Original Paper

Indoor and Built

Environment

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21;4:541551

Accepted: July 15, 2011

Assessment of Airborne Fine

Particulate Matter and
Particle Size Distribution in
Settled Chalk Dust during
Writing and Dusting
Exercises in a Classroom
Deepanjan Majumdar
C.V. Chalapati Rao

D.G. Gajghate

Pradeep Pipalatkar

Air Pollution Control Division, National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, Nehru Marg,
Nagpur-440020, India

Key Words
Air pollution E Health E India E Indoor E Students

Abstract
Airborne PM1, PM2.5, PM5 and PM10 generated during
writing with three types of chalk sticks on a board and
particle size distribution of chalk dust fall during writing
and dusting of board were studied by portable aerosol
spectrometer and particle size analyzer. Local Gypsum
chalk led to the highest increase in airborne particulate
matter while Clean-Write the least during writing.
About 10% of particles in chalk dust fall during writing
were finest from: Clean Write (0.5 mm) followed by
Abroad Quality (0.67 mm) and Local Gypsum
(1.15 mm), while 50% was finest in abroad quality
(5.12 mm) followed by Clean Write (6.36 mm) and Local
Gypsum (77.65 mm). In dusting samples, 10%, 50% and
90% of particles were finest in Clean Write followed by
Abroad Quality and Local Gypsum chalks. Clean

The Author(s), 2011. Reprints and permissions:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X11419691
Accessible online at http://ibe.sagepub.com

Write chalk produced least total amount of PM1, PM2.4

and PM5 and PM10 per unit time in dust fall during
writing. Although short-term exposure to airborne fine
chalk particles may be low in classrooms, several years
of exposure may be a matter of concern. Purpose of this
work was to provide data that would lead to measures
for minimization of health risk due to chalk dusts in
classrooms.

Introduction
Classroom teaching with boards and chalks is one of
the most customary methods of teaching in schools in
many parts of the world. Writing with chalks and
subsequent dusting of boards may generate appreciable
dust of chalk in classrooms and the amount of chalk dust
generation may vary depending on the type of chalks,
types of board and dusting type, e.g. dry or wet or with
vacuum dusters. Chalk dust fall and particulates in
Deepanjan Majumdar,
Air Pollution Control Division, National Environmental Engineering Research
Institute, Nehru Marg, Nagpur-440020, India. Tel. 91-712-2249895,
Fax 91-712-2249895,
E-Mail d_majumdar@neeri.res.in

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

classrooms had been previously measured and reported

[1,2], but real-time airborne chalk dust concentration
during writing has not been measured in classrooms except
in a study where all classroom dust inclusive of chalk
particles were monitored [3]. Few other studies have
monitored particulate matter concentration in classrooms
and resultant human exposure in different countries [46].
Whether chalk dust could pose significant health risks or
not is still inconclusive due to want of medical evidence
but is surely a nuisance in classrooms, especially for those
having dust allergy. Chalk dust is recognized as one of the
irritants that could trigger asthma attacks, the others being
smoke and pesticides [7,8]. Other asthma triggers include
allergens (e.g. pollen, mould, animal dander) and strong
odour apart from infections, physical over-exertion and
emotional factors [7,8]. During teaching, entry of chalk
dust in the respiratory system through nasopharyngeal
region and mouth could be extensive in teachers due to
their proximity to the board and frequent opening of
mouth during lectures and occasional gasping and heavier
breathing due to exhaustion. As per current state of
knowledge on particulate matter vis a vis chalk dust, they
may remain suspended in air for sometime before settling
on the floor and body parts of the teachers and pupils. In
several parts of the world, teaching is nowadays conducted
via overhead projectors or marker boards in classrooms,
but usage of chalk and boards is still common and widely
used in many countries including India. Though monitoring or quantifying classroom chalk dust generation has
been rarely carried out, controlling chalk dust in classrooms have attracted researchers attention since the
beginning of this century in many countries and several
devices have been attempted and developed for minimization of airborne dust generation from chalks and also from
erasing the board. These patented devices encompassed
efficient chalk board erasers with some of them having
chalk collection devices [913], special vacuum cleaners for
chalk boards [14,15], writing boards [16] and receptacles
for cleaning of board dusters after usage [17]. In spite of
these developments, such types of devices have seldom
found any user in Indian classrooms.
It is pertinent to take a look at the reported effects of
particulate matter on human health, especially on children, who spend substantial time in classrooms. Research
results indicate to the active role particulate matter could
play in asthma with effects like decreased lung function
and increased hospital visits [1820]. Interestingly, studies
also have suggested that coarse fraction in PM may be
more strongly associated with asthma [21,22]. Children are
one of the most sensitive population subgroups to

