Discussion

Our results show us that our initial analysis to identify possible sites of high PM was
almost correct. The construction site was a surprise as we had expected to see
higher amounts of PM in the air due to processes such as drilling and other
construction processes that give rise to dust and/or large PM emissions. However,
we saw an average particle count of 85 that was under 2.5 micrometers which
means that the area was relatively safe and our initial analysis was misleading
(Table 1). However, when we collected samples at the UC, we stood next to 3
students that were smoking cigarettes. The results from this step are very
interesting as we see almost the same level of pm10 and pm2.5 but we see a huge
difference in smaller particle sizes as cigarettes do contain higher levels of
extremely small particulate matter. (table 2) In an experiment done to prove how
hazardous the PM emissions from cigarette smoke are, Researchers found that PM
emissions from new cars and engines were lesser than cigarette smoke in PM10, 2.5
and 1 categories. (Invernizzi et al., 2004) This should provide a good view of how
damaging cigarette smoke can be to our lungs and alveolus. The most shocking
aspect of our PM measuring adventures was in the Food Court of the UC. We
measured exceptionally high values across ALL categories for PM from 10 to 1 (with
cigarette smoke still being higher in the 0.3 and 0.5 bins). This can be attributed to
the constant combustion that is taking place in the food court especially near Spring
Rolls, where the ventilation is not ideal. This gives us a stark representation of how
unsafe working in such an area can be especially on a daily basis when so much PM
can be measured from a distance in the kitchen. Another very high source of PM
emissions was the main bus stop at UC. It provided very high values for the smallest
bins and confirmed how dangerous inhaling smoke from a bus engine can be (Table
5). The particle counts for the smallest bins were even higher than cigarette smoke
which sheds light on the importance of alternatives that are necessary to replace
such PM- inducing bus engines. Finally, we tried to measure the PM next to the
maintenance building at Carleton, in the hopes that the stack on that building would
lead to interesting PM values, but we found out that the stack had not been in
operation during the summer and September so the resident values for PM in that
vicinity were relatively low. (table 4)
The graphs produced in this experiment also show us that the Bus stop and the UC
location where we measured PM using the hand held particle counter were the most
significant sources of PM. However, the second graph (figure 3) that is generated
shows that the ratio of mass of the particles over the log of their diameter is the
highest for the UC Food court as it did not have the highest number of particles but
the mass distributions give us another story. The Bus stop was second in the mass
distribution and the highest in the number of particles distribution (figure 2). This
gives us further insight into how the mass distributions can also lead to different
amounts of PM being measured and would probably give rise to different methods of
dealing with PM emission problems in those areas.

Invernizzi, G., Ruprecht, A., Mazza, R., Rossetti, E., Sasco, A., Nardini, S., & Boffi, R. (2004).
Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust: An educational perspective. Tobacco
Control, 13(3), 219221. doi:10.1136/tc.2003.005975