Indoor PM and CO concentrations in rural Guizhou, China

Personal exposure to PM 2.5 in Chinese rural households in the Yangtze River Delta

“…After excluding the interference of the high PM 2.5 concentration in kitchens (only households where LPG was the main cooking fuel during monitoring were analyzed here), the results reveal that the daily average PM 2.5 exposure levels of smokers and passive smokers were about 61 μg/m 3 (SD 7) and 62 μg/m 3 (SD 31), respectively, both somewhat higher than that of non‐smokers, which was 48 μg/m 3 (SD 27) ( P = 0.130 and P = 0.128, respectively). This is consistent with previous studies . The variance of levels of personal exposure among smokers was smaller, stemming from the fact that the sample included only a few smokers, which might have affected the result.…”

“…Such studies are inadequate for elucidating the characteristics of rural personal PM 2.5 exposure in different microenvironments and are not ideally suited for measuring peak exposures, since personal activity pattern is a source of unexplained variability when comparing personal PM 2.5 exposure . A few studies have used low‐cost, lightweight, portable online instruments to measure particle concentration or personal exposure, but such monitors are still rarely used in rural China. A study of Guizhou used portable monitors to determine the daily PM 2.5 concentration levels in a range of kitchens using different fuels, but as the time‐activity pattern was not measured, the study did not identify the exposure concentration during cooking.…”

“…A few studies have used low‐cost, lightweight, portable online instruments to measure particle concentration or personal exposure, but such monitors are still rarely used in rural China. A study of Guizhou used portable monitors to determine the daily PM 2.5 concentration levels in a range of kitchens using different fuels, but as the time‐activity pattern was not measured, the study did not identify the exposure concentration during cooking. Generally speaking, quantification of personal exposure by combining PM 2.5 exposure concentration in different microenvironments and time‐activity patterns has not taken place in studies of rural China.…”

PM 2.5 in household kitchens of Bhaktapur, Nepal, using four different cooking fuels

“…In particular, the UCB-PATS (University of California, Berkeley-Particle and Temperature monitoring System) has been used in small HAP monitoring studies around the world (Alnes et al, 2014;Armendariz-Arnez et al, 2010;Chengappa et al, 2007;Chowdhury et al, 2007b;Clark et al, 2011;Gurley et al, 2013a;Masera et al, 2007;Northcross et al, 2010;Sanbata et al, 2014). See web supplement.…”

Field-based safety guidelines for solid fuel household cookstoves in developing countries

“…A variety of test methods and metrics are available for cookstove thermal efficiency and emissions testing, and a number of testing efforts focused on thermal efficiency and emissions have been reported (Jetter and Kariher, 2009;MacCarty et al, 2010). Several investigators have examined the human health effects from exposure to particular matter and carbon monoxide emissions and the safety of cookstoves based on the cookstove emissions (Alnes et al, 2014;Ezzati et al, 2000;Grabow et al, 2013;Smith et al, 2004;Smith et al, 2010;WHO, 2014). In contrast, little attention has been given to developing a structured process to rate and improve cookstoves on directcontact hazards that cause burns, cuts, and scalds.…”