts already captured on the filter could have reacted with the MEA in the gas phase and increased

268

the MEA salt content on the filter. This mechanism could apply to a lesser extent with the impactor

269

samples, but only the particles in the upper layer can directly react with the gaseous phase as was

270

observed on the first sampling date when the MEA cleaner was used. This transformation does not

271

occur so much on the cascade impactor samples because they are less exposed to the gaseous phase

272

relative to particles deposited on a quartz fiber filter. This is also supported by comparison of

273

equivalent sum of ammonium and MEA+ for PM1 (30 neqv/m3) and impactor (34 neqv/m3) results

274

that further support this explanation differing within experimental uncertainty. The concentration

275

of MEA found by AMS was in between the filter and the impactor data. The lowest ammonium

276

concentration was found using AMS and may be partially artifactual because of the complex

277

corrections applied during the ammonium determination, the indoor environment, and naturally

278

similar MEA fragments.

279 280 281

Implications

282

The use of MEA and other less volatile amine-containing mixtures in our homes and other indoor

283

environments (similar data were found repeatedly in a machinery workshop) significantly changes

284

the chemical composition of indoor aerosols. These changes alter people’s daily interactions with

285

amines, exposing them to various aminium salts that may have unexpected consequences for

286

human health. Moreover, the use of MEA indoors also stabilizes nitrates in the aerosol phase and

287

consequently increases the nitrate exposure to people. The rather insignificant effects of MEA

288

exposure for the general population can be multiplied for professionals working with such


15


Page 16 of 21

289

substances e.g. in restaurants. Therefore, studies on the toxicology of aminium salts, especially

290

aminium sulfates and nitrates, on human lungs are needed.

291 292 293

Supporting Information. Text and Figures S1-S3 (PDF)

294 295

Corresponding Author

296

*[email protected]

297

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

298

The authors acknowledge support of this work by the European Union Seventh Framework

299

Programme (FP7/2007e2013) under grant agreement No. 315760 HEXACOMM.

300

SUPPORTING INFORMATION AVAILABLE 

301 302

C-ToF-AMS procedure description for MEA concentration determination including fragmentation table corrections



303 304

Relative equivalent ionic composition of PM10 indoor samples before and after using an MEA-containing degreaser

305



AMS I/O data from the second experiment with MEA containing degreaser

306



I/O EC/OC data from both experiments

307 308

REFERENCES

309

(1)

Pope, C. A.; Dockery, D. W. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that


16

Page 17 of 21


310 311

connect. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2006, 56 (6), 709–742. (2)

Kulmala, M.; Asmi, A.; Pirjola, L. Indoor air aerosol model: the effect of outdoor air,

312

filtration and ventilation on indoor concentrations. Atmos. Environ. 1999, 33 (14), 2133–

313

2144.

314

(3)

Lunden, M. M.; Revzan, K. L.; Fischer, M. L.; Thatcher, T. L.; Littlejohn, D.; Hering, S.

315

V.; Brown, N. J. The transformation of outdoor ammonium nitrate aerosols in the indoor

316

environment. Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37 (39–40), 5633–5644.

317

(4)

Smolík, J.; Dohányosová, P.; Schwarz, J.; Ždímal, V.; Lazaridis, M. Characterization of

318

Indoor and Outdoor Aerosols in a Suburban Area of Prague. Water, Air, Soil Pollut. Focus

319

2008, 8 (1), 35–47.

320

(5)

of archives. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 107, 217–224.

321 322

Mašková, L.; Smolík, J.; Vodička, P. Characterisation of particulate matter in different types

(6)

Mäkelä, J. M.; Ylikoivisto, S.; Hiltunen, V.; Seidl, W.; Swietlicki, E.; Teinilä, K.; Sillanpää,

323

M.; Koponen, I. K.; Paatero, J.; Rosman, K.; Hämeri, K. Chemical composition of aerosol

324

during particle formation events in boreal forest. Tellus, Ser. B Chem. Phys. Meteorol. 2001,

325

53 (4), 380–393.

