Due to recent changes in operational resources, EHP and JHP are currently unable to consider new manuscript submissions for peer review or publication.

Skip to main content
Skip to main content
Open access
Research Letter
23 January 2024

Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide and Fine Particulate Matter When Cooking with Electricity Compared to Gas, a Randomized Crossover Study in Quito, Ecuador

Publication: Environmental Health Perspectives
Volume 132, Issue 1
CID: 017702

Introduction

The contribution of gas cooking to indoor air pollution and health risk is poorly quantified. Although switching to gas cooking could reduce air pollution exposure for those relying on biomass, electric stoves, which produce no in-use emissions, may be a promising “leapfrog” technology.1,2 Elevated nitrogen dioxide (NO2), associated with poor respiratory outcomes,3 is a main concern with gas cooking.3,4
In this study of households with both electric induction and gas stoves, we assessed NO2 exposures when the same individual used each stove type. Participants served as their own controls, eliminating time-invariant confounders like kitchen characteristics and other factors that drive both pollution differences and stove choice. Participants also were familiar with both stoves, alleviating the concern that households must adapt to new technologies.

Materials and Methods

Data collection occurred March–December 2021 in peri-urban and urban Quito, Ecuador. Participants (n=38) were recruited through radio, newspaper, social media, and bulletin board announcements and emails through Universidad San Francisco de Quito (USFQ) newsletters. Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) stoves had 4 burners (20 households), 6 burners (11), or 2–3 burners (7); 27 gas stoves had an oven. Induction stoves were tabletop 2- or 4-burner models. Three-fifths of households had a kitchen separate from other rooms in the house. Three-quarters of kitchens had 1 window. Median kitchen size was 24m2.
Primary cooks were randomly assigned to cook with only gas or only induction in the first 48-h period, then use only the other stove in a subsequent 48-h period. Our primary outcome was 48-h personal NO2 exposure, measured using passive badges (OGAWA PS-100) affixed near the breathing zone of a vest to be worn except when bathing and sleeping. Vests also had a time-resolved, light-scattering personal exposure monitor (PATS+) for detection of fine particulate matter (PM2.5, fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5μm). Twelve randomly selected participants also had personal gravimetric PM2.5 (Ultrasonic Personal Air Sampler) and time-resolved kitchen area NO2 concentrations (AeroQual Series 500) measured; six of these individuals wore duplicate passive badges. Duplicate personal NO2 measurements were averaged in analyses (r=0.87). Kitchen samplers sat on countertops 1m from the gas stove and, to the extent possible, equidistant between stove types.
Stove use was determined using temperature loggers (LPG) and current-voltage meters (induction). LPG cooking was based on highly positive slopes over short periods (doubling) and when >40°C (rarely exceeded absent cooking). Induction cooking was identified when >2.5 A. Cooking and noncooking events lasted 5 and 30 min, respectively.
We estimated the effect of stove randomization (reference: induction) on exposure in panel fixed effects regressions via ordinary least squares (OLS). The outcome was, separately, natural log-transformed 48-h average personal NO2 exposure, kitchen NO2 concentration, and personal PM2.5 exposure; we evaluated nontransformed models to estimate absolute changes. We included fixed effects for participant, month of year, and day of week. This intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis is a lower bound of the estimate of the effect of gas cooking on pollution; any deviation from stove assignment would attenuate the true effect. We excluded one kitchen area PM2.5 concentration estimate in the LPG group based on implausibility (mean=513μg/m3).
To account for background pollution variations, we controlled for average 48-h ambient NO2 or PM2.5 concentrations from the nearest central site monitor (typically in the same neighborhood). To account for variation in vest wearing, we controlled for the proportion of time between 0600–2200 hours where PATS+ movement was detected. We estimated the effect of treatment on the treated by dividing our ITT estimate by the average fraction of total minutes cooked on the assigned stove when both stoves were concurrently monitored.
We estimated the effect of cooking events on short-term changes to natural log-transformed and nontransformed kitchen NO2 concentrations and personal PM2.5 exposure (mean and maximum of 5-min rolling windows) using panel fixed effects regressions estimated via OLS, where the exposure was whether LPG or induction stove use, modeled separately and jointly. We included fixed effects for participant, month of year, day of week, hour of day, and, for kitchen NO2, monitor identifier fixed effects. We top-coded the highest 2% of 5-min PM2.5 estimates to reduce outlier influence and improve model performance.
Standard errors were clustered at the participant level. We used α=0.05 to determine statistical significance and R statistical software (version 4.2.2; R Development Core Team) for analyses.
The institutional review boards at the Columbia University Medical Center and the Bioethics Committee at Universidad San Francisco de Quito approved this research and COVID-19 safety protocols. Participants provided informed consent online prior to visits or written consent on the day of visits.

