Gao X, Yu Q, Gu Q, Chen Y, Ding K, Zhu J, Chen L
Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Indoor Air. 2009 Jun;19(3):198-205. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00579.x. Epub 2009 Jan 28.
In this study, we are trying to investigate the indoor air pollution and to estimate the residents' pollution exposure reduction of energy altering in rural Tibet. Daily PM(2.5) monitoring was conducted in indoor microenvironments like kitchen, living-room, bedroom, and yard in rural Tibet from December 2006 to March 2007. For kitchen air pollution, impact of two fuel types, methane and solid biomass fuels (SBFs), were compared. Questionnaire survey on the domestic energy pattern and residents' daily activity pattern was performed in Zha-nang County. Daily average PM(2.5) concentrations in kitchen, living-room, bedroom, and yard were 134.91 microg/m(3) (mean, n = 45, 95%CI 84.02, 185.80), 103.61 microg/m(3) (mean, n = 21, 95%CI 85.77, 121.45), 76.13 microg/m(3) (mean, n = 18, 95%CI 57.22, 95.04), and 78.33 microg/m(3) (mean, n = 34, 95%CI 60.00, 96.65) respectively. Using SBFs in kitchen resulted in higher indoor pollution than using methane. PM(2.5) concentrations in kitchen with dung cake, fuel wood and methane use were 117.41 microg/m(3) (mean, n = 18, 95%CI 71.03, 163.79), 271.11 microg/m(3) (mean, n = 12, 95%CI 104.74, 437.48), and 46.96 microg/m(3) (mean, n = 15, 95%CI 28.10, 65.82) respectively. Family income has significant influence on cooking energy choice, while the lack of commercial energy supply affects the energy choice for heating more. The effects of two countermeasures to improve indoor air quality were estimated in this research. One is to replace SBFs by clean energy like methane, the other is to separate the cooking place from other rooms and by applying these countermeasures, residents' exposure to particulate matters would reduce by 25-50% (methane) or 20-30% (separation) compared to the present situation.
Indoor air pollution caused by solid biomass fuels is one of the most important burdens of disease in the developing countries, which attracts the attention of environment and public health researchers, as well as policy makers. This paper gives a pilot research on the indoor air pollution and estimated the effects of some intervention policies in Tibet of China, where the living habits of the residents are quite different from other parts of the world. This work would be an important supply to the indoor air pollution studies, and would be helpful in policy making.
在本研究中,我们试图调查西藏农村地区的室内空气污染情况,并评估能源变革对居民污染暴露的减少程度。于2006年12月至2007年3月期间,在西藏农村的厨房、客厅、卧室和院子等室内微环境中进行了每日PM(2.5)监测。对于厨房空气污染,比较了两种燃料类型(沼气和固体生物质燃料(SBFs))的影响。在扎囊县进行了关于家庭能源模式和居民日常活动模式的问卷调查。厨房、客厅、卧室和院子的每日平均PM(2.5)浓度分别为134.91微克/立方米(均值,n = 45,95%置信区间84.02,185.80)、103.61微克/立方米(均值,n = 21,95%置信区间85.77,121.45)、76.13微克/立方米(均值,n = 18,95%置信区间57.22,95.04)和78.33微克/立方米(均值,n = 34,95%置信区间60.00,96.65)。在厨房使用固体生物质燃料导致的室内污染高于使用沼气。使用粪饼、薪柴和沼气时厨房中的PM(2.5)浓度分别为117.41微克/立方米(均值,n = 18,95%置信区间71.03,163.79)、271.11微克/立方米(均值,n = 12,95%置信区间104.74,437.48)和46.96微克/立方米(均值,n = 15,95%置信区间28.10,65.82)。家庭收入对烹饪能源选择有显著影响,而商业能源供应的缺乏对取暖能源选择的影响更大。本研究评估了两种改善室内空气质量的对策的效果。一种是以沼气等清洁能源替代固体生物质燃料,另一种是将烹饪场所与其他房间隔开,通过应用这些对策,与当前情况相比,居民对颗粒物的暴露将减少25 - 50%(沼气)或20 - 30%(隔开)。
固体生物质燃料造成的室内空气污染是发展中国家最重要的疾病负担之一,这引起了环境和公共卫生研究人员以及政策制定者的关注。本文对中国西藏地区的室内空气污染进行了初步研究,并评估了一些干预政策的效果,该地区居民的生活习惯与世界其他地区有很大不同。这项工作将为室内空气污染研究提供重要补充,并有助于政策制定。