Emission Rates of Multiple Air Pollutants ... - ACS Publications

Subscriber access provided by READING UNIV

Article

Emission Rates of Multiple Air Pollutants Generated from Chinese Residential Cooking Chen Chen, Yuejing Zhao, and Bin Zhao Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05600 • Publication Date (Web): 05 Jan 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 5, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 23

Environmental Science & Technology

1

Emission Rates of Multiple Air Pollutants Generated

2

from Chinese Residential Cooking

3

Chen Chen†,§, Yuejing Zhao†,§, Bin Zhao*,†,‡

4

†

5

China.

6

‡

7

Beijing, 100084, China.

Department of Building Science, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084,

Beijing Key Laboratory of Indoor Air Quality Evaluation and Control, Tsinghua University,

8 9 10

KEYWORDS: Indoor air quality; particulate matter; volatile organic compounds; formaldehyde; range hood

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1


Page 2 of 23

11

ABSTRACT

12

Household air pollution generated from cooking is severe, especially for Chinese-style cooking.

13

We measured the emission rates of multiple air pollutants including fine particles (PM2.5),

14

ultrafine particles (UFPs), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, including formaldehyde,

15

benzene, and toluene) that were generated from typical Chinese cooking in a residential kitchen.

16

The experiment was designed through five-factor and five-level orthogonal testing. The five key

17

factors were cooking method, ingredient weight, type of meat, type of oil, and meat/vegetable

18

ratio. The measured emission rates (mean value ± standard deviation) of PM2.5, UFPs,

19

formaldehyde, total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs), benzene, and toluene were 2.056 ±

20

3.034 mg/min, 9.102 ± 6.909 × 1012 #/min, 1.273 ± 0.736 mg/min, 1.349 ± 1.376 mg/min, 0.074

21

± 0.039 mg/min, and 0.004 ± 0.004 mg/min. Cooking method was the most influencing factor for

22

the emission rates of PM2.5, UFPs, formaldehyde, TVOCs, and benzene, but not for toluene.

23

Meanwhile, the emission rate of PM2.5 was also significantly influenced by ingredient weight,

24

type of meat, and meat/vegetable ratio. Exhausting the range hood decreased the emission rates

25

by approximately 58%, with a corresponding air change rate of 21.38 /h for the kitchen room.


2

Page 3 of 23


26

INTRODUCTION

27

Cooking can generate high levels of multiple pernicious air pollutants including fine particles

28

(PM2.5; particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 µm)1, ultrafine particles

29

(UFPs; particulate matter with diameter less than 0.1 µm)1 and other volatile organic compounds

30

(VOCs)2, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)3. Epidemiologic evidence confirmed the

31

association between exposure to cooking fumes and lung cancer risk, especially in poor

32

ventilation situations4-8. Considering the fact that people spend 60-70% of their time in

33

residences9-12 and cooking is a significant source of indoor air pollutants13, assessing human

34

exposure to residential cooking fumes is important. Compared with Western cooking, household

35

air pollution generated from Chinese cooking is much more severe, with more air pollutants

36

produced owing to the special cooking style14. The majority of Chinese women have cooked

37

daily for years15, but over half of Chinese residential kitchens are poorly ventilated15-16, leading

38

to long-term exposure to indoor high-concentration cooking-generated pollutants, and thus

39

resulting in adverse health effects in China.

40

Referring to the existing literature, we found the average or peak concentrations are frequently

41

constructed as a direct parameter of Chinese cooking emissions in most of the previous studies3,

42

14, 17-20

43

conditions. A few previous studies on Chinese cooking (most are for commercial restaurants)

44

present the emission rate to the atmosphere21-24, which is different from the emission rate to the

45

indoor environment discussed in this study. The former is influenced by the exhaust air rate and

46

the cooking procedures simultaneously and cannot be used to estimate the concentration levels of

47

indoor pollutants. The previous emission rates of pollutants generated from Chinese cooking for

48

the indoor environment are based on oil heating or a limited number of specific dishes; hence,

; however, they are always influenced by various durations, room volumes, and ventilation


3


Page 4 of 23

49

the results only focus on particle emissions but fail to consider gaseous pollutants25-30. Thus,

50

detailed information regarding the emission rate of multiple pollutants generated from Chinese

51

cooking, which is the base for ventilation or other controlling measures design, is still lacking.