Results

Air pollution measurements, detected cooking events, and detected monitor wearing are summarized in Table 1. Participants generally used the assigned stove during the designated period, and minutes cooked were comparable across randomization.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of study variables in a randomized crossover study of 38 households in Quito, Ecuador, cooking with LPG or induction stoves.
 Overall (n=76)LPG (n=38)Induction (n=38)
Randomly assigned as first period1820
Ambient 48-h mean NO2 concentrations (ppb)
 Observations763838
Mean±SD16.2 (5.4)16.9 (5.8)15.6 (5.0)
 Median (IQR)16.1 (14.2, 19.1)17.3 (15.0, 20.5)15.3 (13.8, 18.4)
Ambient 48-h mean PM2.5 concentrations (μg/m3)
 Observations763838
Mean±SD13.4 (2.6)13.4 (2.5)13.4 (2.7)
 Median (IQR)13.3 (11.6, 15.0)12.9 (12.0, 14.8)13.6 (10.9, 15.1)
Mean 48-h personal NO2 exposure (ppb)
 Observations763838
Mean±SD19.8 (12.3)24.5 (14.9)15.0 (6.2)
 Median (IQR)17.9 (12.4, 24.5)22.1 (17.6, 27.5)13.3 (10.7, 18.0)
Mean 48-h kitchen area NO2 concentrations (ppb)
 Observations211110
Mean±SD17.9 (3.0)18.6 (2.9)17.1 (3.0)
 Median (IQR)18.8 (18.0, 19.9)19.8 (19.0, 20.1)18.3 (17.6, 18.5)
Mean 48-h personal PM2.5 exposure (μg/m3)
 Observations251213
Mean±SD24.9 (16.5)30.2 (20.2)20.0 (10.6)
 Median (IQR)22.5 (15.8, 31.2)23.8 (20.6, 33.5)17.8 (13.7, 27.8)
Personal PM2.5 monitor temperature (degrees Celsius)
 Observations743737
Mean±SD21.2 (1.9)21.2 (1.8)21.2 (1.9)
 Median (IQR)21.5 (20.0, 22.6)21.4 (19.7, 22.7)21.6 (20.1, 22.5)
Detected personal PM2.5 monitor motion (minutes)
 Observations743737
Mean±SD345 (183)362 (171)328 (195)
 Median (IQR)356 (193, 447)383 (204, 439)312 (177, 450)
Detected LPG cooking (minutes)
 Observations387
Mean±SD279 (136)8 (26)
 Median (IQR)262 (173, 382)0 (0, 0)
Detected induction cooking (minutes)
 Observations838
Mean±SD1 (8)284 (147)
 Median (IQR)0 (0, 0)289 (161, 369)
Note: Two samples are missing time-resolved PM2.5 concentrations and temperature data from the PATS+ due to monitor failure. —, no data; IQR, interquartile range (75th percentile–25th percentile); LPG, liquefied petroleum gas; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5, fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5μm; ppb, parts per billion; SD, standard deviation.
Mean personal NO2 exposure was 51% higher [95% confidence interval (CI): 31%, 71%; 9.9 ppb higher (95% CI: 4.5, 15.3)] during the 48-h periods (cooking and noncooking) when households were randomized to LPG (Figure 1). Half (19/38) of induction period exposure estimates fell below the World Health Organization (WHO) 24-h NO2 guideline (13.29 ppb),5 in comparison with 10% (4/38) in the LPG period; all exposure estimates but two (induction) exceeded the WHO annual NO2 guideline (5.3 ppb).5 Mean kitchen NO2 concentrations were 15% higher [95% CI: 5%, 35%; 2.5 ppb higher (95% CI: 0.5,5.4)] and mean personal PM2.5 exposure was 70% higher [95% CI: 46%, 186%; 11.3μg/m3 higher (95% CI: 0.3, 23.0)] when randomized to LPG in comparison with induction.
