4.8 Article

Indoor respirable particulate matter concentrations from an open fire, improved cookstove, and LPG/open fire combination in a rural Guatemalan community

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 35, 期 13, 页码 2650-2655

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es001940m

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Improved biomass cookstoves have the potential to reduce pollutant emissions and thereby reduce pollution exposure among populations in developing countries who cook daily with biomass fuels. However, evaluation of such interventions has been very limited. This article presents results from a study carried out in 30 households in rural Guatemala. Twenty-four hour PM3.5 concentrations were compared over 8 months for three fuel/cookstove conditions (n = 10 households for each condition): a traditional open fire cookstove, an improved cookstove called the plancha mejorada, and a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stove/ open fire combination. Twenty-four hour geometric mean PM3.5 concentrations were 1560 mug/m(3) (n = 58; 95% C.I. 1310, 1850), 280 mug/m(3) (n = 59; 95% C.I. 240-320), and 850 mug/ m(3) (n = 60; 95% C.I. 680-1050) far the open fire, plancha, and LPG/open fire combination, respectively. A generalized estimating equation model showed a 45% reduction in PM3.5 concentrations for the LPG/open fire combination as compared to the open fire alone. The difference approached significance (p < 0.0737). The plancha showed an 85% reduction in PM3.5 concentrations as compared to the open fire (p < 0.0001). An analysis of the interaction of time with stove type showed that the temporal trend in pollution did not significantly differ among the three stove types. The reduced PM3.5 concentrations were maintained over time. Season did not affect pollutant concentrations. Of the two interventions, the plancha appears to offer the best prospects for achieving substantial reductions in indoor air pollution levels, although issues of cost and stove maintenance remain to be addressed.

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

4.8
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