Next Article in Journal
Validating the Construct of Environmental Attitude in Urban Nepal Using the Two-Dimensional Model of Ecological Values
Previous Article in Journal
The Potential of One-Sided Traditional Windcatchers for Outdoor Use as a Sustainable Urban Feature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Urban Science
Volume 8
Issue 4
10.3390/urbansci8040230
urbansci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Indoor PM2.5 and Heavy Metal Composition in Blacksmithing Factories: A Pilot Study in Bandung Regency, Indonesia

by
Katharina Oginawati
1,
Naja Safira Al Faiqah
2,
Suharyanto
1,*,
Rinda Andhita Regia
2 and
Muhammad Amin
3,*
1
Study Program of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl Ganesa No 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
2
Graduate School of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jl Ganesa No 10, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
3
Faculty of Geoscience and Civil Engineering, Institute of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa 920-1192, Ishikawa, Japan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Urban Sci. 2024, 8(4), 230; https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040230
Submission received: 29 October 2024 / Revised: 14 November 2024 / Accepted: 21 November 2024 / Published: 28 November 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study assessed PM2.5 concentrations and heavy metal composition in blacksmith workshops located in Mekarmaju village, Bandung Regency, Indonesia. The PM2.5 levels measured across seven workshops showed significantly elevated concentrations, ranging from 166.88 µg/m3 to 513.80 µg/m3, greatly exceeding the indoor air quality recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). Chemical analysis revealed toxic heavy metals within PM2.5, including iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), and lead (Pb), with total heavy metal concentrations varying significantly between workshops. The highest concentration was recorded in workshop B (61.8 µg/m3), while the lowest was in workshop F (6.1 µg/m3). These metals are associated with severe health risks such as respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, neurotoxicity, and increased cancer risk with prolonged exposure. Strong correlations between PM2.5 and metals such as Fe, Cr, and Mn indicate that emissions from metalworking processes are primary sources of indoor pollution. Although this pilot study provides crucial baseline data, limitations such as a short sampling duration and a small sample size suggest the need for further research. Future studies should include long-term, continuous monitoring and detailed chemical speciation to enhance our understanding of occupational health risks.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Air pollutants, such as airborne particulate matter (PM), particularly fine particles with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), have recently become one of the major global issues for both outdoor (ambient) and indoor environments [1,2,3]. These particles are not only common in urban areas, which are dominated by vehicles and industrial activities, but are also crucial in indoor environments, where people spend most of their time, contributing significantly to human exposure [4,5,6]. Industrial settings are well-known as environments that emit PM, and they are important to consider because many workers spend extended periods in these environments [7,8,9]. Among various industries, blacksmithing factories are known for emitting high levels of PM, including PM2.5, due to the nature of the work related to metal forging processes [10,11,12]. These activities include heating, hammering, and grinding metals, which generate hazardous pollutants in the indoor environment, and this is particularly concerning because it increases the potential health risks faced by the workers [13,14,15].
Unfortunately, studies on indoor air pollution are not as extensive as ambient monitoring and are often overlooked [16,17]. In reality, workers in factories, whether citizens or villagers, spend most of their time indoors. The indoor environment, where they spend their time, can easily accumulate PM, such as PM2.5, due to limited ventilation [18,19]. Additionally, heating and combustion processes commonly emit smaller particles that remain suspended in the air for long periods [20,21]. PM2.5 is particularly concerning not only because it stays in the air longer than coarser particles, but also because of its ability to penetrate deeper into the human respiratory system, lungs, and even the bloodstream [22,23,24,25]. This can lead to various health issues, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases [26,27].
Furthermore, the health risks associated with PM2.5 are not only due to its ability to penetrate the human body but also because of its chemical components, which significantly increase potential health risks [28,29,30,31]. PM2.5 can act as a carrier for various toxic substances, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals [32,33]. In blacksmithing factories, activities such as metal forging, cutting, and grinding release metal particles into the air, contributing to the heavy metal content in PM2.5 [12,34]. Previous studies have found that heavy metals such as iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), and nickel (Ni) are frequently present in metalworking industries and are correlated with an increased risk to health [35,36]. Prolonged exposure to these substances, even at low concentrations, can lead to serious health effects such as metal toxicity, organ damage, an increased risk of cancer, and even higher mortality rates [37,38].
However, even though the health risks linked to exposure to PM2.5 and its heavy metal components have been reported worldwide, there is a significant gap in data regarding indoor PM2.5 and heavy metal components, especially in developing countries such as Indonesia [39,40]. Studies focusing on blacksmithing factories are also very limited [41,42,43,44]. On the other hand, outdoor PM2.5 levels in urban areas, influenced by various activities like vehicle emissions and industrial output, have been well documented [45,46]. However, studies that focus on specific micro-environments, such as industrial workspaces, are scarce. Therefore, understanding indoor PM2.5 levels and their chemical components in these areas is essential to developing effective methods for mitigating the health risks for workers [20,47,48].
Taking into account heavy metal components in PM2.5, their impacts on human health are well established [19,49]. For example, nickel (Ni) exposure has also been associated with respiratory conditions and an increased risk of lung cancer [50,51]. Iron (Fe), a significant material used in industrial activities, can contribute to the deterioration of the human body, including oxidative stress and tissue damage [52,53,54]. Given the characteristics and activities in blacksmithing factories, where various metals are heated, shaped, and forged, it is certain that these processes generate a significant amount of particles containing heavy metals indoors. Therefore, evaluating these particles is crucial, as they directly affect the risks faced by workers.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to fill this data gap by conducting a pilot study in West Java, Indonesia, assessing indoor PM2.5 levels and their heavy metal components in blacksmithing factories. This research not only provides the data and initial understanding of the indoor environment in these factories but also contributes to a better understanding of occupational exposure risks in small, local factories, which are abundant in Indonesia. Finally, this study serves as a foundational source of information regarding indoor air quality in industrial settings in Indonesia, which may be important for identifying future research needs and interventions for industrial workspaces.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Area and Site Selection

