A METHOD TO MEASURE EMISSION RATES OF PM2.

5 FROM COOKING
WHAT AFFECTS EXPOSURE IN BUILDINGS?
Filtration
Ventilation

BACKGROUND
THE PROBLEM

Coagulation Re-circulation VENTILATION:

In the UK, people spend 70% of
EMISSION RATES: Increasing air tightness to
their time in their own houses.
Key sources include: Chemical Reaction reduce energy demand
IAQ (Indoor Air Quality) is can reduce total building
COOKING
important for health. ventilation rates, without
Smoking Phase Change Exfiltration
additional purpose provided

P M 2.5
Potential HEALTH External combustion
ventilation (PPV).
PROBLEMS linked Emission rates as This could protect
to PM2.5 exposure probability density functions from elevated external
include: (PDFs) needed for Infiltration concentrations, or trap
Ø ≤ 2.5µm
Ventilation
CHRONIC stochastic stock models, to Emission pollutants emitted indoors.
RESPIRATORY predict concentrations in

FINE
Filtration Sorption and
DISEASE dwellings. Deposition Re-emission
ASTHMA and Resuspension

PARTICULATE LUNG CANCER

MATTER CARDIOVASCULAR
DISEASE

SMALL CHAMBER LARGE CHAMBER FIELD TESTS STATIC MONITORING PERSONAL MONITORING

EXISTING MEASUREMENT METHODS

ADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGES:
+ High level of control + High level of control + Ventilation can be measured and controlled + More likely representative of room air + Close representation of exposures
+ Good mixing more likely in small volume + Controlled conditions, so repeatable + Close to real conditions + Reflective of real behaviour + Reflective of real behaviour
+ More noticeable increase in concentration DISADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES: - Does the test alter the emission - Variable ventilation rates - Many conditions unknown and uncontrolled, - Proximity effect overestimates emissions
- Does the test alter the emissions? characteristics? - No control over background concentrations increases error - Many conditions unknown and uncontrolled,
- Cost - Cost increases error

METHOD RESULTS LIMITATIONS

Theoretical Peak
Peak Concentration
× 2 × 20
14
Concentration, C(t) (µg/m3)

12
10
×1
× 2 × 20 8
6
MIXING CONDITIONS
4 - unknown mixing conditions
2 - could lead to under or over-estimation
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Time, t (hours)
2
Residuals
PHASE 1

0
-2
1.0 m

THEORETICAL PEAK ESTIMATION 0.7

- decay rate estimated from peak concentration SAMPLING FREQUENCY
onwards 0.6 DISTRIBUTION - unclear whether emissions occurring
- extrapolated back to end of emission period - significant positive skew during or after toasting
0.5 - single test with a high
to find THEORETICAL PEAK
emission rate
Frequency

- theoretical peak used to estimate EMISSION 0.4

RATE n = 40
- assumes a CONSTANT EMISSION RATE 0.3
OR
CALIBRATION FACTOR (CF) 0.2
- FIELD TEST METHOD - required to convert optical readings to mass
- TOASTING BREAD - simple & repeatable test concentrations 0.1
- Test kitchen - volume = 35.4 m3 - no custom CFs available, so data processed
- Extractor fan to stabilise ventilation rate 0 CALIBRATION FACTOR
twice for CF = 0.47 and CF = 0.79, from literature 0 5 10 15 20 25
- Concentrations measured with SidePak™: Emission rate, g(T) (mg/min), CF = 0.47 - no gravimetric sampling
- 1 minute log-interval - 2 CFs used had large effect on
- CF = 1.0 estimated emission rate

CONCLUSIONS RESULTS METHOD

20
Emission rate (µg/min)

45
Concentration, C(t) (µg/m3)

15
40
35
10 30
25
5 20
15
0 10
× 2 × 40
Dacunto et Jiang et He et al., 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Phase 1 Phase 2 al., (2013) al., (2011) (2004) Time, t (hours) 0
-5 CALIBRATION FACTOR (CF) 50
Residuals

- no custom CFs available, so data processed

- Phase 2 lower emission rates than phase 1
PHASE 2

0
twice for CF = 0.47 and CF = 0.79, from literature
COMPARISON TO LITERATURE -50
- generally much lower emission rates than those in
THEORETICAL PEAK ESTIMATION
literature for toasting bread
- decay rate estimated using all decay data
- for Phase 2, spread much lower than in literature 0.15
- extrapolated back to end of emission period
0.15

n = 40 to find THEORETICAL PEAK

& FUTURE WORK - theoretical peak used to estimate EMISSION
RATE
MKNR
0.1
0.1
Frequency

- Combined FIELD TEST and LARGE

Frequency
Frequency

CHAMBER Methods
MK
N
c ê Éè ì Éå Åó

0.05
0.05 - Test chamber - volume = 21.5 m3
MKMR DISTRIBUTION - Mixing fan used
- mean and median 25% and 50% of those in - Concentrations measured with 2 SidePak™s: ×2
Phase 1 - 1 second log-interval
M
MKMR MK
N
Emission
MKN
R
rate,
MKO
bã á ë ë á ç å =ê ~í ÉI g(T)
= =Eã ÖLã ág(T)
åF
MKOR MK
P
00
0
0.05 0.1
0.1 0.15
0.15 0.2
0.2 0.25
0.25 0.3
0.3
- narrower distribution - CF = 1.0
CALIBRATION FACTOR PDFs Emission rate,
Emission rate, (mg/min),
g(T) g(T)(mg/min)CF = 0.47 - possible slight negative skew - no high outliers
- still no gravimetric sampling - can be produced by fitting
- limits findings curve to data for Phase 2

CATHERINE O’LEARY BENJAMIN JONES

benjamin.jones@nottingham.ac.uk
University of Nottingham University of Nottingham
Department of Architecture and the Built Environment Department of Architecture and the Built Environment
@colearyIEQ @BenJonesIEQ