52

Therefore, it is of significance to study the emission rate of air pollutants generated via Chinese

53

cooking, which has high potential use for population exposure assessment to air pollution and

54

ventilation design in residential kitchens.

55

We determined the emission rates of PM2.5, UFP, and VOCs based on orthogonal test methods

56

considering five key factors, i.e., cooking method, ingredient weight, type of meat,

57

meat/vegetable ratio, and type of oil. The removal efficiency of the range hood is also discussed.

58 59

MATERIALS AND METHODS

60

Survey of factors influencing Chinese cooking

61

It has been summarized that emissions of air pollutants during cooking depend strongly on the

62

ingredients, type of oil, type of stove, cooking duration and oil temperature3, 20, 26. Oil weight,

63

cooking duration and oil temperature are always influenced by the cooking methods. In China,

64

most household fuel used for cooking is gas31. Therefore, five key factors, i.e., cooking method,

65

the weight of ingredients (meat and vegetables), type of meat, ratio of meat to vegetables, and

66

type of oil, were taken into consideration in this study.

67

We conducted an online survey of 309 families to determine common cooking behaviors in

68

China. Detailed results of such are listed in the Supporting Information (Tables S1-S5). The

69

majority of Chinese families use natural gas for cooking (Table S1). The five most popular


4

Page 5 of 23


70

cooking methods, ingredient weights, types of meat, and types of oil were incorporated based on

71

the survey (Tables S2-S5). The meat/vegetable ratios ranged from 0.00 (only vegetables) to 1.00

72

(only meat) in intervals of 0.25. The survey showed that Chinese people prefer to stir-fry, boil,

73

steam, stew, pan-fry, and deep-fry at home, 84.5% of which stir-fry most frequently. However,

74

different from the other cooking methods, less than 10% of people wait in the kitchen while

75

stewing, thus the other five most prevalent cooking methods, i.e., stir-frying, boiling, steaming,

76

pan-frying, and deep-frying, were chosen for this study. 98% Chinese families cook for no more

77

than five persons, thus ingredient weights used in this study were for 1-5 persons. According to

78

the professional cook who performed the cooking in the experiments, the suggestive value of

79

total ingredient weight per person is 120 g. The survey showed that 78.5% Chinese people prefer

80

pork for cooking while another 20.8% people prefer beef, mutton, fish or chicken. Besides,

81

91.9% Chinese people use peanut oil, blend oil, canola oil, sunflower oil or soybean oil during

82

cooking.

83

Orthogonal test

84

We designed an orthogonal test to cover the typical Chinese cooking styles considering the five

85

key factors above and a dummy blank factor simultaneously. The blank factor was set for error

86

estimation. The L25 (56) orthogonal table was designed with six factors (cooking method,

87

ingredient weight, type of meat, type of oil, meat/vegetable ratio, and blank), as shown in the

88

Supporting Information (Table S6), using SPSS 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), each

89

with five levels. The 25 rows correspond to 25 experiments. The cooking methods included stir-

90

frying, boiling, steaming, pan-frying, and deep-frying. The ingredient weights were for one

91

person to five persons. Pork, beef, mutton, fish and chicken were selected as the types of meat


5


Page 6 of 23

92

used in this study. The types of oil were peanut oil, blend oil, canola oil, sunflower oil and

93

soybean oil. Meat/vegetable ratios were 0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00.

94

Determination of pollutant emission rates

95

1) Emission rate of particulate matter

96

Assuming that air is well mixed in the kitchen and the ambient concentration is steady, the mass

97

balance equation for PM2.5 and UFPs can be expressed as:

98

dCin, p ( t ) dt

= aPCout − λCin, p ( t ) +

Sp V

(1)

99

where , is the real-time indoor concentration of particulate matter at the measuring

100

moment , is the air change rate, is the penetration factor of outdoor particles entering the

101

indoor environment through the building envelope, is the outdoor concentration of

102

particulate matter, is the total removal rate due to coagulation, deposition and air change rate in

103

the kitchen, is the emission rate of particulate matter, and is the volume of the kitchen.