This study was conducted in Mekarmaju village, Bandung Regency, West Java Province, Indonesia. This place is well-known for its blacksmithing factories in small-scale workshops. Most of the villagers work as blacksmiths, followed by farmers. This site was selected not only due to the number of small-scale blacksmithing factories but also due to the ease of the administration process and welcoming attitude toward the researchers. Most of the factories were design with minimal mechanical ventilation and used conventional techniques for metal burning, forging, cutting, and grinding. These activities potentially contribute to high levels of PM indoors.
Figure 1 shows the sampling locations and layout of the seven workshops (labeled A–G) where this study was conducted. Sampling was carried out in June 2024, with each workshop selected based on the availability of workers and the diversity of the metalworking activities being performed. These seven workshops were different in terms of size and types of activities.
Although the selection process was not randomized, it was designed to include workshops engaged in a range of industrial processes to ensure comprehensive coverage of the types of emissions typically found in blacksmithing environments. Each workshop was surveyed to identify the key areas where workers spent the majority of their time, and these areas were targeted for PM2.5 sampling.
The final selection of the seven workshops was based on their operational status during the sampling period and their willingness to participate in this study. The workshops varied in size, layout, and type of metalwork conducted. The sampling points (indicated by red X marks in Figure 1) were positioned in locations within each workshop where the air quality was expected to reflect the typical exposure levels experienced by the workers, particularly near the metal burning, forging, and grinding stations.

2.2. Indoor PM2.5 Sampling

PM2.5 samples were collected from the indoor environment of the blacksmithing factories using a low-volume air sampler (LVAS) positioned at a height of approximately 1.5 m, representing the breathing zone of the workers. This method followed the Indonesian National Standard (SNI 16-7058-2004) for measuring airborne particulate matter in the workplace [55,56]. The LVAS was operated at a flow rate of 2.5 L/min, which is ideal for capturing PM2.5 without overloading the filter or altering the particle distribution. The filters used for sampling were 47 mm diameter polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters with a pore size of 0.22 μm, following the EPA Reference Method for fine PM collection [57]. PTFE filters were chosen for their effectiveness in trapping fine particles, and they were handled with tweezers to prevent contamination. Once sampling was complete, the filters were placed in clean, labeled Petri dishes for safe transport to the laboratory for weighing and chemical analysis.
Sampling was conducted at seven different locations within the blacksmithing factories, representing key areas where workers spent the majority of their time. Each location was selected to provide a representative snapshot of the indoor air quality within the workspace. At each location, PM2.5 was sampled continuously for two hours. This sampling duration was chosen to ensure that a sufficient amount of PM was collected while minimizing disruption to factory operations. The LVAS maintained a constant flow rate of 2.5 L/min throughout the sampling period, and flow rate calibration was performed before and after each sampling session to ensure accuracy and reliability as the part of the quality assurance and quality control process.
After the completion of each sampling session, the filters containing the collected PM2.5 were stored in clean, sealed Petri dishes. These were carefully labeled with the sampling location, date, and time for accurate tracking and were transported to the laboratory to preserve the integrity of the samples.

2.3. Chemical Analysis of Heavy Metals

The chemical analysis of heavy metals in the collected PM2.5 filters was conducted using X-ray fluorescence (XRF), a widely used technique for determining the elemental composition of PM. This analysis was performed at the BRIN Laboratory in Bandung, following the US EPA Compendium Method IO-3.3 (1999), which focuses on the determination of metals in ambient PM using XRF [58]. The XRF method was selected for its suitability in analyzing the PM collected on filters, particularly PM2.5, as well as its ability to detect a wide range of elements with high precision [59].
In principle, XRF operates by measuring the intensity and wavelength of X-rays emitted by energized atoms in the sample. When the PM2.5 collected on the filters is exposed to X-ray radiation, the atoms within the sample become excited, causing them to emit secondary, or fluorescent, X-rays. Each wavelength and intensity emitted by the X-rays corresponds to specific elements, providing information about the chemical components present in the PM.
This method was chosen for several reasons. First, XRF is a nondestructive analytical technique, meaning that the integrity of the PM2.5 sample remains intact for any potential future analyses. Second, XRF offers low detection limits and high sensitivity for a wide range of elements, making it particularly useful for detecting trace metals in PM. Finally, the method is easy to operate, and the data are straightforward to interpret [60].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Variation in Indoor PM2.5

Figure 2 and Table 1 summarize the PM2.5 concentration in the indoor environment from seven different blacksmith workshops (workshops A–G). The concentrations varied significantly across the workshops, with values ranging from 166.88 µg/m3 to 513.80 µg/m3, after two hours of sampling, indicating variability in the emission sources and ventilation conditions within each workshop. Workshop B recorded the highest concentration of PM2.5 at 513.80 µg/m3, which might be attributed to more intensive metalworking activities such as metal burning and forging, combined with poor ventilation, which could lead to a higher accumulation of PM in the air. In contrast, workshop F exhibited the lowest concentration, with a value of 166.88 µg/m3, suggesting either lower-emission activities or better ventilation. However, even this lower value exceeds many recommended guidelines for 24 h indoor air quality, highlighting the potential health risks to workers in the environment.
The average PM2.5 concentration across all workshops was 288.21 µg/m3, which is significantly higher than the World Health Organization (WHO)’s recommended indoor and outdoor air quality guideline for PM2.5, which is 25 µg/m3 for 24 h exposure. The high levels of PM2.5 observed in these workshops indicate that workers are exposed to air pollution that far exceeds safe limits, placing them at risk of adverse health effects [61,62]. In terms of individual workshops, location A recorded the second-highest PM2.5 concentration at 455.18 µg/m3, which, like location B, could be linked to a combination of metal burning, forging activities, and insufficient ventilation. Workshops C, D, E, and G showed moderately high levels of PM2.5, with values ranging from 172.05 µg/m3 to 315.20 µg/m3, suggesting consistent emissions across these workshops, likely related to similar metalworking processes, though perhaps with varying levels of emissions and airflow.
These elevated PM2.5 concentrations are concerning, as prolonged exposure to high levels of PM2.5 can lead to various health problems, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Given the hazardous working conditions revealed by this study, it is essential to implement better ventilation systems, enforce the use of protective equipment, and explore potential process improvements to reduce emissions in the workshops.

