Article

Indoor carbon monoxide and PM2.5 concentrations by cooking fuels in Pakistan.

Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California at Davis, CA, USA.
Indoor Air (Impact Factor: 3.3). 12/2008; 19(1):75-82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00563.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In developing countries biomass combustion is a frequently used source of domestic energy and may cause indoor air pollution. Carbon monoxide (CO)and particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 lm or less (PM2.5)were measured in kitchens using wood or natural gas (NG) in a semi-rural community in Pakistan. Daytime CO and PM2.5 levels were measured for eight continuous hours in 51 wood and 44 NG users from December 2005 to April 2006. The laser photometer PM2.5 (Dustrak, TSI) was calibrated for field conditions and PM2.5 measurements were reduced by a factor of 2.77. CO was measured by an electrochemical monitor (Model T15v, Langan). The arithmetic mean for daytime CO concentration was 29.4 ppm in wood users; significantly higher than 7.5 ppm in NG users (P < 0.001). The arithmetic mean for daytime PM2.5 concentrations was 2.74 mg/m3 in wood users; significantly higher than 0.38 mg/m3 in NG users (P < 0.001). Higher peak levels of CO and PM2.5 were also observed in wood users. Time spent in the kitchen during fuel burning was significantly related to increasing CO and PM2.5 concentrations in wood users.These findings suggest that cooking with wood fuel may lead to hazardous concentrations of CO and PM2.5. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Biomass combustion is frequently used in developing countries for cooking. This study showed very high level of air pollution in kitchens using wood as the cooking fuel. Many people, especially women and children, are vulnerable to exposure to very high levels of air pollutants as they spend time in the kitchen during cooking hours.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
201 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has recently been estimated that 4 million deaths each year are associated with air pollution originating from household solid fuel use. Interventions to reduce biomass fuel-related emissions can yield a diverse stream of benefits including improved public health, socio-economic development, reduced land degradation and climate change mitigation. This study investigates the use of indigenous knowledge to inform interventions to combat indoor air pollution at a rural site in the Punjab province of Pakistan. The results indicate that the majority of people using biomass fuel had knowledge of its ill health effects. A range of methods were utilised to reduce indoor smoke including cooking in open spaces, use of chimneys, better ventilation and use of dry fuel. Education and housing type showed a statistically significant relationship with awareness of methods to reduce indoor exposure to biomass smoke. These findings lend support to the notion that communities have indigenous knowledge and their own methods to reduce exposure to indoor smoke from biomass fuels; this knowledge can be used as tool to design and implement sustainable intervention strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to indoor air pollution. It is recommended that a community based intervention focusing on locally manufactured improved stoves and better designed cooking spaces would be a suitable intervention in this region.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN. 06/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine cooking practices and 24-h personal and kitchen area exposures to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and black carbon in cooks using biomass in Ghana. Researchers administered a detailed survey to 421 households. In a sub-sample of 36 households, researchers collected 24-h integrated PM2.5 samples (personal and kitchen area); in addition, the primary cook was monitored for real-time PM2.5. All filters were also analyzed for black carbon using a multi-wavelength reflectance method. Predictors of PM2.5 exposure were analyzed, including cooking behaviors, fuel, stove and kitchen type, weather, demographic factors and other smoke sources. The majority of households cooked outdoors (55%; 231/417), used biomass (wood or charcoal) as their primary fuel (99%; 412/413), and cooked on traditional fires (77%, 323/421). In the sub-sample of 29 households with complete, valid exposure monitoring data, the 24-h integrated concentrations of PM2.5 were substantially higher in the kitchen sample (mean 446.8µg/m(3)) than in the personal air sample (mean 128.5µg/m(3)). Black carbon concentrations followed the same pattern such that concentrations were higher in the kitchen sample (14.5µg/m(3)) than in the personal air sample (8.8µg/m(3)). Spikes in real-time personal concentrations of PM2.5 accounted for the majority of exposure; the most polluted 5%, or 72min, of the 24-h monitoring period accounted for 75% of all exposure. Two variables that had some predictive power for personal PM2.5 exposures were primary fuel type and ethnicity, while reported kerosene lantern use was associated with increased personal and kitchen area concentrations of black carbon. Personal concentrations of PM2.5 exhibited considerable inter-subject variability across kitchen types (enclosed, semi-enclosed, outdoor), and can be elevated even in outdoor cooking settings. Furthermore, personal concentrations of PM2.5 were not associated with kitchen type and were not predicted by kitchen area samples; rather they were driven by spikes in PM2.5 concentrations during cooking. Personal exposures were more enriched with black carbon when compared to kitchen area samples, underscoring the need to explore other sources of incomplete combustion such as roadway emissions, charcoal production and kerosene use.
    Environmental Research 10/2013; · 3.24 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Burning biomass fuels indoors for cooking is associated with high concentrations of particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO). More efficient biomass-burning stoves and chimneys for ventilation have been proposed as solutions to reduce indoor pollution. We sought to quantify indoor PM and CO exposures in urban and rural households and determine factors associated with higher exposures. A secondary objective was to identify chronic vs. acute changes in cardiopulmonary biomarkers associated with exposure to biomass smoke. We conducted a census survey followed by a cross-sectional study of indoor environmental exposures and cardiopulmonary biomarkers in the main household cook in Puno, Peru. We measured 24-hour indoor PM and CO concentrations in 86 households. We also measured PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations gravimetrically for 24 hours in urban households and during cook times in rural households, and generated a calibration equation using PM2.5 measurements. In a census of 4903 households, 93% vs. 16% of rural vs. urban households used an open-fire stove; 22% of rural households had a homemade chimney; and <3% of rural households participated in a national program encouraging installation of a chimney. Median 24-hour indoor PM2.5 and CO concentrations were 130 vs. 22 mug/m3 and 5.8 vs. 0.4 ppm (all p<0.001) in rural vs. urban households. Having a chimney did not significantly reduce median concentrations in 24-hour indoor PM2.5 (119 vs. 137 mug/m3; p=0.40) or CO (4.6 vs. 7.2 ppm; p=0.23) among rural households with and without chimneys. Having a chimney did not significantly reduce median cook-time PM2.5 (360 vs. 298 mug/m3, p=0.45) or cook-time CO concentrations (15.2 vs. 9.4 ppm, p=0.23). Having a thatched roof (p=0.007) and hours spent cooking (p=0.02) were associated with higher 24-hour average PM concentrations. Rural participants had higher median exhaled CO (10 vs. 6 ppm; p=0.01) and exhaled carboxyhemoglobin (1.6% vs. 1.0%; p=0.04) than urban participants. Indoor air concentrations associated with biomass smoke were six-fold greater in rural vs. urban households. Having a homemade chimney did not reduce environmental exposures significantly. Measures of exhaled CO provide useful cardiopulmonary biomarkers for chronic exposure to biomass smoke.
    Environmental Health 03/2014; 13(1):21. · 2.71 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
2 Downloads
Available from