326

(7)

Kurtén, T.; Loukonen, V.; Vehkamäki, H.; Kulmala, M. Amines are likely to enhance

327

neutral and ion-induced sulfuric acid-water nucleation in the atmosphere more effectively

328

than ammonia. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8 (14), 4095–4103.

329 330

(8)

Smith, J. N.; Barsanti, K. C.; Friedli, H. R.; Ehn, M.; Kulmala, M.; Collins, D. R.; Scheckman, J. H.; Williams, B. J.; McMurry, P. H. Observations of aminium salts in


17


Page 18 of 21

331

atmospheric nanoparticles and possible climatic implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S.

332

A. 2010, 107 (15), 6634–6639.

333

(9)

334 335

Bzdek, B. R.; Ridge, D. P.; Johnston, M. V. Amine exchange into ammonium bisulfate and ammonium nitrate nuclei. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2010, 10 (8), 3495–3503.

(10)

Riipinen, I.; Yli-Juuti, T.; Pierce, J. R.; Petäjä, T.; Worsnop, D. R.; Kulmala, M.; Donahue,

336

N. M. The contribution of organics to atmospheric nanoparticle growth. Nat. Geosci. 2012,

337

5 (7), 453–458.

338

(11)

Salo, K.; Westerlund, J.; Andersson, P. U.; Nielsen, C.; D’Anna, B.; Hallquist, M. Thermal

339

Characterization of Aminium Nitrate Nanoparticles. J. Phys. Chem. A 2011, 115 (42),

340

11671–11677.

341

(12)

Hawrylak,

B.;

Palepu,

R.;

Tremaine,

P.

R.

Thermodynamics

of

aqueous

342

methyldiethanolamine (MDEA) and methyldiethanolammonium chloride (MDEAH+Cl−)

343

over a wide range of temperature and pressure: Apparent molar volumes, heat capacities,

344

and isothermal compressibilities. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 2006, 38 (8), 988–1007.

345

(13)

Clegg, S. L.; Qiu, C.; Zhang, R. The deliquescence behaviour, solubilities, and densities of

346

aqueous solutions of five methyl- and ethyl-aminium sulphate salts. Atmos. Environ. 2013,

347

73, 145–158.

348

(14)

Hu, D.; Li, C.; Chen, H.; Chen, J.; Ye, X.; Li, L.; Yang, X.; Wang, X.; Mellouki, A.; Hu, Z.

349

Hygroscopicity and optical properties of alkylaminium sulfates. J. Environ. Sci. (China)

350

2014, 26 (1), 37–43.

351

(15)

Bzdek, B. R.; Ridge, D. P.; Johnston, M. V. Size-Dependent Reactions of Ammonium


18

Page 19 of 21


352 353

Bisulfate Clusters with Dimethylamine. J. Phys. Chem. A 2010, 114 (43), 11638–11644. (16)

Qiu, C.; Wang, L.; Lal, V.; Khalizov, A. F.; Zhang, R. Heterogeneous Reactions of

354

Alkylamines with Ammonium Sulfate and Ammonium Bisulfate. Environ. Sci. Technol.

355

2011, 45 (11), 4748–4755.

356

(17)

357 358

salts with methylamine. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2012, 12 (11), 4855–4865. (18)

359 360

Liu, Y.; Han, C.; Liu, C.; Ma, J.; Ma, Q.; He, H. Differences in the reactivity of ammonium

Chan, L. P.; Chan, C. K. Role of the Aerosol Phase State in Ammonia/Amines Exchange Reactions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47 (11), 5755–5762.

(19)

Dawson, M. L.; Varner, M. E.; Perraud, V.; Ezell, M. J.; Wilson, J.; Zelenyuk, A.; Gerber,

361

R. B.; Finlayson-Pitts, B. J. Amine–Amine Exchange in Aminium–Methanesulfonate

362

Aerosols. J. Phys. Chem. C 2014, 118 (50), 29431–29440.