104

To solve equation (1), we determined the particle concentration at the start time , , , as

105

the steady-state indoor particle concentration before measurement: Cin , p ( t0 ) =

106

reasonable because we waited for a specific long amount of time (at least 22 minutes) before

107

each measurement. Then, the solution of indoor PM2.5 or UFP concentration for equation (1) is:

108

109

Cin , p ( t ) = −

Sp

λV

e − λ∆t + Cin , p ( t0 ) +

Sp

λV

aPCout

λ

, which is

(2)

where ∆ is the duration of cooking, which is equal to − .


6

Page 7 of 23


110

The range hood was off and the windows and door were closed during measurements, leading to

111

a small value of air change rate , which is helpful for improving the fitting accuracy for . The

112

air change rate was measured via the CO2-decay method. The total removal rate λ was

113

determined by measuring particle concentration decay after the cooking finished32.

114

With the results of air change rate , the total removal rate λ, concentration , , and room

115

volume , the nonlinear fitting of the indoor particle concentration increasing curves based on

116

equation (2) was conducted to obtain the emission rate with Origin 9.0.0 (OriginLab Corp.,

117

Northampton, MA, USA).

118

2) Emission rate of gaseous pollutants

119

For gaseous pollutants, the real-time concentration derived from the mass balance equation is: S  S  Cin , g ( t ) = Cin , g ( t0 ) − g  e − a∆t + g aV  aV 

120

(3)

121

where , is the real-time indoor concentration of gaseous pollutants at the measuring

122

moment .

123

The measured durations for formaldehyde and VOCs limit the measured frequencies, especially

124

for a few minutes of stir-frying, pan-frying, and deep-frying. Therefore, formaldehyde and VOC

125

concentrations were measured twice for each experiment. The first time was to measure the

126

indoor gaseous pollutant concentration , at the start time ; the second time was to

127

measure the average indoor gaseous concentration , during cooking (from to ), which can

128

be expressed as:


7


1 − e − a ∆t a ∆ t + e − a ∆t − 1 = Cin , g ( t0 ) + Sg a∆t a 2V ∆t

129

Cin , g

130

Thus, the emission rate can be calculated as:

131

Sg =

  a 2V ∆t e − a∆t − 1 C Cin , g ( t0 )  + in , g  − a∆t a ∆t + e −1  a ∆t 

Page 8 of 23

(4)

(5)

132

3) Removal performance of the range hood

133

The range hood ran during the cooking period for most cases in real-life scenarios. To check the

134

removal effect of the range hood for the cooking-generated pollutants, we also measured the

135

emission rates of air pollutants when the range hood was on.

136

The removal efficiency of the range hood is defined as:

137

 

η = 1 −

S hood S

  × 100% 

(6)

138

where is the emission rate of air pollutants generated from Chinese cooking measured with the

139

range hood off, and is the emission rate measured with the range hood on, the detailed

140

determination of which is shown in Supporting Information “DETERMINATION OF

141

EMISSION RATES WITH THE RANGE HOOD ON”. The windows and the door were closed

142

when the range hood was turned on to ensure the indoor air well mixed.

143

Instrumentation and measurement

144

A residential kitchen ( = 10.88 m! ) located in Beijing was chosen for measurements from

145

April 27, 2017, to September 23, 2017. The layout of the kitchen is shown in Figure 1 and Figure


8

Page 9 of 23


146

S1-(a). Two fans were used to mix the indoor air. The measurement at different locations in the

147

kitchen showed that the average relative differences in the PM concentration is 14%, which

148

indicates the indoor air was mixed well (details shown in Figure S1-(b)).

149 150

Figure 1. Layout of the residential kitchen (three-dimensional view).

151

One laser photometer equipped with a 2.5 µm impactor (AM510; TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN,

152

USA) was used to monitor the real-time mass concentrations of PM2.5. A pump (LP-20; A.P.