542

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

particulate pollution since they may receive an increased

dose of PM to their lungs compared to adults, due to
higher fractional deposition with each breath and/or larger
minute ventilation relative to lung size [23]. Particulate air
pollution has been found to be associated with increased
respiratory symptoms, school absences and medication for
asthmatic children [24]. A long-term study in Southern
California reported growth deficit of childrens lung
function associated with higher ambient PM concentrations [25]. Considering that a child spends most of his/her
time indoors, in which school timings occupy at least one
third, study of the indoor PM concentration levels assumes
a lot of significance as pointed out by researchers [26,27].
Interestingly, few studies have indicated that PM concentrations inside classrooms were higher than the corresponding outdoor concentrations and concentrations
inside residences, indicating the importance of schoolmicroenvironment in childrens particulate exposure [28
30]. But unfortunately, very few studies showed the
magnitude and contribution of chalk dust on total
particulates in classrooms.
In spite of well-known nuisance associated with chalk
dust in classrooms for over a century, as indicated by
research efforts in developing better dusters and writing
boards for chalks in classrooms, very little work has been
done on quantification of airborne chalk particles in
classrooms. This study was undertaken to examine the
particulate generating potential of three different chalks,
viz. a low dust producing chalk named Clean-Write
chalk; a local variety of chalk produced in India and
another variety of chalk used in a foreign country outside
India. The tested null hypothesis was that there was no
increase in airborne chalk dust during writing. The study
was undertaken with the objectives of (i) monitoring of
changes in concentrations of airborne particulate matter
during proxy writing exercises and (ii) determination of
particulate size distribution in chalk dust fall occurred
during proxy classroom writing by the selected chalks and
dusting thereof from the board. So, the study looked into
the real-time particulate generation before, during and
after the writing exercises with the selected chalks and also
the particulate size distribution in the chalk dust fall
during writing on the board and dusting of the board after
writing to understand and comparatively evaluate the
particulate generating potential of the chalks and
the particle size distribution in the chalk dust fall samples.
The purpose of this study was to provide researched data
to contribute to the evaluation of possible risks associated
with chalk dust, which could lead to possible streamlining

Majumdar et al.

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

of measures to minimize chalk dust generation and

exposure in classrooms.

Materials and Methods

Experimental Classroom
The experiment was performed in a classroom of a local
school that uses black boards made of cement. The
classroom chosen for the study was of (7.6  4.25  3) m3
in dimension with two series of five windows (1.2  0.9) m2
each located at opposite sides of the classroom. All the
windows and the only door were closed air tight during the
experiment and no natural draught were allowed inside.
The fans present in the classroom were not operated
during the experiment. Also, personal movement in the
classroom was completely restricted during the experiment
to minimise resuspension of dust from floor.
Chalk Types
All the chalks used for the study were small white sticks
with slightly variable shapes and sizes. The Clean Write
chalk had a length ranging from 5.5 to 6.0 cm, diameter
ranging from 10 to 10.5 mm, weight ranging from 7 to 8 g
and a density of 1.52 g cm3. The base material for the
chalk is calcium carbonate. The local Variety chalk had
gypsum as the base material and had the following
specifications: 6.46.6 cm length, 0.810 mm diameter
and 3.513.61 g weight while the Abroad Quality chalk
was of length 7.67.8 mm, 910 mm diameter and 11.51
11.62 g weight. While the local variety of chalk had a
rough surface and was soft, which yielded particles on
rubbing by hand, the other two chalk types had much
smoother surface, were hard and yielded very little dust on
rubbing by hand.
Writing Exercise
The writing exercise was started after thoroughly wet
cleaning the classroom floor and the board surface each
day, to negate the chances of residual chalk dust
contaminating the next samples to be collected. Each
writing session was continuously performed for 15 min and
a select paragraph was always written to restrict the
writing time within 15 min and to allow approximately the
same amount of writing. The writing was performed by a
single person to minimize personal bias as an experimental
error. Dusting of the standard written paragraph was
performed by clean dusters by the same person to negate
personal bias. Every writing and dusting experiment were
repeated three times under similar conditions.

