4.6 Article

Household CO and PM measured as part of a review of China's National Improved Stove Program

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 189-203

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00465.x

关键词

indoor air pollution; particulate matter; carbon monoxide; seasonal change in fuel use; mixed fuels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 2001-2003, a team of researchers from the United States and China performed an independent, multidisciplinary review of China's National Improved Stove Program carried out since the 1980s. As part of a 3500-household survey, a subsample of 396 rural households were monitored for particulate matter less than 4 Pin (PM4) in kitchens and living rooms over 24 h, of which 159 were measured in both summer and winter. Carbon monoxide was measured in a 40% subsample.The results of this indoor air quality (IAQ) component indicate that for nearly all household stove or fuel groupings, PM4 levels were higher than - and sometimes more than twice as high as - the national PM10 standard for indoor air (150 mu g PM, (10)/m(2)). If these results are typical, then a large fraction of China's rural population is now chronically exposed to levels of pollution far higher than those determined by the Chinese government to harm human health. Further, we observed highly diverse fuel usage patterns in these regions in China, supporting the observations in the household survey of multiple stoves being present in many kitchens. Improved stoves resulted in reduced PM4 from biomass fuel combinations, but still not at levels that meet standards, and little improvement was observed in indoor pollution levels when other unimproved stoves were present in the same kitchen. As many households change fuels according to daily and seasonal factors, resulting in different seasonal concentrations in living rooms and kitchens, assessing health implications from fuel use requires longituinal evaluation of fuel use and IAQ levels, combined with accurate time-activity information.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据