Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jan 2.
Published in final edited form as: Environ Int. 2020 Nov 19;146:106254. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106254

Table 3.

Mean ambient conditions for the 24-h prior to treatment.

Treatment Number of Days PM2.5, μg/m3 Temperature, °C Relative Humidity, %
All 81 7 ± 4 (1, 19) 10 ± 7 (− 8, 24) 49 ± 14 (23, 81)
Control 15 5 ± 3 (2, 13) 7 ± 6 (− 7, 20) 56 ± 13 (27, 80)
LPG 13 8 ± 5 (3, 19) 11 ± 5 (3, 24) 47 ± 11 (29, 67)
Gasifier 13 5 ± 3 (1, 11) 7 ± 7 (− 6, 14) 50 ± 12 (32, 69)
Fan rocket 14 9 ± 4 (2, 18)** 16 ± 6** (5, 23) 42 ± 13 (23, 69) **
Rocket elbow 14 6 ± 2 (3, 9) 13 ± 10 (− 8, 24) 44 ± 13 (27, 67)
Three stone fire 12 6 ± 3 (1, 12) 7 ± 5 (− 3, 15) 56 ± 14 (40, 81)

Ambient parameter values are presented as Mean ± S.D. (Minimum, Maximum). Abbreviations: S.D. = standard deviation; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter (particles of <2.5 μm diameter); LPG = liquified petroleum gas.

Kruskal-Wallis rank sum testing outcome; significantly different value compared to values of other treatments:

*

p < 0.05

**

p < 0.01.