Particulate Pollution from Chalks

Sampling and Analysis of Chalk Dust

The following types of measurements were made during
the entire study: (i) monitoring of real-time airborne dust
concentration (mg m3) in the classroom, starting from
almost half an hour before writing, during writing and up
to more than half an hour after writing, until roughly
about the background or lower airborne particulate
concentration was reported by the spectrometer; (ii)
collection of chalk dust fall at the base of board generated
during writing of the sample paragraph; (iii) chalk dust fall
at the base of the board during dusting of the standard
paragraph; (iv) weighing of chalks before and after writing
to estimate their weight loss per unit time during writing.
Chalk dust fall was intercepted and collected during the
writing exercise by placing long and continuous paper
sheets (50 cm 150 cm) at the base of the writing board.
Three types of selected chalks, as described before, were
used to write on the board. So, three individual chalk dust
samples were generated from the three chalks and taking
three writing exercise replications, a total of nine samples
of chalk dust were collected during writing. Particulates in
chalk dust fall samples were analyzed for determining
volumetric particle size distribution by a particle size
analyzer (Model- CILAS 1180), which generated cumulative volumetric particle size distribution (%) in various
particle size ranges within 0.042500 micron (mm) size
range. From this database, proportions of particles falling
under various size groups were estimated. Further, the
particle size analyzer also estimated mean diameter of the
dust samples apart from reporting the diameter of particles
falling within 10%, 50% and 90% volume of dust.
Similarly, nine dusting samples were also collected after
dusting with clean and standard dusters. Further, all the
nine writing exercises, each of 15 min duration, their prewriting period of approximately half an hour and postwriting periods of almost the same duration were also
monitored for estimating real-time airborne particulate
concentration (PM1, PM2.5, PM5 and PM10), making it 27
number of samples. Real-time airborne dust concentration
(mg m3) analysis was carried out by a portable aerosol
spectrometer (Model- GRIMM 1.109).
Uncertainty and Assumptions
The real-time airborne chalk dust concentration measured by the aerosol spectrometer also included the
background real-time airborne dust concentration in the
classroom, the extent of which was indicated by the data
generated by the instrument before writing started. The
increase in airborne particulate concentration during
writing though was primarily due to chalk dust, assuming

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

543

544

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

154.76  20.48
84.13  47.16
99.83  49.26
181.30  31.08
101.70  52.71
118.14  56.93
170.34  41.58
94.79  46.44
112.95  55.98
116.19  1.33
53.75  30.23
81.41  32.94
120.1  17.01
63.21  35.49
87.22  33.15
117.28  29.14
60.28  34.65
85.85  38.22
33.12  3.36
22.21  7.97
21.53  5.31
33.97  3.48
22.93  9.55
21.97  5.9
33.12  3.62
22.21  8.6
21.53  4.4
12.72  4.13
12.79  7.32
12.05  4.45
13.42  4.64
13.53  8.64
12.58  4.04
12.9  3.53
12.95  7.51
12.28  3.74
Local Gypsum
Abroad Quality
Clean- Write

After
writing
During
writing
Before
writing

During
writing

After
writing

Before
writing

During
writing

After
writing

Before
writing

During
writing

After
writing

Before
writing

PM10 (mg m3)