153

Buck Inc., Orlando, FL, USA) and a cutting head (PEM, Model 200, PEM-10-2.5; MSP Corp.,

154

Shoreview, MN, USA) were used to collect indoor PM2.5 at a flow rate of 10 L/min during

155

cooking. We calibrated the flow rate using a soap-film calibrator (M-30; A.P. Buck Inc.,

156

Orlando, FL, USA) before sampling to ensure it matched the cutting head. The Teflon filters

157

were weighed on a microbalance accurate to 0.001 mg before and after sampling. The

158

monitoring results of the AM510 were calibrated against the gravimetric measurements. The


9


Page 10 of 23

159

lowest cutoff of an identical condensation particle counter (CPC3007; TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN,

160

USA) is 10 nm (in electrical mobility diameter), and a great majority of the particles produced

161

are less than 100 nm33, so the CPC3007 was used as a UFP monitor in this study with a dilution

162

system (total volume flowrate is 0.7 L/min with a dilution factor of 100; Huifen Corp., Shanghai,

163

China).

164

Formaldehyde in the air was absorbed into a solution in a glass tube containing 5.0 mL of 50

165

µg/mL 3-methyl-2-benzothiazolinone hydrazine (MBTH) using a pump (QC-2; Beijing

166

Municipal Institute Labour Protection, Beijing, China) at a flow rate of 300 mL/min. To

167

determine the formaldehyde concentrations, we added 0.4 mL of 10 g/L ferric ammonium sulfate

168

solution to the sampling tube, shook the tube, and then waited for 15 min. Formaldehyde was

169

converted into a blue cationic dye by the MBTH, and its light absorbance was measured via a

170

spectrophotometer (UNIC 7200; UNIC apparatus Co. Ltd, Shanghai, China) at 630 nm.

171

VOCs in the air was absorbed into a Tenax-TA tube (Markes, UK) using the same pump at a

172

flow rate of 300 mL/min. The Tenax-TA tubes were analyzed by a thermo-desorber (Markes,

173

UK) and gas chromatograph-mass spectrometer (7890B-5977B; Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

174

Analytes were chromatographically resolved on a capillary column (60.0 m × 200 µm × 1.1 µm

175

film thickness, HP-VOC; Agilent). The column temperature program was as follows: 40 ºC for 3

176

min, ramped to 160 ºC at 15 ºC/min and maintained for 2 min, and then ramped to 240 ºC at 10

177

ºC/min (total time 21 min). The mass spectrometer was operated in total ion scan mode so that

178

the entire mass range (35 ≤ m/z ≤ 550) was scanned at a frequency of 1.5 Hz. The thermal

179

desorption system was a two-stage desorption unit. The sequence of operations to thermally

180

desorb the sample from the sorbent tube and transfer it to the gas chromatograph was: (1)

181

primary (tube) desorption (300 ºC, 10 min) and then (2) secondary (trap) desorption (300 ºC, 3


10

Page 11 of 23


182

min). The VOCs toluene, benzene, ethylbenzene, p-xylene, o-xylene, acetic acid butyl ester,

183

styrene, and undecane were quantified using standard compounds whereas the results of other

184

VOCs were expressed as toluene-equivalent concentration.

185

The measuring procedures are shown in the Supporting Information (Figure S2). The pan for

186

stir-frying, pan-frying, and deep-frying was heated for 7 minutes before each experiment to

187

eliminate the influence of particles generated from heating the organic film on the surface34. The

188

residential Chinese cooking procedures were conducted by a professional cook including

189

weighing and preparing the ingredients, cooking, and washing the pans (more than 15 times to

190

repeat scrubbing), which enforced consistency among the repeated experiments. We repeated the

191

measurements for the cooking methods that generated much more pollutants relatively.

192

We measured the air volume rate of the range hood by measuring the airflow speed in the pipe

193

connecting the range hood with a hot-ball anemometer (FB-1; Tianjianhuayi Corp., Beijing,

194

China).

195 196

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

197

Emission rate of PM2.5

198

The emission rates of PM2.5 generated from stir-frying, pan-frying, and deep-frying were

199

calibrated by factors of 0.805, 0.832 and 0.911, respectively, against the gravimetric

200

measurements. The emission rate of PM2.5 generated from Chinese cooking was 2.056 ± 3.034

201

mg/min (mean value ± standard deviation, similarly hereinafter). The emission rate of PM2.5

202

generated from stir-frying, pan-frying, and deep-frying was 3.352 ± 3.358 mg/min. The emission


11


Page 12 of 23

203

rate of PM2.5 generated from the actual cooking was much larger than the operation of the gas

204

stove and the heating of the used pan, which was only 0.398 mg/min.

205

As shown in Figure 2, cooking method, ingredient weight, type of meat, and meat/vegetable ratio

206

were statistically significant factors effecting emission rates of PM2.5, compared to type of oil.

207

The emission rates of PM2.5 generated from stir-frying and pan-frying were significantly higher

208

than those of the other three cooking methods were. When the ingredient weight was small (for 1

209

person), the emission rate of PM2.5 was significantly higher than that of the other four weights

210

(for 2-5 persons). The different types of meat can be divided into three significantly different

211

subsets (fish, chicken, and beef; beef and pork; pork and mutton). Chinese cooking for which the

212

meat/vegetable ratio is 0.25 generated significantly more PM2.5 than the other four ratios did.

213

Detailed PM2.5 results are shown in the Supporting Information (Table S7). In general, the

214

emission rates of PM2.5 generated from Chinese cooking are in the same magnitude of the

215

emission rates generated from Western cooking (details shown in Figure S5).


12

Page 13 of 23


216 217

Figure 2. Emission rates of PM2.5 generated from Chinese cooking (factors sorted from the

218

largest F value to the smallest one).

219

Emission rate of UFPs

220

The emission rate of UFPs generated from Chinese cooking was 9.102 ± 6.909 × 1012 #/min,

221

which was much larger than the operation of the gas stove and the heating of the used pan (5.048

222

× 1011 #/min). As shown in Figure 3, cooking method was a statistically significant factor

223

affecting emission rates of UFPs compared to the other factors. Stir-frying and pan-frying

224

generated significantly more UFPs than deep-frying did, whereas deep-frying generated

225

significantly more UFPs than boiling and steaming did. Detailed measured emission rates of

226

UFPs are shown in the Supporting Information (Table S8). The emission rates of UFPs generated


13


Page 14 of 23

227

from Chinese cooking are higher than the emission rates generated from Western cooking due to

228

its special cooking method (details shown in Figure S5).

229 230

Figure 3. Emission rates of UFPs generated from Chinese cooking (factors sorted from the

231


232

Emission rate of VOCs

233

The emission rate of formaldehyde generated from Chinese cooking was 1.273 ± 0.736 mg/min.

234

As shown in Figure 4, cooking method was a statistically significant factor affecting emission

235

rates of formaldehyde compared to the other factors. Pan-frying and stir-frying generated

236

significantly more formaldehyde than deep-frying did, whereas deep-frying generated

237

significantly more formaldehyde than boiling and steaming did. Detailed measured emission

238

rates of formaldehyde are shown in the Supporting Information (Table S9).


14

Page 15 of 23


239 240

Figure 4. Emission rates of formaldehyde generated from Chinese cooking (factors sorted from

241

the largest F value to the smallest one).

242

Benzene was generated from cooking for all the typical Chinese recipes, and toluene was

243

generated from cooking for 68% of the recipes. The emission rate of benzene was 0.074 ± 0.039

244

mg/min and that of toluene was 0.004 ± 0.004 mg/min. Detailed results are shown in the

245

Supporting Information (Tables S10-11 and Figures S3-4).

246

The emission rate of TVOCs generated from Chinese cooking was 1.349 ± 1.376 mg/min. As

247

shown in Figure 5, cooking method and ingredient weight were statistically significant factors

248

affecting emission rates of TVOCs compared to the other three factors. Pan-frying and stir-frying

249

generated significantly more TVOCs than the other three methods did. The emission rate of


15


Page 16 of 23

250

TVOCs during cooking for a person was significantly higher than that during cooking for 2-5

251

persons. Detailed results are shown in the Supporting Information (Table S11).

252 253

Figure 5. Emission rate of TVOCs generated from Chinese cooking (factors sorted from the

254


255

Removal performance of the range hood

256

We measured the emission rates of PM2.5, UFPs, and formaldehyde for the 6th and 23rd Chinese

257

recipes listed in Table S6 when the range hood was on. The reason why these two recipes were

258

selected is that they are very common Chinese residential dishes and the pollutant emission rates

259

for them are high.


16

Page 17 of 23


260

The measured exhaust air volume rate of the range hood was 3.88 m3/min for the repeated

261

measurements of the emission rate, the corresponding air change rate of which was 21.38 /h for

262

the kitchen room. The exhaust air rate is rated at 15 m3/min, which are in the range of the typical

263

exhaust air rate in our survey (details shown in Figure S7).

264

The removal efficiency of the range hood was 58 ± 6% for PM2.5, 49 ± 4% for UFPs, and 68 ±

265

8% for formaldehyde.

Removal efficiency of range hood

100% 90% 78%

80% 70% 60%

65% 63%

60% 63% 53%

52%

47%

50%

46%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0% PM2.5 PM

UFP UFPs

2.5

1st measurement

2nd measurement

Formaldehyde Formaldehyde 3rd measurement

266 267

Figure 6. Removal efficiency of the range hood.

268 269

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

270

Supporting Information. The following files are available free of charge:

271

Survey results of cooking behaviors (Page S2, Tables S1-5).

272

Orthogonal test design (Page S3, Table S6).

273

Determination of emission rates with the range hood on (Page S4).


17


Page 18 of 23

274

Uniformity of spatial pm concentrations (Page S5, Figure S1-(a), Figure S1-(b)).

275

The measuring procedures (Page S6, Figure S2).

276 277

Air pollutant emission rates generated from typical Chinese cooking (Page S7-S20, Figure S3-4, Tables S7-12).

278

Comparison of emission rates with previous studies (Page S21, Figure S5).

279

Survey results of range hoods (Page S22, Figure S6).

280

The duration time of typical Chinese cooking (Page S23, Table S13).

281

The air change rate during measurement (Page S24, Table S14).

282 283

Comparisons of flow rate and the efficiency of range hood with previous studies (Page S25, Figure S7).

284

Comparison between two AM510 monitors (Page S26, Figure S8).

285 286

AUTHOR INFORMATION

287

Corresponding Author

288

*Address correspondence to Dr. Bin Zhao, Department of Building Science, School of

289

Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China. Tel: 86-10-62779995. Fax: 86-10-

290

62773461. Email: [email protected]

291

Author Contributions

292

§

293

Notes

294

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Co-first authors that contributed equally to this work.

295 296

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


18

Page 19 of 23


297

This work was financial supported by the National Key Project of the Ministry of Science and

298

Technology, China on “Green Buildings and Building Industrialization” through Grant No.

299

2016YFC0700500 and funding from Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural

300

Science Foundation of China (No. 51521005). The authors would like to thank Prof. Xudong

301

Yang, Ms. Caiyun Lu, Mr. Junzhou He, Mr. Mengqiang Lv, and Mr. Shen Yang for kindly

302

helping with the measurements.

303 304

REFERENCES

305

(1) Wallace, L. A.; Emmerich, S. J.; Howard-Reed, C., Source strengths of ultrafine and fine particles due

306

to cooking with a gas stove. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38 (8), 2304-2311.

307

(2) Huang, Y.; Ho, S. S. H.; Ho, K. F.; Lee, S. C.; Yu, J. Z.; Louie, P. K. K., Characteristics and health

308

impacts of VOCs and carbonyls associated with residential cooking activities in Hong Kong. J. Hazard.

309

Mater. 2011, 186 (1), 344-351.

310

(3) Zhao, Y. L.; Hu, M.; Slanina, S.; Zhang, Y. H., Chemical compositions of fine particulate organic

311

matter emitted from Chinese cooking. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41 (1), 99-105.

312

(4) Gao, Y. T.; Blot, W. J.; Zheng, W.; Ershow, A. G.; Cheng, W. H.; Levin, L. I.; Rong, Z.; Fraumeni, J.

313

F., Lung-Cancer among Chinese-Women. Int. J. Cancer 1987, 40 (5), 604-609.