3.2. Composition of Heavy Metal in PM2.5

The fraction of each heavy metal is summarized in Figure 3a–c. The heavy metals in PM2.5 from the seven blacksmith workshops (locations A–G) provide a clear indication of the varying concentrations of different metals across the sites. The total concentration of heavy metals in PM2.5 varied significantly, with the highest concentration recorded at workshop B (61.8 µg/m3) and the lowest at workshop F (6.1 µg/m3).
Workshop B exhibited the highest percentage of heavy metals in PM2.5, with 12.03% of the total PM2.5 mass consisting of heavy metals. This can be attributed to the intensive metal burning and forging processes conducted at this site, which are likely to release significant amounts of metals such as iron (Fe), potassium (K), sulfur (S), and zinc (Zn) into the air. Fe had the highest concentration among all metals in workshop B, accounting for 41.633 µg/m3, which represents the majority of the heavy metal content. As expected, the high concentration of Fe is a typical indicator of blacksmithing activities, where iron-based metals are frequently used [63].
Workshop A also had a substantial amount of heavy metals in its PM2.5, with a total of 12.6 µg/m3, and 2.77% of the PM2.5 mass was composed of heavy metals. Similarly to location B, Fe was the dominant metal, with a concentration of 8.977 µg/m3. However, other metals such as magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), and potassium (K) were present at much lower concentrations compared to workshop B.
Workshop C displayed a moderate level of heavy metals, with 7.25% of the total PM2.5 mass attributed to heavy metals. The most notable metal at this location was Fe, with a concentration of 7.386 µg/m3, similar to the pattern observed in other workshops. The presence of sulfur and potassium also contributed to the heavy metal content, but to a lesser extent.
Workshop D had a total heavy metal concentration of 18.8 µg/m3, contributing to 9.83% of the PM2.5 mass. This location showed a higher concentration of Fe (16.28 µg/m3) than most other workshops, which aligns with the fact that blacksmithing activities involving metal cutting and forging were prominent in this workshop. The concentration of chromium and manganese was also slightly higher compared to other locations, indicating the presence of specific metalworking activities involving alloys which release these metals. Workshop E had a lower concentration of heavy metals, contributing to 6.00% of the PM2.5 mass, with Fe and Ca being the predominant metals. The total heavy metal concentration at this location was 10.3 µg/m3, and the presence of Ca at 2.324 µg/m3 might have been related to specific processes or materials used in metalworking.
Workshop F showed the lowest heavy metal concentration among all locations, with a total of 6.1 µg/m3, which accounted for 3.63% of the total PM2.5 mass. Although the overall concentration of heavy metals was low, Mn and Fe were still present, indicating that even lower-intensity workshops contribute to metal emissions. The last one, workshop G had a moderate total concentration of 34.8 µg/m3, with 11.04% of the PM2.5 mass consisting of heavy metals. Fe and K were the most abundant metals at this location, with Fe accounting for 27.145 µg/m3 of the total mass. This site also showed a significant presence of Zn and As, which are metals of concern due to their toxicity.
When compared to other studies, the concentrations of heavy metals in PM2.5 from our findings align with results reported in similar industrial environments. Zhang et al. (1983) reported TSP concentrations in the indoor of blacksmithing factories of 6.42–10.9 mg/m3 and, for PM4, of 1.38 mg/m3, further indicating the elevated PM levels in these settings [64]. In the sponge iron industry, Gupta et al. (2010) documented PM10 levels between 135 and 270 µg/m3, suggesting that metal-based industries generally have high PM concentrations which could pose substantial health risks [44].