PM5 (mg m3)
PM2.5 (mg m3)
PM1 (mg m3)

Airborne Chalk Dust during Writing

Real-time airborne dust concentration (mg m3) was
monitored and averaged for a time period before writing,
during writing and after writing and reported in Table 1.
There was slight to moderate increase in airborne
particulate concentration in various size ranges on writing.
Increase in mass of airborne dust on writing was negligible
for PM1 and PM2.5, evidently as smaller particles would
have lesser mass and conversely the increase was more for
PM5 and PM10 (Figure 1). The data in the table and the
figure show that the average concentration of airborne
PM1, PM2.5, PM5 and PM10 during the sampling period
increased slightly during writing over background airborne dust concentration and decreased with time after
writing due to natural dispersion and deposition. The nonalarming increase in real-time airborne dust may have
indicated that there may not be any serious exposure to
airborne chalk dust as regard to their mass within a short
time e.g. during writing, whereas the exposure may
increase on writing for a longer time. Under the conditions
maintained during the writing exercise, no movement was
there on the part of the writer to limit the input from other
dust sources like resuspension from floor or clothes to

Chalk

Results and Discussion

Table 1. Average airborne particulate matter concentration (mean  SD) before, during and after writing experiments (n 3)

that limited or no other dust was generated during this

time, since no other dust generating activity was allowed in
the closed classroom during the experiment. As the input
of outdoor dust was prohibited by closing the classroom
air tight before, during and after writing, it was assumed
that during writing or the collection of chalk dust fall on
the papers at the base of the board, there was negligible
input of outdoor airborne dust in the collected chalk dust
samples. Although there was a very thin gap at the bottom
of the only door present in the classroom that was kept
closed during monitoring and sample collection, the gap
was too insignificant to allow sufficient dust from outside
to corrupt the controlled experimental condition. Also, the
door opened into a veranda that was lined by fully covered
concrete railings, which minimized substantial wind movement or turbulence. No movement was allowed in the
veranda and since the experiment was undertaken during
school holidays, the school was totally vacant except one
attendant. Moreover, the distance of the spectrometer
from the door was large enough and its height good
enough not to be affected significantly by negligible, if
any, entry of outdoor dust during the short experimental
period.

Majumdar et al.

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

Fig. 1. Increase in airborne particulate concentration over background concentration during writing and its decline after completion of
writing.

Table 2. Particle size distribution in chalk dust fall samples collected during writing and dusting (n 3)
Chalk

Local Gypsum

Abroad Quality

Clean-Write

Volumetric % and
mean diameter

During writing
Diameter (mm)

After dusting
Diameter (mm)

10%
50%
90%
100%
Mean diameter
10%
50%
90%
100%
Mean diameter
10%
50%
90%
100%
Mean diameter

1.15
77.65
225.52
290.66
92.91
0.67
5.12
47.37
80.33
15.86
0.45
6.36
27.92
50.5
10.57

1.27
5.03
16.49
54.0
9.30
0.63
3.07
10.87
25.0
4.53
0.47
2.59
8.67
28.66
3.85

allow estimation of chalk dust generated by writing only to

the extent possible. As mentioned earlier, outdoor dust
entry was assumed to be negligible through the thin gap
below the only door of the classroom during writing
exercise. It was assumed here that during real-world
writing in classrooms, deposited chalk dust may get
resuspended in air from floor and clothes due to

movement of the teacher and a substantial increase in

airborne chalk dust concentration may be witnessed.
Further, outdoor dust may also have a substantial
contribution, especially under open door teaching in dry
and windy conditions, to increase the overall dust
concentration during writing. The present results depict
only the real-time chalk dust emission which is critical to