363

(20)

364 365

Ammonium Sulfate–Sucrose Mixed Particles. J. Phys. Chem. A 2017, 121 (1), 206–215. (21)

366 367

Knaak, J. B.; Leung, H.-W.; Stott, W. T.; Busch, J.; Bilsky, J. Toxicology of Mono-, Di-, and Triethanolamine. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1997, 149, 1–86.

(22)

368 369

Chu, Y.; Chan, C. K. Reactive Uptake of Dimethylamine by Ammonium Sulfate and

Kamijo, Y.; Hayashi, I.; Ide, A.; Yoshimura, K.; Soma, K.; Majima, M. Effects of inhaled monoethanolamine on bronchoconstriction. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2009, 29 (1), 15–19.

(23)

Khakharia, P.; Brachert, L.; Mertens, J.; Huizinga, A.; Schallert, B.; Schaber, K.; Vlugt, T.

370

J. H.; Goetheer, E. Investigation of aerosol based emission of MEA due to sulphuric acid

371

aerosol and soot in a Post Combustion CO2 Capture process. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control

372

2013, 19, 138–144.


19


373

(24)

Page 20 of 21

Mertens, J.; Lepaumier, H.; Desagher, D.; Thielens, M.-L. Understanding ethanolamine

374

(MEA) and ammonia emissions from amine based post combustion carbon capture: Lessons

375

learned from field tests. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2013, 13, 72–77.

376

(25)

Vu, T. V.; Ondracek, J.; Zdímal, V.; Schwarz, J.; Delgado-Saborit, J. M.; Harrison, R. M.

377

Physical properties and lung deposition of particles emitted from five major indoor sources.

378

Air Qual. Atmos. Heal. 2016, 1–14.

379

(26)

Drewnick, F.; Hings, S. S. S.; DeCarlo, P.; Jayne, J. T. T.; Gonin, M.; Fuhrer, K.; Weimer,

380

S.; Jimenez, J. L. L.; Demerjian, K. L. L.; Borrmann, S.; Worsnop, D. R. R. A New Time-

381

of-Flight Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (TOF-AMS)—Instrument Description and First Field

382

Deployment. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (7), 637–658.

383

(27)

Talbot, N.; Kubelova, L.; Makes, O.; Cusack, M.; Ondracek, J.; Vodička, P.; Schwarz, J.;

384

Zdimal, V. Outdoor and indoor aerosol size, number, mass and compositional dynamics at

385

an urban background site during warm season. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 131, 171–184.

386

(28)

Allan, J. D.; Delia, A. E.; Coe, H.; Bower, K. N.; Alfarra, M. R.; Jimenez, J. L.;

387

Middlebrook, A. M.; Drewnick, F.; Onasch, T. B.; Canagaratna, M. R.; Jayne, J. T.;

388

Worsnop D. R. A generalised method for the extraction of chemically resolved mass spectra

389

from Aerodyne aerosol mass spectrometer data. J. Aerosol Sci. 2004, 35 (7), 909–922.

390

(29)

Kubelová, L.; Vodička, P.; Schwarz, J.; Cusack, M.; Makeš, O.; Ondráček, J.; Ždímal, V.

391

A study of summer and winter highly time-resolved submicron aerosol composition

392

measured at a suburban site in Prague. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 118, 45–57.

393

(30)

Murphy, S. M.; Sorooshian, A.; Kroll, J. H.; Ng, N. L.; Chhabra, P.; Tong, C.; Surratt, J.


20

Page 21 of 21


394

D.; Knipping, E.; Flagan, R. C.; Seinfeld, J. H. Secondary aerosol formation from

395

atmospheric reactions of aliphatic amines. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2007, 7 (9), 2313–2337.

396 397 398


21

Single Usage of a Kitchen Degreaser Can Alter Indoor Aerosol

Recommend Documents