3.3. Correlation of PM2.5, Its Chemical Composition, and the Health Implication

The PM2.5 level and its chemical composition in blacksmith workshops showed a significant presence of toxic metals, with strong correlations between PM2.5 and certain heavy metals, as illustrated in Figure 4. The presence of these metals in PM2.5 poses substantial health risks to workers, as fine PM can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, carrying harmful metals into the body and exacerbating health impacts.
The Pearson correlation heatmap reveals strong positive correlations between PM2.5 and iron (r = 0.69) and magnesium (r = 0.81). This indicates that Fe and Mg are major components of PM2.5 in these workshops, likely due to their release during metalworking activities. Actually, Fe is essential for human health; however, the inhalation of Fe particles in high concentration can lead to various effects, such as oxidative stress, contribute to chronic respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and pulmonary fibrosis, and cause lung inflammation and tissue damage [65,66]. Therefore, previous studies found that high Fe exposure is also associated with an increasing risk of cardiovascular diseases, especially due to systemic inflammation [67,68].
Cr and Ni also showed moderate and low positive correlations with PM2.5, with Cr having an r-value of 0.67 and Ni of 0.27. As both Cr and Ni are recognized carcinogens, their presence in airborne PM2.5 poses serious health risks, particularly an increased risk of lung cancer and respiratory irritation. Chromium (VI), in particular, is highly toxic, and prolonged exposure, even at low concentrations, can lead to severe health impacts [69,70]. Workers exposed to PM2.5 with high Cr and Ni content, especially over long-term exposure, are at an elevated risk of these adverse health effects. Mn, which has a moderate correlation with PM2.5 (r = 0.65), is known for its neurotoxic properties [71]. Chronic exposure to manganese, especially through inhalation, can lead to a condition known as manganism [72]. It is a neurological disorder with symptoms similar to Parkinson’s disease [73]. Mn exposure in industrial settings has been linked to motor function impairment, cognitive decline, and other neurological symptoms, raising concerns for workers who are continuously exposed to manganese-laden PM2.5, especially in blacksmith workshops. Furthermore, Zn and Pb, although showing weaker correlations with PM2.5 (r = 0.11 and −0.23, respectively), still pose health risks when their presence is clear in the PM2.5, particularly in certain locations, such as in all workshops except for B and C for zinc and workshops C and F for Pb. These two metals were also dominant outside the major components of Fe. Regarding Zn, even though it is less toxic, it can lead to metal fume fever when inhaled by the worker in the form of zinc oxide fumes [74,75]. This is a condition with flu-like symptoms including fever, chills, and respiratory distress [76,77]. Instead, Pb is a metal whose toxic levels are well known, and many studies have linked it to various health effects, especially after prolonged exposure, which is concerning in workplace environments where lead is present in PM2.5 [78,79,80]. It is harmful even in small concentrations, with no safe level of exposure. The presence of sulfur (S) and potassium (K), both moderately correlated with PM2.5 (r = 0.77 and 0.72, respectively), suggests an association with sulfates and other compounds that can worsen respiratory conditions for workers [81]. Elevated levels of sulfur, for example, could indicate the presence of sulfur dioxide (SO2), which can cause airway inflammation and exacerbate conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Overall, the correlation between the parameters and PM2.5 and its chemical components showed a clear link between these chemicals and their possible various effects on the workers, especially among those who had been working in these workshops for long periods of time.

3.4. Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights into the levels of PM2.5 and its heavy metal composition in blacksmith workshops, several limitations should be acknowledged. These limitations may affect the generalizability of the findings and highlight areas for improvement in future research. First of all, the limitation of the current study was its limited sampling duration. The monitoring period was limited to a 2 h sampling session in each workshop. Even though this provided a snapshot of the PM2.5 levels and heavy metal content, it did not capture the full variability in air quality throughout a typical workday (8 h) or over longer periods. Real-time measurements are an important issue, even when they are just providing the mass and concentration of the majority of the equipment. The concentration of PM2.5 and heavy metals may fluctuate based on the daily activities, the types of activities, and changes in production scale and intensity. Hence, future studies should consider continuous, real-time, and even longer-term monitoring to provide a more comprehensive assessment of worker exposure. The second limitation was the small sample size. This study focused on only seven workshops in this village. However, hundreds of workshops are located in this area. Increasing the number of workshops, especially including some with different indoor settings, ventilation conditions, and scale of production, will give a more broader perspective on the factors affecting to the PM level. Thirdly, detailed information regarding the specific processes taking place during sampling and the ventilation status, including the wind speed at each workshop, was not collected. Such data would provide insights into potential mitigation measures to reduce PM2.5 levels. Lastly, the chemical components analyzed in this study comprised solely heavy metals, and we did not even include the detailed chemical speciation of these metals. Some metal compounds (e.g., hexavalent chromium) are more toxic than others, and understanding the specific forms of metals present in PM2.5 would allow for more accurate risk assessments. Future research should aim to analyze the different oxidation states or forms of the metals to better understand their toxicity. This could also be extended to more chemical components such as organic materials, PAHs, and so on.