Particulate Pollution from Chalks

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

545

understand the contribution of chalk dust in airborne dust

load during classroom teaching. Government and organizations in various countries have promulgated indoor
PM10 and PM2.5 standards for averaging periods of either 1
or 8 or 24 h. For respirable fraction, Ref. [31] specifies an 8hourly permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 5 mg m3 (for
all inert or nuisance dusts, whether mineral, inorganic, or
organic), Ref. [32] specifies an 8-hourly value of 1.5 mg m3
for 54 mm particles, Ref. [33] specifies 0.1 mg m3 (1 h) and
0.04 mg m3 (long-term) and Ref. [34] specifies 8 hourly
value of 3 mg m3. For PM10, Federal Republic of
Germany and ACGIH specify 8-hourly values of 4 and
10 mg m3, respectively. There is no Indian standard
available for particulates in indoor air. The obtained
values of PM2.5 and PM10 were various orders of
magnitude less than the indoor PM standard values
mentioned above.
Particle Size Distribution in Chalk Dust Fall
Particle size distribution in chalk dust fall samples
during writing and dusting are presented in Table 2. It was
observed that 10% of particles in chalk dust fall during
writing was finest in Clean Write (0.5 mm) followed by
Abroad Quality (0.67 mm) and Local Gypsum (1.15 mm),
while 50% was finest in abroad quality (5.12 mm) followed
by Clean Write (6.36 mm) and Local Gypsum
(77.65 mm). In case of after dusting chalk dust fall samples,
10%, 50% and 90% of the dust samples were all finest,
respectively, in Clean Write chalk followed by Abroad
Quality and Local Gypsum. Mean diameter of particles
of Clean Write was smallest followed by Abroad
Quality and Local Gypsum. All these results indicated
that though Local Gypsum was more prone to wastage
and breakage on writing and led to more soiling of writers
hands; it produced lesser proportion of fine particles in
dust fall and so was potentially less damaging. It was also
observed that all the chalks produced finer particles on
dusting as compared to writing, barring one case with 10%
of Local Gypsum (Table 2). This can be explained by the
following hypothesis: small pores and cavities on board
can hold fine chalk particles on its surface during writing
and the abrasion with the duster may further disintegrate
fine chalk particles into finer ones, resulting in collection
of finer particulates in the dust fall. Dusting exercise may
throw the chalk particles in air, increasing the exposure.
The residual particles adhered to the duster from previous
dustings also may contribute to every next exposure in
real-life teaching, though in this experiment the duster was
thoroughly cleaned after each dusting, negating this effect.

546

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

This implies that exposure to finer dust may be more from

dusting than writing under real-life conditions.
Differential particle size distributions under various size
groups within 10 mm size range in collected chalk dust fall
samples after writing and dusting were plotted and its
moving average trend was drawn for comparison. It was
observed that in dust fall samples during writing, particle
size distribution of Clean Write and Abroad Quality
were comparable while that of the Local Gypsum was
much different (Figure 2), revealing an entirely different
particle size distribution characteristic in the Local
Gypsum within 10 mm size range. Whereas in Clean
Write and Abroad Quality dust samples, 63% and 70%
of the total particulate were within 10 mm size range, this
value for local chalk variety was only 22%. This indicated
that most of the particulates generated by Local Gypsum
on writing were beyond 10 mm size range. This implied that
fine particulates (PM10) were generated in more amounts
in Clean Write and Abroad Quality. These results were
in agreement with the earlier observation, that is, local
gypsum chalks appeared much rougher on surface than
the other two chalks, indicating predominating presence of
coarser particles. Further, the coherence of particles in the
local variety was poorer than the other two types as the
particles in local chalk soiled the hand more easily,
indicating a greater scope of chalk particle loss during
writing in the former. In case of chalk dust fall samples
collected after dusting, particle size distribution within
10 mm were slightly different for Clean Write and
Abroad Quality as compared to their counterparts in
writing exercise although the appearances of peaks were
almost at identical places, that is, under similar particle
size groups (Figure 3). The similarity in distribution of all
the three dust fall samples from dusting of three different
chalks was probably due to the ability of the board to
retain similar sizes of particulates on itself from all the
three different kinds of chalks. During dusting also, clean
write and abroad quality chalks generated greater
proportion of particles within 10 mm size range, that is,
92% and 88%, respectively, as compared to 70% by local
chalk. Best fit equation for all the obtained histograms was
found to be six degree polynomial (Figures 2 and 3).
Average mass of PM1, PM2.4, PM5 and PM10 generated
per unit time in chalk dust fall during writing was
estimated by multiplying their respective fractions (i.e.
PM1, PM2.4, PM5 and PM10) reported by the particle size
analyzer with the actual weight of chalk stick lost during
writing. Interestingly, taking into account this mass of
chalk lost per unit time, a different scenario emerged. The
abroad quality chalk had produced maximum amount of

