Indoor and outdoor bioaerosol levels at recreation facilities, elementary schools, and homes

Chemosphere ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 61 (11) ◽  
pp. 1570-1579 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wan-Kuen Jo ◽  
Young-Jun Seo
2018 ◽  
Vol 88 (5) ◽  
pp. 379-387
Author(s):  
Lindsey Turner ◽  
Hannah G. Calvert ◽  
Frank J. Chaloupka

2005 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Stier ◽  
Robert C. Schneider ◽  
Steve Kampf ◽  
Greg E. Wilding ◽  
Scott Haines

Directors of campus recreation at NIRSA colleges and universities in the US and Canada were surveyed to determine: (a) the number of schools that have built, within the preceding three years, major indoor as well as major outdoor campus recreation facilities and the number of institutions planning to do so within the next three years; (b) the usage and scheduling priorities covering all campus recreation facilities; (c) the sources of funding for the construction of these major facilities and sites; and (d) the sources of funding for operational activities for campus recreation. The data were analyzed in terms of school size, location, and whether public or private in nature. The findings revealed that 56% of the institutions surveyed had either recently built new major indoor student recreation centers or were planning to do so, within the next three years. In terms of major outdoor facilities or sites, the percentage was 41%. The majority of construction funds for indoor and outdoor facilities/sites as well as operational funds for programs and activities came from future student fees at most of the public schools. Typically, private schools had the majority of their monies for both indoor and outdoor facilities emanating from private sources while the majority of operating costs was covered through the general fund of the institutions. The sharing of facilities continues with both physical education and with athletics; and, the directors of campus recreation, generally speaking, felt comfortable with such arrangements, even when such arrangements include having athletic and physical education activities take precedence in usage over those of campus recreation.


Author(s):  
Hoang Anh Le ◽  
Vu Thi Quynh Linh

Indoor air quality is having insufficient attention despite its importance for human health, especially for schools because children is one of the most sensitive groups to air pollution. This study focuses on monitoring the air quality inside classrooms at some elementary schools (ELS) of Hanoi with representative parameters including PM2.5, PM10, CO2, NO2, and VOCs. Simultaneously, those parameters in school yards are also monitored to provide data for comparison and evidence of the sources of indoor pollution. The results indicated that the main air quality issue in schools is particulate matters, particularly PM2.5. It also showed that schools locating near traffic roads have concentrations of 2 - 3 times higher than standards. VOCs concentration levels are high indoor and in school yards located near markets and traffic roads. CO2 and NO2 indoor concentrations are below standards in all schools. The ELS-7 has most of indoor and in yards concentrations at the highest values. Two significant factors effecting air quality of schools are traffic and activities of residential areas around them. Keywords: Indoor air quality, School, Vietnam.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document