Evaluation of the effectiveness of a portable air cleaner in mitigating indoor human exposure to cooking-derived airborne particles

Sharma, Ruchi; Balasubramanian, Rajasekhar

doi:10.1016/j.envres.2020.109192

Cited by 39 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the aforementioned indoor air pollution sources, cooking has been identified as one of the major sources of indoor PM, especially UFPs, which are a by-product of gas-stove combustion and/or are released from food ingredients in developed countries and biomass-based cooking ( Kabera et al, 2020 ; Pollard et al, 2014 ; See and Balasubramanian, 2006 ; Zhao and Zhao, 2018 ). Certain types of cooking such as deep-frying, pan-frying or roast cooking can generate elevated levels of PM 2.5 that are similar to the concentrations observed in the world’s most polluted cities ( Patel et al, 2020 ; See and Balasubramanian, 2008 ; Sharma and Balasubramanian, 2020 ). Apart from intense and frequent cooking activities, the COVID-19 pandemic also has stimulated people to clean their homes frequently and with stronger chemicals or detergents to reduce the potential of viral infection ( Anthes, 2020 ).…”

Section: Factors Affecting Iaq and Their Impactsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Air quality changes in cities during the COVID-19 lockdown: A critical review

Adam

Tran

Balasubramanian

2021

Atmospheric Research

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to the rapid spread of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) within and across countries and the need to protect public health, governments worldwide introduced unprecedented measures such as restricted road and air travel and reduced human mobility in 2020. The curtailment of personal travel and economic activity provided a unique opportunity for researchers to assess the interplay between anthropogenic emissions of primary air pollutants, their physical transport, chemical transformation, ultimate fate and potential health impacts. In general, reductions in the atmospheric levels of outdoor air pollutants such as particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were observed in many countries during the lockdowns. However, the levels of ozone (O 3 ), a secondary air pollutant linked to asthma and respiratory ailments, and secondary PM were frequently reported to remain unchanged or even increase. An increase in O 3 can enhance the formation of secondary PM 2.5 , especially secondary organic aerosols, through the atmospheric oxidation of VOCs. Given that the gaseous precursors of O 3 (VOCs and NO x ) are also involved in the formation of secondary PM 2.5, an integrated control strategy should focus on reducing the emission of the common precursors for the co-mitigation of PM 2.5 and O 3 with an emphasis on their complex photochemical interactions. Compared to outdoor air quality, comprehensive investigations of indoor air quality (IAQ) are relatively sparse. People spend more than 80% of their time indoors with exposure to air pollutants of both outdoor and indoor origins. Consequently, an integrated assessment of exposure to air pollutants in both outdoor and indoor microenvironments is needed for effective urban air quality management and for mitigation of health risk. To provide further insights into air quality, we provide a critical review of scientific articles, published from January 2020 to December 2020 across the globe. Finally, we discuss policy implications of our review in the context of global air quality improvement.

show abstract

Section: Factors Affecting Iaq and Their Impactsmentioning

confidence: 75%

Air quality changes in cities during the COVID-19 lockdown: A critical review

Adam

Tran

Balasubramanian

2021

Atmospheric Research

Self Cite

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various studies support the findings of this work that the particle emissions during cooking heavily depend on the type of meal and preparation method. For example, frying generates more particles than boiling [15,48,49] The OPC-N3 built-in algorithm allows estimation of PM concentrations as a function of particle number concentration in corresponding particle diameter bins, with the assumption of an average particle density of 1.65 g/cm 3 . The PM values are determined according to European Standard EN 481.…”

Section: Daymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown

Kaliszewski

Włodarski

Młyńczak

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study shows the results of air monitoring in high- and low-occupancy rooms using two combinations of sensors, AeroTrak8220(TSI)/OPC-N3 (AlphaSense, Great Notley, UK) and OPC-N3/PMS5003 (Plantower, Beijing, China), respectively. The tests were conducted in a flat in Warsaw during the restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The results showed that OPC-N3 underestimates the PN (particle number concentration) by about 2–3 times compared to the AeroTrak8220. Subsequently, the OPC-N3 was compared with another low-cost sensor, the PMS5003. Both devices showed similar efficiency in PN estimation, whereas PM (particulate matter) concentration estimation differed significantly. Moreover, the relationship among the PM1–PM2.5–PM10 readings obtained with the PMS5003 appeared improbably linear regarding the natural indoor conditions. The correlation of PM concentrations obtained with the PMS5003 suggests an oversimplified calculation method of PM. The studies also demonstrated that PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 concentrations in the high- to low-occupancy rooms were about 3, 2, and 1.5 times, respectively. On the other hand, the use of an air purifier considerably reduced the PM concentrations to similar levels in both rooms. All the sensors showed that frying and toast-making were the major sources of particulate matter, about 10 times higher compared to average levels. Considerably lower particle levels were measured in the low-occupancy room.

show abstract

“…Gas cooking is an important source of airborne fine particulate matter indoor because exposure to cooking-derived fine particulate matter will lead to adverse human health impacts on non-smokers, especially in poorly-ventilated residential homes [25]. Sharma and Balasubramanian recommend carbon-free combustion methods of cooking such as solar, electric and hydrogen cooking [26]. Solar cooking has reliability issues while hydrogen cooking is a new concept.…”

Section: Cooking Energy and Cleanlinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Cooking Systems and Energy Efficiencies

Ayub¹,

Ambusso²,

Manene³

et al. 2021

AJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accessing affordable and reliable energy services for cooking is important in most developing countries. Improving access to affordable energy reduces effects on human health and environmental influences caused by burning of various biomasses. This review examines the energy resources available in the world and their use in cooking. It also looks at challenges and the ways these energy resources are used as well as possible solutions to such challenges. The major challenges facing the use of available fuels are low efficiencies, high cost, un-sustainability and indoor house pollution that affect many people. The paper has identified that the use of combustion-less cooking, the use of solar for cooking, hydrogen and electrical systems that improve cooking activities and therefore overcome indoor and environmental pollution. Research findings indicate that the pressure-cooking concept improves energy efficiencies in boiling operations. Other energy efficiency improvement techniques in cooking are insulation, containment of escaping steam while cooking and automating the cooking vessel with micro-controllers. The overall efficiencies for electrical induction heating, natural gas, traditional cooking stoves, fuel wood stoves and electrical resistive heating was found to be 90%, 45-60%, 10%, 23-40% and 75% respectively. Induction cooking is both faster and more efficient than gas cooking, while electrical energy systems as a whole were found to be the cleanest, offering ease of control and versatility. The combination of a micro-controller automated insulated pressure cooker and induction cooker can highly improve the cooking efficiency. This is done by cutting a power supply using a relay controlling an induction cooker and therefore preventing the exit of steam. It is therefore identified that zero emission release during cooking will reduce both indoor and environmental pollution significantly.

show abstract

Evaluation of the effectiveness of a portable air cleaner in mitigating indoor human exposure to cooking-derived airborne particles

Cited by 39 publications

References 59 publications

Air quality changes in cities during the COVID-19 lockdown: A critical review

Air quality changes in cities during the COVID-19 lockdown: A critical review

Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown

A Review of Cooking Systems and Energy Efficiencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About