Majumdar et al.

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

Volumetric %

5
'Clean-Write'

4
3
2
1
0
6
5

Abroad Quality

Volumetric %

4
3
2
1
0

Volumetric %

5
4

Local Gypsum

3
2
1
0

Particle Size (mm)

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution in dust fall collected during writing on board (solid line indicates the two-point moving average trend line
and dashed line indicates the best fit six degree polynomial).

Particulate Pollution from Chalks

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

547

14
12

Volumetric %

10

'Clean-Write'

8
6
4
2
0
14
12

Volumetric %

10
8

Abroad Quality

6
4
2
0

14
12
10

Local Gypsum
Volumetric %

8
6
4
2
0

Particle Size (mm)

Fig. 3. Particle size distribution in dust fall collected during dusting of board (solid line indicates the two-point moving average trend line
and dashed line indicates the best fit six degree polynomial).

548

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

Majumdar et al.

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

PM1

2.14

PM2.4

Amount Generated (g h-1)

2.5

PM5
PM10

1.48
1.5

1.0

1.09

1.22

1.03

0.84
1

0.86
0.52

0.58

0.45
0.5

0.33

0
Local Gypsum

Abroad Quality

Clean-Write

Chalk Type

Fig. 4. Mass (average  SD; n 3) of PM1, PM2.4, PM5 and PM10 generated per hour during writing on boards by selected chalks.

Very little information is available on airborne chalk

dust, its role in indoor air pollution and effects on human
respiratory health. The present work would definitely add
some immensely valuable scientific information on fine
particulate generation by chalk sticks in classrooms and

may also help assume or hypothesize the possible

repercussions of the fine chalk particulate exposure on
human health. The study revealed that (i) writing with
chalks on boards generated low concentrations of airborne
fine particles in real time; (ii) abroad quality chalk
produced highest mass of PM1, PM2.4, PM5 and PM10 in
chalk dust fall per unit time while Clean Write chalk
produced the least; (iii) Local Gypsum chalk produced
less proportion of fine particles than others; (iv) all the
chalks produced finer particles from dusting as compared
to writing in dust fall, barring a single case; (v) During
dusting also, clean write and abroad quality chalks
generated greater proportion of PM10 in dust fall, that
is, 92% and 88%, respectively, as compared to 70% by
local chalk; (vi) it was noticed that visibility of writing
letters on blackboard by Clean Write chalk was poorer as
compared to the other two chalks and higher pressure was
required to write properly with legible letters.
Though real-time airborne chalk dust generation was
found to be low in this study and chalk dust contained
only calcium carbonate or calcium sulphate predominantly and did not contain toxic materials, chalk dust
could be harmful to allergic persons and may cause
lacrimation and breathing troubles in the long run and
certainly is a constant nuisance in classrooms as it may
soil clothes, body parts, audio visual aids and study
materials. The issue of allergy, lacrimation and breathing
problem is certainly critical, considering that classroom
teaching involves predominantly children and also in