4. Conclusions

This study provides essential insights into the concentrations of PM2.5 and its heavy metal components in blacksmith workshops located in Mekarmaju village, Bandung Regency, Indonesia. The findings reveal alarmingly high levels of PM2.5 across all sampled workshops, with concentrations significantly exceeding the World Health Organization’s recommended limits for indoor air quality. This exposure puts workers at an elevated risk of adverse health effects, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Additionally, this study highlights the presence of toxic heavy metals within PM2.5, including iron (Fe), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), and lead (Pb). These metals have been linked to serious health conditions, such as oxidative stress, cancer, neurotoxicity, and respiratory issues, especially with long-term exposure. The analysis of the correlations between PM2.5 and its heavy metal components suggests that Fe, Cr, and Mn are the primary contributors to the PM2.5 mass in these workshops, with strong associations to metalworking activities like forging, cutting, and grinding. Despite providing valuable data, this pilot study has certain limitations, such as a limited sampling duration and a small sample size, which may affect the generalizability of the results. Future research should focus on continuous long-term monitoring, personal exposure assessments, and a more comprehensive chemical analysis, including the speciation of heavy metals, to gain a better understanding of the occupational hazards in these settings. This foundational research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on indoor air quality in industrial environments in Indonesia and serves as a basis for further studies and interventions aimed at safeguarding worker health in blacksmith workshops.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S., N.S.A.F. and K.O.; methodology, S., N.S.A.F. and K.O.; investigation, N.S.A.F.; resources, S. and K.O.; data curation, N.S.A.F., R.A.R. and M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.; writing—review and editing, S., N.S.A.F., R.A.R. and K.O.; supervision, S., M.A. and K.O.; project administration, S. and K.O.; and funding acquisition, S. and K.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the P2MI Program, 2024 Institut Teknologi Bandung.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during this study are not publicly available but can be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the Head of Mekarmaju village and the staff and owner of the blacksmith industry workshop used as the research subject.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Landrigan, P.J. Air pollution and health. Lancet Public Health 2017, 2, e4–e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Li, X.D. Air pollution: A global problem needs local fixes. Nature 2019, 570, 437–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ali, M.U.; Liu, G.; Yousaf, B.; Ullah, H.; Abbas, Q.; Munir, M.A.M. A Systematic Review on Global Pollution Status of Particulate Matter-Associated Potential Toxic Elements and Health Perspectives in Urban Environment. Environ. Geochem. Health 2019, 41, 1131–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Song, C.; Lim, C.C.; Gurmu, B.L.; Kim, M.; Lee, S.; Park, J.; Kim, S. Comparison of Personal or Indoor PM2.5 Exposure Level to That of Outdoor: Over Four Seasons in Selected Urban, Industrial, and Rural Areas of South Korea: (K-IOP Study). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 6684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Milner, J.; Armstrong, B.G.; Davies, M.; Ridley, I.A.; Chalabi, Z.; Shrubsole, C.; Vardoulakis, S.; Wilkinson, P. An Exposure-Mortality Relationship for Residential Indoor PM2.5 Exposure from Outdoor Sources. Climate 2017, 5, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sepadi, M.M.; Nkosi, V. Personal PM2.5 Exposure Monitoring of Informal Cooking Vendors at Indoor and Outdoor Markets in Johannesburg, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hajizadeh, Y.; Jafari, N.; Mohammadi, A.; Momtaz, S.M.; Fanaei, F.; Abdolahnejad, A. Concentrations and mortality due to short-and long-term exposure to PM2.5 in a megacity of Iran (2014–2019). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 38004–38014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Masri, S.; Rea, J.; Wu, J. Use of Low-Cost Sensors to Characterize Occupational Exposure to PM2.5 Concentrations Inside an Industrial Facility in Santa Ana, CA: Results from a Worker- and Community-Led Pilot Study. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kero, I.T.; Blom, A.; Jørgensen, R.B. Particle Size Distributions of Airborne Particulate Matter in a Ferrosilicon Smelter. In Proceedings of the 16th International Ferro-Alloys Congress (INFACON XVI); SINTEF/NTNU/FFF: Trondheim, Norway, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rahmadini, A.F.; Andarini, D.; Camelia, A.; Ermi, N.; Lestari, M. Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment on Informal Workers in Ogan Ilir, South Sumatra. Indones. J. Occup. Saf. Health 2021, 10, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hafez, K. Occupational Ergonomic and Safety Assessments Survey at Various Blacksmith Shops in Jeddah City. Ergon. Int. J. 2024, 8, 328. [Google Scholar]
  12. Narwal, K.; Sharma, P.; Joshi, P. Risk Assessment of Forging Workers in Unorganized Sector of Uttrakhand, India. In Advances in Social and Organizational Factors AHFE International Conference; Vinkeds, P., Ed.; AHFE International: San Diego, CA, USA, 2020; Volume 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zendrato, R.R.P.; Sunardi, S. Penerapan prinsif kesehatan dan keselamatan kerja di ukm pande besi tradisional. Adi Widya J. Pengabdi. Masy. 2020, 4. (In Bahasa) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Buljat, A.; Čargonja, M.; Mekterović, D. Source Apportionment of Particulate Matter in a Metal Workshop. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2024, 21, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Insley, A.L.; Maskrey, J.R.; Hallett, L.; Reid, R.C.; Hynds, E.S.; Winter, C.; Panko, J.M. Occupational survey of airborne metal exposures to welders, metalworkers, and bystanders in small fabrication shops. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2019, 16, 410–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Maung, T.Z.; Bishop, J.E.; Holt, E.; Turner, A.M.; Pfrang, C. Indoor Air Pollution and the Health of Vulnerable Groups: A Systematic Review Focused on Particulate Matter (PM), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Their Effects on Children and People with Pre-Existing Lung Disease. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wei, L.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Helbich, M.; van Nunen, E.; Hoek, G.; Vermeulen, R.C. Validity of Mobility-Based Exposure Assessment of Air Pollution: A Comparative Analysis with Home-Based Exposure Assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 58, 10685–10695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Verniers, K.; Losfeld, F.; Pollet, I.V.; Laverge, J. Impact of ventilation type on indoor generated PM and VOC levels for different indoor activities. Int. J. Vent. 2023, 22, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shezi, B.; Jafta, N.; Naidoo, R.N. Potential Health Risks of Indoor Particulate Matter Heavy Metals in Resource-Constrained Settings of South Africa. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Husaini, H. Correlation of Metal Fume and Vapor with Total Ige Serum of The Blacksmith. Al-Ulum 2014, 62, 6–11. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jayasinghe, K. Monitoring of Total Suspended Particles & Toxic Gasses in Stationary Combustion Systems. Eng. J. Inst. Eng. 2011, 44, 37. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sturm, R. Modelling the deposition of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the human respiratory tract. AME Med. J. 2020, 5, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ayu, R.; Anggraeni, Y.; Lestari, K.S. The impact of PM2.5 air pollutant exposure on human respiratory health: A literature review. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2023, 19, 1057–1064. [Google Scholar]
  24. Aguilera, R.; Gershunov, A.; Ilango, S.D.; Guzman-Morales, J.; Benmarhnia, T. Santa Ana Winds of Southern California Impact PM2.5 With and Without Smoke From Wildfires. Geo. Health 2020, 4, e2019GH000225. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pino-Vallejo, M.; Tierra, A.; Haro, A.; Perugachi, N. Prediction of concentrations of PM2.5 in downtown Quito using the chaos theory. AIP Conf. Proc. 2018, 2003, 020013. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, W.; Zhao, T.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, L.; Ye, L. Adverse effects of PM2.5 on cardiovascular diseases. Rev. Environ. Health 2021, 37, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Emmanuel, C.I.; Faith, O.O.; Benedicta, A.O.; Aminat, A.A. Source Identification and Heavy Metal Analysis of Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) in an Industrialized Urban Area of Lagos State, Nigeria. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 2019, 321, 120344. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sun, X.; Lin, X.; Yao, J.; Tian, T.; Li, Z.; Chen, S.; Hu, W.; Jiang, J.; Tang, H.; Cai, H.; et al. Potential causal links of long-term exposure to PM2.5 and its chemical components with the risk of nasopharyngeal carcinoma recurrence: A 10-year cohort study in South China. Int. J. Cancer 2024, 155, 1558–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ramírez, C.; Amador, D.O.R.; Gutiérrez, J.M.L.; Mosqueda, E.R.; Barcia, G.E.C.; Patlán, F.D.R.; Salazar, R.C. Chemical Characterization and Assessment of Public Health Risk due to Inhalation of PM2.5 in the City of Salamanca, Guanajuato. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2024, 113, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, S.; Kaur, M.; Li, T.; Pan, F. Effect of Different Pollution Parameters and Chemical Components of PM2.5 on Health of Residents of Xinxiang City, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nirmalkar, J.; Lee, K.; Ahn, J.; Lee, J.; Song, M. Comparisons of Spatial and Temporal Variations in PM2.5-Bound Trace Elements in Urban and Rural Areas of South Korea, and Associated Potential Health Risks. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fakhri, Y. Association Between Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and the Reproductive System: A Narrative Review. J. Clin. Nurs. Res. 2022, 6, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Stamatelopoulou, A.; Dasopoulou, M.; Bairachtari, K.A.; Karavoltsos, S.; Sakellari, K.; Maggos, T. Contamination and Potential Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and Heavy Metals in House Settled Dust Collected from Residences of Young Children. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bur’yanov, I.; Logachev, K.; Uvarov, V.A. Determination Of The Main Properties Of Dust Particles In The Grinding Area. Bull. Belgorod State Technol. Univ. Named VG Shukhov 2020, 5, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Parmar, M.; Thakur, L.S. Heavy Metal Cu, Ni And Zn. Toxicity, Health Hazards and Their Removaltechniques By Low Cost Adsorbents: A Short Overview. Int. J. Plant Anim. Environ. Sci. 2013, 3, 143–157. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lin, C.; Lai, C.; Hsieh, T.; Tsai, C. Source apportionment and health effects of particle-bound metals in PM2.5 near a precision metal machining factory. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2022, 15, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gullu Arslan, N.; Uzun, Z.; Adıgüzel, M.; Bakırtaş, M. Heavy metal worker’s pneumonoconiosis with lung parenchymal damage and Peripheral neuropathy: Case report. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2023, 78, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ghosh, B.; Padhy, P.K.; Niyogi, S.; Patra, P.K.; Hecker, M. A Comparative Study of Heavy Metal Pollution in Ambient Air and the Health Risks Assessment in Industrial, Urban and Semi-Urban Areas of West Bengal, India: An Evaluation of Carcinogenic, Non-Carcinogenic, and Additional Lifetime Cancer Cases. Environments 2023, 10, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Amin, M.; Prajati, G.; Humairoh, G.P.; Putri, R.M.; Phairuang, W.; Hata, M.; Furuuchi, M. Characterization of size-fractionated carbonaceous particles in the small to nano-size range in Batam city, Indonesia. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Anggraini, F.J.; Shalsabila, A.; Rodhiyah, Z. Sebaran Particulate Matter (PM10, PM2.5, PM1, PM0.1) di SMP Negeri 1 Kota Jambi Menggunakan Model CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics). J. Sains Dan Teknol. 2023, 2, 690–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cheng, Y.H.; Chao, Y.C.; Wu, C.H.; Tsai, C.J.; Uang, S.N.; Shih, T.S. Measurements of ultrafine particle concentrations and size distribution in an iron foundry. J. Hazard. Mater. 2008, 158, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Elihn, K.; Berg, P.; Lidén, G. Correlation between airborne particle concentrations in seven industrial plants and estimated respiratory tract deposition by number, mass and elemental composition. J. Aerosol Sci. 2011, 42, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Evans, D.E.; Heitbrink, W.A.; Slavin, T.J.; Peters, T.M. Ultrafine and respirable particles in an automotive grey iron foundry. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2008, 52, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gupta, R.K.; Bhanarkar, A.D.; Tamhane, S.M.; Dhopte, S.M. Assessment of in-plant Particulate Matter and its toxic metals contents of sponge iron industry in Goa, India. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2010, 85, 614–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Alnagran, H.; Mansour, H.; Alashrah, S.; Suardi, N.; Rahman, A.A. Evaluation of Toxic Heavy Metals and Health Risk in Airborne Particulate Matter at Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia. Trends Sci. 2023, 20, 6978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, Q.; Ao, R.; Chen, H.; Li, J.; Wei, L.; Wang, Z. Characteristics of PM2.5 and CO2 Concentrations in Typical Functional Areas of a University Campus in Beijing Based on Low-Cost Sensor Monitoring. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gobba, N.A.E.K.; Hussein Ali, A.; El Sharawy, D.E.; Hussein, M.A. The potential hazardous effect of exposure to iron dust in Egyptian smoking and nonsmoking welders. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2018, 73, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Abdullahi, I.L.; Sani, A.; Jibril, B.A. Occupational exposure to metals among blacksmiths in Kano metropolis, Nigeria. Environ. Health Eng. Manag. 2020, 7, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Meyer, A. The Health Effects of Anthropogenic PM2.5 Emissions. Thesis, Honors Theses and Capstones. 660. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA, 2022. Available online: https://scholars.unh.edu/honors/660 (accessed on 15 October 2024).
  50. Sciannameo, V.; Ricceri, F.; Soldati, S.; Scarnato, C.; Gerosa, A.; Giacomozzi, G.; d’Errico, A. Cancer mortality and exposure to nickel and chromium compounds in a cohort of Italian electroplaters. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2019, 62, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Prueitt, R.L.; Li, W.; Chang, Y.; Boffetta, P.; Goodman, J.E. Systematic review of the potential respiratory carcinogenicity of metallic nickel in humans. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2020, 50, 60–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shetty, B.S.; D’Souza, G.; Padukudru Anand, M. Effect of Indoor Air Pollution on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Deaths in Southern Asia—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Toxics 2021, 9, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kontoghiorghes, G.J. Iron Load Toxicity in Medicine: From Molecular and Cellular Aspects to Clinical Implications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 12928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Abbaspour, N.; Hurrell, R.F.; Kelishadi, R. Review on iron and its importance for human health. J. Res. Med. Sci. Off. J. Isfahan Univ. Med. Sci. 2014, 19, 164–174. [Google Scholar]
  55. Abidin, A.U.; Henita, N.; Rahmawati, S.; Maziya, F.B. Analisis Risiko Kesehatan Paparan Debu Terhadap Fungsi Paru Pada Pekerja Di Home Industry C-Max. J. Sains Dan Teknol. Lingkung. 2014, 13, 34–39. (In Bahasa) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mazaya, M.R. Analisis Risiko Kesehatan Lingkungan Pajanan Particulate Matter 2,5 Terhadap Pekerja Packing Plant Pt. Semen Padang. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesian, 2024. (In Bahasa). [Google Scholar]
  57. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Standard Operating Procedure for Particulate Matter (PM) Gravimetric Analysis; Environmental and Industrial Science Division: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  58. Vargas, F.A.; Rojas, N.Y.; Pachon, J.E.; Russell, A.G. PM10 characterization and source apportionment at two residential areas in Bogota. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2012, 3, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. John, A.; Alexanda, S.; Larry, A. Approaching a universal sample Preparation method for XRF analysis of powder materials. Adv. X-Ray Anal. 2001, 44, 368–370. [Google Scholar]
  60. Watson, D.G. Pharmaceutical Analysis: A Textbook for Pharmaceutical Chemists; Churchill Livingstone: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bryan, L.; Landrigan, P.J. PM2.5 pollution in Texas: A geospatial analysis of health impact functions. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1286755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ly, T.B.; Vo, L.T.; Van, D.; Nguyen, T.T.; Dao, D.N.; Nghiem, T.; Nguyen, Q.D. Occurrence of PM0.1 and PM2.5 at High Polluting Event Days In Hanoi And Health Implication. Vietnam. J. Sci. Technol. 2024, 61, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. McClements, D. All About Steel as a Manufacturing Material. 2023. Available online: https://www.xometry.com/resources/materials/steel/ (accessed on 15 October 2024).
  64. Zhang, J.; Billiet, J.; Nagels, M.; Dams, R. Survey of total and respirable suspended particulate matter in an iron foundry. Comparison of stationary sampling and personal monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 1983, 30, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Takahashi, M.; Mizumura, K.; Gon, Y.; Shimizu, T.; Kozu, Y.; Shikano, S.; Iida, Y.; Hikichi, M.; Okamoto, S.; Tsuya, K.; et al. Iron-Dependent Mitochondrial Dysfunction Contributes to the Pathogenesis of Pulmonary Fibrosis. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 12, 643980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yarjanli, Z.; Ghaedi, K.; Esmaeili, A.; Rahgozar, S.; Zarrabi, A. Iron oxide nanoparticles may damage to the neural tissue through iron accumulation, oxidative stress, and protein aggregation. BMC Neurosci. 2017, 18, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zhang, Z.; Weichenthal, S.; Kwong, J.C.; Burnett, R.T.; Hatzopoulou, M.; Jerrett, M.; van Donkelaar, A.; Bai, L.; Martin, R.V.; Copes, R.; et al. Long-term exposure to iron and copper in fine particulate air pollution and their combined impact on reactive oxygen species concentration in lung fluid: A population-based cohort study of cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality in Toronto, Canada. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2021, 50, 589–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Fang, X.; Ardehali, H.; Min, J.; Wang, F. The molecular and metabolic landscape of iron and ferroptosis in cardiovascular disease. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2023, 20, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Rahman, Z.; Singh, V.P. The relative impact of toxic heavy metals (THMs) (arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr)(VI), mercury (Hg), and lead (Pb)) on the total environment: An overview. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Yatera, K.; Morimoto, Y.; Ueno, S.; Noguchi, S.; Kawaguchi, T.; Tanaka, F.; Suzuki, H.; Higashi, T. Cancer Risks of Hexavalent Chromium in the Respiratory Tract. J. UOEH 2018, 40, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Dobson, A.W.; Erikson, K.M.; Aschner, M. Manganese neurotoxicity. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2004, 1012, 115–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Rizvi, I.; Garg, R.K.; Malhotra, H.S.; Kumar, N.; Uniyal, R. Manganese, manganism and other neurodegenerative diseases: Is it a cause of concern? Neurol. India 2017, 65, 1248–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Proudfoot, O. Manganese in manganism, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and Batten disease: A narrative review. Neurol. India 2017, 65, 1241–1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Suárez, G.; Niculita-Hirzel, H.; Correia, D.; Pralong, J.A.; Vernez, D. A proposed synergetic mechanism for metal fume fever involving ZnO and Fe3O4 nanoparticles. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 15643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Reisgen, M.; Thomas, K.; Beilmann, V.; Markert, A.; Gerhards, B.; Krichel, T.; Schmidt, K.; Kraus, T.; Martin, C.; Brand, P.; et al. The role of cell-derived inflammation in metal fume fever–blood count changes after exposure with zinc- and copper-containing welding fumes. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 56, 648. [Google Scholar]
  76. Brenner, B.E.; Keyes, D. Metal Fume Fever. 2023. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK583199 (accessed on 1 November 2024).
  77. Mueller, E.J.; Seger, D.L. Metal fume fever—A review. J. Emerg. Med. 1985, 2, 271–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. He, X.; Zhao, Q.; Chai, X.; Song, Y.; Li, X.; Lu, X.; Li, S.; Chen, X.; Yuan, Y.; Cai, Z.; et al. Contribution and Effects of PM2.5-Bound Lead to the Cardiovascular Risk of Workers in a Non-Ferrous Metal Smelting Area Considering Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 1743–1754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Varshney, P.; Bansal, R.; Tiwari, R.; Halve, A.K.; Taneja, A. Atmospheric Concentration of Trace Metals in PM2.5 and Their Bioavailability in Different Areas of Gwalior Region. Int. J. Appl. Chem. 2019, 6, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zheng, Y.; Chen, S.; Chen, Y.; Li, J.; Xu, B.; Shi, T.; Yang, Q. Association between PM2.5-bound metals and pediatric respiratory health in Guangzhou: An ecological study investigating source, health risk, and effect. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1137933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kumar, N. Cutting-Edge Strategies for Reducing Industrial SO2 Emissions. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2023, 12, 1897–1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Urbansci 08 00230 g001
Figure 1. Sampling locations and workshop layouts for PM2.5 collection in blacksmithing factories in Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia.
Figure 1. Sampling locations and workshop layouts for PM2.5 collection in blacksmithing factories in Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia.
Urbansci 08 00230 g001
Urbansci 08 00230 g002
Figure 2. PM2.5 concentration in blacksmithing workshops (WS-A to WS-G) in Bandung Regency, Indonesia.
Figure 2. PM2.5 concentration in blacksmithing workshops (WS-A to WS-G) in Bandung Regency, Indonesia.
Urbansci 08 00230 g002
Urbansci 08 00230 g003
Figure 3. Fraction of (a) each heavy metal, (b) all heavy metals without Fe, and (c) total heavy metal in PM2.5 across blacksmith workshops.
Figure 3. Fraction of (a) each heavy metal, (b) all heavy metals without Fe, and (c) total heavy metal in PM2.5 across blacksmith workshops.
Urbansci 08 00230 g003
Urbansci 08 00230 g004
Figure 4. Pearson correlation between PM2.5 and its heavy metal components.
Figure 4. Pearson correlation between PM2.5 and its heavy metal components.
Urbansci 08 00230 g004
Table 1. PM2.5 concentration and its heavy metal composition in blacksmithing factories, Indonesia.
Table 1. PM2.5 concentration and its heavy metal composition in blacksmithing factories, Indonesia.
WorkshopPM2.5 (µg/m3)Mg
(µg/m3)		Al
(µg/m3)		Si
(µg/m3)		S
(µg/m3)		Ca
(µg/m3)		Ti
(µg/m3)		Cr
(µg/m3)		Mn
(µg/m3)		Ni
(µg/m3)		Cu
(µg/m3)		Zn
(µg/m3)		As
(µg/m3)		Pb
(µg/m3)		K
(µg/m3)		Fe
(µg/m3)
WS-A455.180.470.040.100.630.060.110.020.200.300.010.450.010.470.748.98
WS-B513.801.770.040.103.680.220.030.380.520.360.450.510.260.5211.3141.63
WS-C203.470.160.040.740.770.050.040.020.120.240.010.160.033.111.877.39
WS-D190.860.140.170.110.010.630.310.090.090.200.020.290.010.300.1316.28
WS-E172.050.170.050.260.412.320.250.020.040.480.020.840.020.130.764.54
WS-F166.880.110.030.080.020.350.030.010.330.140.010.410.000.860.013.67
WS-G315.200.150.050.400.891.010.180.200.240.340.020.860.500.022.8227.14
average288.210.430.060.250.920.660.140.110.220.290.080.500.120.772.5215.66
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oginawati, K.; Faiqah, N.S.A.; Suharyanto; Regia, R.A.; Amin, M. Indoor PM2.5 and Heavy Metal Composition in Blacksmithing Factories: A Pilot Study in Bandung Regency, Indonesia. Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040230

AMA Style

Oginawati K, Faiqah NSA, Suharyanto, Regia RA, Amin M. Indoor PM2.5 and Heavy Metal Composition in Blacksmithing Factories: A Pilot Study in Bandung Regency, Indonesia. Urban Science. 2024; 8(4):230. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040230

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oginawati, Katharina, Naja Safira Al Faiqah, Suharyanto, Rinda Andhita Regia, and Muhammad Amin. 2024. "Indoor PM2.5 and Heavy Metal Composition in Blacksmithing Factories: A Pilot Study in Bandung Regency, Indonesia" Urban Science 8, no. 4: 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040230

APA Style

Oginawati, K., Faiqah, N. S. A., Suharyanto, Regia, R. A., & Amin, M. (2024). Indoor PM2.5 and Heavy Metal Composition in Blacksmithing Factories: A Pilot Study in Bandung Regency, Indonesia. Urban Science, 8(4), 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8040230

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop