Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Probabilistic estimation of residential air exchange rates for population-based human exposure modeling


Residential air exchange rates (AERs) are a key determinant in the infiltration of ambient air pollution indoors. Population-based human exposure models using probabilistic approaches to estimate personal exposure to air pollutants have relied on input distributions from AER measurements. An algorithm for probabilistically estimating AER was developed based on the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory Infiltration model utilizing housing characteristics and meteorological data with adjustment for window opening behavior. The algorithm was evaluated by comparing modeled and measured AERs in four US cities (Los Angeles, CA; Detroit, MI; Elizabeth, NJ; and Houston, TX) inputting study-specific data. The impact on the modeled AER of using publically available housing data representative of the region for each city was also assessed. Finally, modeled AER based on region-specific inputs was compared with those estimated using literature-based distributions. While modeled AERs were similar in magnitude to the measured AER they were consistently lower for all cities except Houston. AERs estimated using region-specific inputs were lower than those using study-specific inputs due to differences in window opening probabilities. The algorithm produced more spatially and temporally variable AERs compared with literature-based distributions reflecting within- and between-city differences, helping reduce error in estimates of air pollutant exposure.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3


  1. Kearney J, Wallace L, MacNeill M, Héroux M-E, Kindzierski W, Wheeler A . Residential infiltration of fine and ultrafine particles in Edmonton. Atmos Environ 2014; 94: 793–805.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Long CM, Sarnat JA . Indoor-outdoor relationships and infiltration behavior of elemental components of outdoor PM2.5 for Boston-area homes. Aerosol Sci Technol 2004; 38: 91–104.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hänninen O, Hoek G, Mallone S, Chellini E, Katsouyanni K, Gariazzo C et al. Seasonal patterns of outdoor PM infiltration into indoor environments: review and meta-analysis of available studies from different climatological zones in Europe. Air Qual Atmos Health 2011; 4: 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Breen MS, Schultz BD, Sohn MD, Long T, Langstaff J, Williams R et al. A review of air exchange rate models for air pollution exposure assessments. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 2014; 24: 555–563.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. MacNeill M, Wallace L, Kearney J, Allen RW, Van Ryswyk K, Judek S et al. Factors influencing variability in the infiltration of PM2.5 mass and its components. Atmos Environ 2012; 61: 518–532.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hodas N, Turpin BJ, Lunden MM, Baxter LK, Ozkaynak H, Burke J et al. Refined ambient PM2.5 exposure surrogates and the risk of myocardial infarction. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 573–580.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarnat JA, Sarnat SE, Flanders WD, Chang HH, Mulholland J, Baxter L et al. Spatiotemporally resolved air exchange rate as a modifier of acute air pollution-related morbidity in Atlanta. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 606–615.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones RR, Ozkaynak H, Nayak SG, Garcia V, Hwang S-A, Lin S . Associations between summertime ambient pollutants and respiratory morbidity in New York City: comparison of results using ambient concentrations versus predicted exposures. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 616–626.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mannshardt E, Sucic K, Jiao W, Dominici F, Frey HC, Reich B et al. Comparing exposure metrics for the effects of fine particulate matter on emergency hospital admissions. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 627–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Baxter LK, Dionisio KL, Burke J, Ebelt Sarnat S, Sarnat JA, Hodas N et al. Exposure prediction approaches used in air pollution epidemiology studies: key findings and future recommendations. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 654–659.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sarnat SE, Sarnat JA, Mulholland J, Isakov V, Ozkaynak H, Chang HH et al. Application of alternative spatiotemporal metrics of ambient air pollution exposure in a time-series epidemiological study in Atlanta. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 593–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cao Y, Frey HC . Geographic differences in inter-individual variability of human exposure to fine particulate matter. Atmos Environ 2011; 45: 5684–5691.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Burke JM, Zufall MJ, Ozkaynak H . A population exposure model for particulate matter: case study results for PM2.5 in Philadelphia, PA. J Exp Anal Environ Epidemiol 2001; 11: 470–489.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Georgopoulos PG, Wang S-W, Vyas VM, Sun Q, Burke J, Vedantham R et al. A source-to-dose assessment of population exposures to fine PM and ozone in Philadelphia, PA during a summer 1999 episode. J Exp Anal Environ Epidemiol 2005; 15: 439–457.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Isaacs K, Burke J, Smith L, Williams R . Identifying housing and meteorological conditions influencing residential air exchange rates in the DEARS and RIOPA studies: development of distributions for human exposure modeling. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 248–258.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Chan WR, Nazaroff WW, Price PN, Sohn MD, Gadgil AJ . Analyzing a database of residential air leakage in the United States. Atmos Environ 2005; 39: 3444–3455.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sherman M, Dickerhoff D . Air-tightness of U.S. Dwellings. Buxton, UK: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 1994 Contract No.: LBL-35700.

  18. Baxter LK, Burke J, Lunden M, Turpin BJ, Rich DQ, Thevenet-Morrison K et al. Influence of human activity patterns, particle composition, and residential air exchange rates on modeled distributions of PM2.5 exposure compared with central-site monitoring data. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2013; 23: 241–247.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Weisel CP, Zhang J, Turpin BJ, Morandi MT, Colome S, Stock TH et al. Relationship of Indoor, Outdoor and Personal Air (RIOPA) study: study design, methods and quality assurance/control results. J Exp Anal Environ Epidemiol 2005; 15: 123–137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Williams R, Rea A, Vette A, Croghan C, Whitaker D, Stevens C et al. The design and field implementation of the Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol 2008; 19: 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Breen MS, Breen M, Williams RW, Schultz BD . Predicting residential air exchange rates from questionnaire and meterology: model evaluation in central North Carolina. Environ Sci Technol 2010; 44: 9349–9356.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. American Community Survey (2010). Available from

  23. American Housing Survey (2014). US Census Bureau. Available from

  24. Johnson TA . A Guide to Selected Algorithms, Distributions, and Databases Used in Exposure Models Developed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development: Research Triangle Park, NC. 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Murray DM, Burmaster DE . Residential air exchange rates in the United States: empirical and estimated parametric distributions by season and climatic region. Risk Anal 1995; 15: 459–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnson T, Long T . Determining the frequency of open windows in residences: a pilot study in Durham, North Carolina during varying temperature conditions. J Exp Anal Environ Epidemiol 2005; 15: 329–349.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Logue JM, Sherman MH, Lunden MM, Klepeis NE, Williams R, Croghan C et al. Development and assessment of a physics-based simulation model to investigate residential PM2.5 infiltration across the US housing stock. Build Environ 2015; 94: 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would also like to thank Kathie Dionisio of the US EPA’s National Exposure Laboratory for her scientific guidance on this manuscript. The United States Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and Development partially funded and collaborated in the research described here under contract number EPD10070 to Alion Science and Technology Inc. It has been subjected to Agency review and approved for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa K Baxter.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baxter, L., Stallings, C., Smith, L. et al. Probabilistic estimation of residential air exchange rates for population-based human exposure modeling. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 27, 227–234 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • air exchange rates
  • air pollution
  • exposure error
  • exposure modeling
  • infiltration
  • model evaluation

This article is cited by


Quick links