Particulate Pollution from Chalks

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

PM1, PM2.4, PM5 and PM10 per hour, indicating that it

managed to produce maximum mass of fine particulates
amongst the tested chalks (Figure 4). Notably, this aspect
is integrally connected to the deposited dust which gets
airborne when disturbed. The Clean Write chalk was the
best in this respect amongst the three tested chalks as it
produced lowest (0.33, 0.58 and 0.86 g h1 of PM1, 2.4, 5)
except for PM10. From durability perspective, clean write
chalk produced the best performance as it wasted least per
unit time amongst all (1.92 g h1 as compared to 5.12 and
3.04 g h1 in Local Gypsum and Abroad Type). In a
previous study [2], it was observed that a dusting type
chalk produced more PM4.5 and PM11 than a non-dusting
type chalk on both rough and smooth boards. On the
other hand, writing on rough boards resulted into more
production of PM2.4 and PM11 as rough boards produced
more friction with chalks. Jai Devi et al. [3] reported that
chalk dust was the major source of particulates in the
lecture rooms of the Indian Institute of Technology
(Kanpur) campus.

Conclusions

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

549

many cases teachers who might have crossed the middle

age, thus becoming more susceptible. Exposure to low
concentrations of fine particles for longer durations can be
a matter of concern for children. Use of marker pens and
white marker boards is sometimes advocated for writing
in classrooms, which reduce the generation of fine
particles and also minimize the risk of exposure to chalk
dust. Writing quality of chalks should be improved along
with making the chalks less dust generating. The authors
envisage further studies, preferably long-term, on chalk
dust generation in classrooms under various conditions
for confirmation of the obtained results and observations
along with generation of possible new results and
observations. In-depth studies are welcome on health
impacts of chalk dust on children and teachers.

Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Director, NEERI, for providing
constant guidance and encouragement during this study. The
authors also thank Central Salt and marine Chemicals Research
Institute (CSMCRI) for providing the chalk samples for
evaluation studies.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-forprofit sectors.

References
1 Majumdar D, William SPMP: Chalk
dustfall
during
classroom
teaching:
particle size distribution and morphological
characteristics:
Environ
Monit
Assess
2009;148:343351.
2 Ekmekcioglu D, Koskin SS: Characterization
of indoor air particulate matter in selected
elementary schools in Istanbul, Turkey: Indoor
Built Environ 2007;16(2):169176.
3 Jai Devi J, Gupta T, Tripathi SN, Ujinwal
KK: Assessment of personal exposure to
inhalable indoor and outdoor particulate
matter for student residents of an academic
campus (IIT-Kanpur) indoor and outdoor
particulate: Inhal Toxicol 2009;21:12081222.
4 Yip FY, Keelera GJ, Dvoncha JT, Robinsa,
TG, Parkerc EA, Israelc BA, BrakefieldCaldwell
W:
Personal
exposures
to
particulate matter among children with
asthma in Detroit, Michigan: Atmos Environ
2004;38:52275236.
5 Poupard O, Blondeau P, Iordache V, Allard F:
Statistical analysis of parameters influencing
the relationship between outdoor and indoor
air quality in schools: Atmos Environ
2005;39:20712080.
6 Fromme H, Twardella D, Dietrich S,
Heitmann D, Schierl R, Liebl B, Ruden H:
Particulate matter in the indoor air of classrooms-exploratory results from Munich and
surrounding
area:
Atmos
Environ
2007;41:854866.
7 Majer LS, Joy JH: A principals guide to
asthma: Principal 1993; 73: 4244.
8 British Columbia Department of Education:
Awareness of chronic health conditions: What
the teachers needs to know. British Columbia
Department of Education, British Columbia,
Canada, 1995.
9 Enomoto D: Eraser: US Patent 1487052,
March 18, 1924.

550

10 Yang TT: Eraser with dust collecting means:

US Patent 3986224, October 19, 1976.
11 Chen JS: Blackboard eraser: US Patent
4742594, May 10, 1988.
12 Wang JL: Blackboard eraser: US Patent
4462134, July 31, 1984.
13 Smith LJ: Chalk dust remover: US Patent
4872237, October 10, 1989.
14 Wolf MV: Vacuum blackboard eraser: US
Patent 1147064, July 20, 1915.
15 Handa T, Handa H: Compact Vacuum cleaner: US Patent 4204298, May 27, 1980.
16 Postma RC: Flexible writing surface: US
Patent 4978568, December 18, 1990.
17 Johnson RM: Cleaner and chalk dust receptacle for chalk board erasers: US Patent 4549327,
October 29, 1985.
18 Hirsch T, Weiland S, von Mutius E, Safeca
AF, Grafe H: Inner city air pollution and
respiratory health and atopy in children: Eur
Respir J 1999;14:669677.
19 Koenig JQ: Air pollution and asthma:
J Allergy Clin Immunol 1999;104:717722.
20 Ostro B, Lipsett, M, Mann J, Braxton-Owens
H, White M: Air pollution and exacerbation of
asthma in African-American children in Los
Angeles: Epidemiology 2001;12:200208.
21 Lin M, Chen Y, Burnett R, Villeneuve P,
Krewski D: The influence of ambient coarse
particulate matter on asthma hospitalization in
children: case-crossover and time series
analyses:
Environ
Health
Perspect
2002;110:575581.
22 Zhang J, Hu W, Wei F, Wu G, Korn L,
Chapman R: Childrens respiratory morbidity
prevalence in relation to air pollution in four
Chinese cities: Environ Health Perspect
2002;110:961967.
23 Bennett WO, Zeman, KL: Deposition of fine
particles in children spontaneously breathing
at rest: Inhal Toxicol 1998;10:831842.

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

24 Peters A, Dockery DW, Heinrich J, Wichmann

HE: Short-term effect of particulate air pollution on respiratory morbidity in asthmatic
children: Eur Respir J 1997;10:872879.
25 Gauderman WJ, McConnell R, Gilliland F,
London S, Thomas D, Avol E: Association
between
air
pollution
and
lung
function growth in Southern California children: Am J Resp Crit Care Med
2000;162:13831390.
26 Farrow A, Taylor H, Golding J: Time spent in
the home by different family members:
Environ Tech 1997;18:605613.
27 Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR, Robinson
JP, Tsang AM, Switzer P: The National
Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): A
resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants: J Expos Anal Environ
Epidemiol 2001;11:231-252.
28 Roorda-Knape MC, Janssen NAH, de Harto
JJ, van Kliet PHN, Harssema H, Brunekreef B:
Air pollution from traffic in city districts near
major
motorways:
Atmos
Environ
1998;32:19211930.
29 Wheeler AJ, Williams I, Beaumont RA,
Hamilton RS: Characterization of particulate
matter sampled during a study of childrens
personal exposure to airborne matter in a UK
urban environment: Environ Monit Assess
2000;65:6977.
30 Branis M, Rezacova P, Domasova M: The
effect of outdoor air and indoor human
activity on mass concentrations of PM10,
PM2.5 and PM1 in a classroom: Environ Res
2005;99:143149.
31 OSHA: Limits for air contaminants.
Occupational Safety and Health Standards:
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration: Code of Federal Regulations,
Standard No. 1910.1000 Table Z-1, 2011.
Accessed on 3.3.2011. Available at: http://

Majumdar et al.

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_
document?p_tableSTANDARDS&p_id9992
32 Federal Republic of Germany: Maximum
Concentrations at the Workplace and
Biological Tolerance Values for Working
Materials: Commission for the Investigation
of Health Hazard of Chemical Compounds in

Particulate Pollution from Chalks

the Work Area. Wiley and Sons, Federal

Republic of Germany, 2000.
33 Health Canada: Exposure Guidelines for
Residential Indoor Air Quality: A Report of
the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on
Environmental and Occupational Health,
Ottawa. Health Canada, Canada, 1995.

34 ACGIH: Threshold Limit Values for Chemical

Substances and Physical Agents and Biological
Exposure Indices: American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists, 1330
Kemper Meadow Drive, 6500 Glenway,
Building D-7, Cincinnati, OH, 45240-1630,
2001.

Indoor Built Environ 2012;21:541551

Downloaded from ibe.sagepub.com at Kungl Tekniska Hogskolan / Royal Institute of Technology on July 2, 2015

551