RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Air pollution exposure when cooking with electricity compared to gas
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.04.10.23288249
DO 10.1101/2023.04.10.23288249
A1 Gould, Carlos F.
A1 Dávila, Lissete
A1 Bejarano, M. Lorena
A1 Burke, Marshall
A1 Jack, Darby W.
A1 Schlesinger, Samuel B.
A1 Mora, José R.
A1 Valarezo, Alfredo
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/17/2023.04.10.23288249.abstract
AB We report small-sample evidence from a randomized experiment among a set of urban Ecuadorian households who owned both electric induction and gas stoves. We randomly assigned households to cook only with one stove during a prescribed two-day monitoring period, and then cook only with the other stove in a subsequent two-day period. The order of stove use was randomized, and air pollution was measured during each period. We found that mean 48-hour personal NO2 exposure was 9.9 ppb higher (95% CI, 4.5-15.3) — a 50% increase over the 48-hour induction mean — when households were randomized to gas as compared to induction. Mean kitchen area NO2 concentrations were 1 ppb higher (95% CI, 0.4-2.1) (a 6% increase) and mean personal PM2.5 exposure was 11 μgm−3 higher (95% CI, -0.1-22.8) (a 44% increase) during study periods when randomized to gas. We use time-resolved cooking and pollution data to illustrate that these differences are driven by LPG cooking, which was associated with a 5.0 ppb increase in 5-minute average NO2 kitchen area concentrations (95% CI, 3.4-6.7) and a 20.8 μgm−3 increase in 5-minute average personal PM2.5 exposure (95% CI 8.9-32.6). In contrast, cooking with induction was not associated with changes to short-term NO2 kitchen area concentrations, though it was associated with short-term increased personal PM2.5 exposure (10.8, 95% CI, 5.7-15.9).Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors acknowledge funding support from the US National Institutes of Health Common Fund through the Clean Cooking Implementation Science Network.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the Columbia University Medical Center and the Bioethics Committee at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ). USFQ approved COVID-19 safety protocols for in-person activities.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesCode will be available upon publication. De-identified in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.