314

(5) Wuwilliams, A. H.; Dai, X. D.; Blot, W.; Xu, Z. Y.; Sun, X. W.; Xiao, H. P.; Stone, B. J.; Yu, S. F.;

315

Feng, Y. P.; Ershow, A. G.; Sun, J.; Fraumeni, J. F.; Henderson, B. E., Lung-Cancer among Women in

316

North-East China. Br. J. Cancer 1990, 62 (6), 982-987.

317

(6) Wang, T. J.; Zhou, B. S.; Shi, J. P., Lung cancer in nonsmoking Chinese women: A case-control study.

318

Lung Cancer 1996, 14, S93-S98.

319

(7) Zhong, L. J.; Goldberg, M. S.; Gao, Y. T.; Jin, F., Lung cancer and indoor air pollution arising from

320

Chinese style cooking among nonsmoking women living in Shanghai, China. Epidemiology 1999, 10

321

(5), 488-494.

322

(8) Seow, A.; Poh, W. T.; Teh, M.; Eng, P.; Wang, Y. T.; Tan, W. C.; Yu, M. C.; Lee, H. P., Fumes from

323

meat cooking and lung cancer risk in Chinese women. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2000, 9


19


Page 20 of 23

324

(11), 1215-1221.

325

(9) Klepeis, N. E.; Nelson, W. C.; Ott, W. R.; Robinson, J. P.; Tsang, A. M.; Switzer, P.; Behar, J. V.;

326

Hern, S. C.; Engelmann, W. H., The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for

327

assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 2001, 11 (3), 231-

328

252.

329

(10) Matz, C. J.; Stieb, D. M.; Davis, K.; Egyed, M.; Rose, A.; Chou, B.; Brion, O., Effects of Age,

330

Season, Gender and Urban-Rural Status on Time-Activity: Canadian Human Activity Pattern Survey 2

331

(CHAPS 2). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11 (2), 2108-2124.

332

(11) Khajehzadeh, I.; Vale, B., How New Zealanders distribute their daily time between home indoors,

333

home outdoors and out of home. Kotuitui 2017, 12 (1), 17-31.

334

(12) Lee, S.; Lee, K., Seasonal Differences in Determinants of Time Location Patterns in an Urban

335

Population: A Large Population-Based Study in Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14

336

(7), 672.

337

(13) Buonanno, G.; Stabile, L.; Morawska, L., Personal exposure to ultrafine particles: The influence of

338

time-activity patterns. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 468, 903-907.

339

(14) Lee, S. C.; Li, W. M.; Chan, L. Y., Indoor air quality at restaurants with different styles of cooking in

340

metropolitan Hong Kong. Sci. Total Environ. 2001, 279 (1-3), 181-193.

341

(15) Ko, Y. C.; Cheng, L. S. C.; Lee, C. H.; Huang, J. J.; Huang, M. S.; Kao, E. L.; Wang, H. Z.; Lin, H.

342

J., Chinese food cooking and lung cancer in women nonsmokers. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2000, 151 (2), 140-

343

147.

344

(16) Duan, X., Research Methods of Exposure Factors and its Application in Environmental Health Risk

345

Assessment. Science Press 2012.

346

(17) See, S. W.; Balasubramanian, R., Risk assessment of exposure to indoor aerosols associated with

347

Chinese cooking. Environ. Res. 2006, 102 (2), 197-204.

348

(18) See, S. W.; Karthikeyana, S.; Balasubramanian, R., Health risk assessment of occupational exposure

349

to particulate-phase polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons associated with Chinese, Malay and Indian

350

cooking. J. Environ. Monit. 2006, 8 (3), 369-376.

351

(19) Zhao, Y. J.; Li, A. G.; Gao, R.; Tao, P. F.; Shen, J., Measurement of temperature, relative humidity

352

and concentrations of CO, CO2 and TVOC during cooking typical Chinese dishes. Energy Build. 2014,

353

69, 544-561.

354

(20) Zhang, Q. F.; Gangupomu, R. H.; Ramirez, D.; Zhu, Y. F., Measurement of Ultrafine Particles and

355

Other Air Pollutants Emitted by Cooking Activities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7 (4),


20

Page 21 of 23


356

1744-1759.