Figure 1. Personal and kitchen area air pollution concentrations when participants were requested to use their LPG or induction stove exclusively and effect of randomization on pollution in a study of 38 households in Quito, Ecuador. In panels A–C, percentage differences in means are estimated from regressions with natural log-transformed pollution concentrations as the outcome and changes in untransformed levels are displayed below each panel along with the 95% CI. (A) Shows integrated individual 48-hour personal NO2 exposures from passive badges and summarized in box-and-whisker plots according to which stove participants used. Induction n=38; LPG n=38. (B) Summarizes 48-h kitchen area NO2 concentrations averaged from time-resolved data and summarized in box-and-whisker plots according to which stove participants used. Induction n=10; LPG n=11. (C) Shows integrated individual 48-hour personal PM2.5 exposures from integrated gravimetric filter data and summarized in box-and-whisker plots according to which stove participants used. One observation in the LPG group is not shown and was removed from analysis based on implausibility (mean=513μg/m3). Induction n=13; LPG n=13. For (A), (B), and (C), box-and-whisker display the median, first and third quartiles (lower and upper hinges), and whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range from hinges; individual data are provided as horizontal lines; dashed-dotted lines indicate the WHO 24-h guidelines for NO2 and PM2.5 exposures. (D) Shows the distribution of short-term (5-min) kitchen area NO2 concentrations grouped by hour of the day and stove used. Minute-resolved observations: Induction n=115, 318; LPG n=111, 518. Data for all figures can be found at https://github.com/echolab-stanford/Ecuador-gas-induction-experiment. Note: CI, confidence interval; LPG, liquified petroleum gas; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5, fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5μm; WHO, World Health Organization.
LPG cooking was associated with a 20% increase [95% CI: 14%, 26%; 4.4 ppb increase (95% CI: 2.9, 5.9)] in 5-min average NO2 kitchen concentrations and a 40% increase [95% CI: 26%, 54%; 12.5μg/m3 increase (95% CI: 6.7, 18.4)] in 5-min average personal PM2.5 exposure, in comparison with noncooking periods. Induction cooking was not associated with changes to short-term NO2 kitchen concentrations but was associated with a 23% increase [95% CI: 14%, 32%; 7.5μg/m3 increase (95% CI: 3.9, 11.1)] in personal PM2.5 exposure. Similarly, LPG cooking was associated with higher rolling 5-min maximum NO2 kitchen concentrations [26% increase (95% CI: 19%, 34%)] and personal PM2.5 exposure [58% increase (95% CI: 41%, 76%)] in comparison with noncooking periods; induction was associated with higher 5-min maximum personal PM2.5 exposure [36% increase (95% CI: 25%, 47%)] but not 5-min maximum kitchen NO2 concentrations.
Results were robust to inclusion of monitor wearing and ambient air pollution as controls. The effect of treatment on the treated for 48-h personal NO2 exposure was 10.3 ppb higher when households were randomized to LPG.

Discussion

We assumed that within-household variation in stove use was uncorrelated with other behaviors that affect air pollution concentrations; randomization and high adherence suggest this assumption holds. Although our study has strong internal validity, our findings may not generalize to other settings with different stove, cooking, kitchen, and ventilation characteristics. Future studies could benefit from more participants, repeating measurements, and measuring cooking-related behaviors (e.g., window opening, vent hood use, cooking method).
Our results align with previous cross-sectional studies that found higher NO2 concentrations with gas relative to electric stoves,3,4 a trial that found reductions in NO2 when replacing gas with electric stoves,6 and studies that found increased PM2.5 exposures with both gas and induction cooking.7,8 Our study strengthens arguments for measuring personal air pollution exposures, which differed across stove types, instead of kitchen area measurements, which did not.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge funding support from the US National Institutes of Health Common Fund through the Clean Cooking Implementation Science Network. The authors are grateful to Sam Heft-Neal for helpful figure edits and thoughtful comments from Misbath Daouda, Minghao Qiu, and members of the Stanford Environmental Change and Human Outcomes Lab, as well as research support from Alan García, Andrea Yánez, and Iván Nolivos.

Article Notes

*
These authors contributed equally to this work.
The authors declare they have nothing to disclose.

References

1.
Pope D, Johnson M, Fleeman N, Jagoe K, Duarte R, Maden M, et al. 2021. Are cleaner cooking solutions clean enough? a systematic review and meta-analysis of particulate and carbon monoxide concentrations and exposures. Environ Res Lett 16(8):083002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac13ec.
2.
Rockstrom J, Gaffney O, Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nakicenovic N, Schellnhuber HJ. 2017. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355(6331):1269–1271. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28336628/, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah3443.
3.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (Final Report, Jan 2016). Reports & Assessments EPA/600/R-15/068. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4.
American Public Health Association. 2022. Gas Stove Emissions are a Public Health Concern: Exposure to Indoor Nitrogen Dioxide Increases Risk of Illness in Children, Older Adults, and People with Underlying Health Conditions. Policy Number: 20225. https://www.apha.org/Policies-and-Advocacy/Public-Health-Policy-Statements/Policy-Database/2023/01/18/Gas-Stove-Emissions [accessed 25 August 2023].
5.
World Health Organization. et al. 2021. WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide: Executive Summary. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228 [accessed 25 August 2023].
6.
Paulin LM, Diette GB, Scott M, McCormack MC, Matsui EC, Curtin-Brosnan J, et al. 2014. Home interventions are effective at decreasing indoor nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Indoor Air 24(4):416–424. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24329966/, https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12085.
7.
Levy JI, Lee K, Spengler JD, Yanagisawa Y. 1998. Impact of residential nitrogen dioxide exposure on personal exposure: an international study. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 48(6):553–560. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9949739/, https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1998.10463704.
8.
Adamkiewicz G, Zota AR, Fabian MP, Chahine T, Julien R, Spengler JD, et al. 2011. Moving environmental justice indoors: understanding structural influences on residential exposure patterns in low-income communities. Am J Public Health 101 Suppl 1(suppl 1):S238–S245. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21836112/, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300119.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Environmental Health Perspectives
Volume 132Issue 1January 2024
PubMed: 38261301

History

Received: 6 April 2023
Revision received: 11 December 2023
Accepted: 2 January 2024
Published online: 23 January 2024

Authors

Affiliations

Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Longevity Science, University of California, San Diego, California, USA
Lissete Davila*
Institute for Energy and Materials, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
M. Lorena Bejarano
Institute for Energy and Materials, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
Marshall Burke
Doerr School of Sustainability, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Darby W. Jack
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
Samuel B. Schlesinger
Independent Consultant, Quito, Ecuador
José R. Mora
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador
Alfredo Valarezo
Institute for Energy and Materials, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador

Notes

Address correspondence to Carlos F. Gould, University of California, San Diego, MTF Building 259, Myers Dr., San Diego, CA 92161 USA. Email: [email protected]

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

About Article Metrics


Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click DOWNLOAD.

Cited by

  • Health impacts of air pollution in South America: recent advances and research gaps, Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health, 10.1016/j.coesh.2025.100627, (100627), (2025).

View Options

View options

PDF

View PDF

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

Figures

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media