Browsing by Author "Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM)"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    PublicationMetadata only
    Spatial distribution of pm10 and PM2.5 in Ambient Air at E-waste Dismantling Community in Buriram, Thailand
    (2020-01-01) Siriwipha Chanthahong; Tassanee Prueksasit; Narut Sahanavin; Navaporn Kanjanasiranont; Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University; Chulalongkorn University; Srinakharinwirot University; Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM)
    © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020. The spatial distribution of PM10 and PM2.5 was observed at the e-waste dismantling community in Daengyai and Banpao subdistrict, Buriram, Thailand. High and low volume air samplers were used to collect PM10 and PM2.5 in the ambient air, respectively, at e-waste dismantling, non-e-waste dismantling, open dumpsite, and reference area. The sampling was performed during summer and rainy seasons of 2019 for 24 h and seven consecutive days. The average concentrations of PM10 were 49.64 ± 17.71, 55.36 ± 17.46 and 57.61 ± 17.55 µg/m3 at e-waste dismantling, non-e-waste dismantling, and open dump area, respectively. For PM2.5, the average concentrations at e-waste dismantling, non-e-waste dismantling, and open dump area were 29.71 ± 14.28, 33.81 ± 18.85, 30.68 ± 13.53 µg/m3, respectively. PM10 levels at open dumpsite were 1.2 and 1.1 times higher than those of e-waste dismantling area and non-e-waste dismantling area. Meanwhile, ANOVA analysis showed no significant differences (p > 0.05) of PM10 concentration between non- and e-waste dismantling, and open dumpsite. The level of PM2.5 at the e-waste dismantling area was only higher than the reference area but lower than non-e-waste dismantling and open dump area. Besides, there was no statistically significant difference between all sampling sites for PM2.5 concentration. PM10 at non-e-waste dismantling area and open dumpsite were exceeded guidelines of WHO (50 µg/m3), and also PM2.5 (25 µg/m3) of all sampling areas. In this e-waste community, there is no zoning provided for e-waste dismantling activities. Consequently, e-waste dismantling houses were randomly distributed in the community. Consequently, it can be indicated that e-waste dismantling activities led to more PM10 contribution than PM2.5.