357

(21) Wen, M.-t.; Min, H., Physical and chemical characteristics of fine particles emitted from cooking

358

emissions and its contribution to particulate organic matter in Beijing. Chin. J. Environ. Sci. 2007, 28

359

(11), 2620-2625.

360

(22) Chen, Y.; Ho, K. F.; Ho, S. S. H.; Ho, W. K.; Lee, S. C.; Yu, J. Z.; Sit, E. H. L., Gaseous and

361

particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) emissions from commercial restaurants in Hong

362

Kong. J. Environ. Monit. 2007, 9 (12), 1402-1409.

363

(23) Jiang, Y. Y., Y.C.; Wang, B., The VOCs emission characteristics of Sichuan cuisine and its influence

364

on ambient air quality. Environ. Chem. 2014, 11, 2005-2006.

365

(24) Zhu, C. L., M.W.; Liao, Y.Y.; Fan, N.; Li, G.S., Analysis of characters of particulate emissions

366

generated from urban cooking fume. Green Build. 2014, 5, 57-60.

367

(25) Liao, C. M.; Chen, S. C.; Chen, J. W.; Liang, H. M., Contributions of Chinese-style cooking and

368

incense burning to personal exposure and residential PM concentrations in Taiwan region. Sci. Total

369

Environ. 2006, 358 (1-3), 72-84.

370

(26) Torkmahalleh, M. A.; Goldasteh, I.; Zhao, Y.; Udochu, N. M.; Rossner, A.; Hopke, P. K.; Ferro, A.

371

R., PM2.5 and ultrafine particles emitted during heating of commercial cooking oils. Indoor air 2012, 22

372

(6), 483-491.

373

(27) Wu, C. L.; Chao, C. Y. H.; Sze-To, G. N.; Wan, M. P.; Chan, T. C., Ultrafine Particle Emissions from

374

Cigarette Smouldering, Incense Burning, Vacuum Cleaner Motor Operation and Cooking. Indoor Built

375

Environ. 2012, 21 (6), 782-796.

376

(28) Gao, J.; Cao, C. S.; Wang, L.; Song, T. H.; Zhou, X.; Yang, J.; Zhang, X., Determination of Size-

377

Dependent Source Emission Rate of Cooking-Generated Aerosol Particles at the Oil-Heating Stage in an

378

Experimental Kitchen. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2013, 13 (2), 488-496.

379

(29) Gao, J.; Cao, C. S.; Xiao, Q. F.; Xu, B.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, X., Determination of dynamic intake

380

fraction of cooking-generated particles in the kitchen. Build. Environ. 2013, 65, 146-153.

381

(30) Gao, J.; Jian, Y. T.; Cao, C. S.; Chen, L.; Zhang, X., Indoor emission, dispersion and exposure of

382

total particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons during cooking. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 120, 191-

383

199.

384

(31) Duan, X. L.; Jiang, Y.; Wang, B. B.; Zhao, X. G.; Shen, G. F.; Cao, S. Z.; Huang, N.; Qian, Y.; Chen,

385

Y. T.; Wang, L. M., Household fuel use for cooking and heating in China: Results from the first Chinese

386

Environmental Exposure-Related Human Activity Patterns Survey (CEERHAPS). Appl. Energy 2014,

387

136, 692-703.


21


Page 22 of 23

388

(32) Zhang, Q.; Avalos, J.; Zhu, Y., Fine and ultrafine particle emissions from microwave popcorn.

389

Indoor air 2014, 24 (2), 190-198.

390

(33) Wallace, L. A.; Ott, W. R.; Weschler, C. J., Ultrafine particles from electric appliances and cooking

391

pans: experiments suggesting desorption/nucleation of sorbed organics as the primary source. Indoor air

392

2015, 25 (5), 536-546.

393

(34) Wallace, L. A.; Ott, W. R.; Weschler, C. J.; Lai, A. C. K., Desorption of SVOCs from Heated

394

Surfaces in the Form of Ultrafine Particles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51 (3), 1140-1146.

395


22

Page 23 of 23


Table of Contents (TOC)


1

Emission Rates of Multiple Air Pollutants ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents