We knew it in principle and now we know it in fact: fuel-based lighting emitsindoor pollutants (in the form of particularly dangerous "PM2.5" particulates) that can be inhaled deeply into lungs of over a billion people that use such light sources.
Kerosene lamps are often located in close proximity to users, potentially increasing the risk for respiratory illnesses and lung cancer. Particulate matter concentrations resulting from cook stoves have been extensively studied in the literature. However, characterization of particulate concentrations from fuel- based lighting has received minimal attention.
Using actual measurements, our research—published by the Lumina team in the journal Indoor Air — demonstrates that night vendors who use a single simple wick lamp in high-air-exchange market kiosks will likely be exposed to dangerous PM2.5 concentrations that are an order of magnitude greater than ambient health guidelines. Particles of this size (2.5 microns in diameter) are known to penetrate particularly deeply into the lungs when inhaled.
We found that using a hurricane lamp will reduce exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by an order of magnitude compared to using a simple wick lamp. Vendors using a single hurricane or pressure lamp may not exceed health standards or guidelines for PM2.5 and PM10, but will be exposed to elevated 0.02–0.3 micrometer particle concentrations. Vendors who change from fuel-based lighting to electric lighting technology for enhanced illumination will likely gain the ancillary health benefit of reduced particulate matter exposure.
We found that vendors exposed only to ambient and fuel-based lighting particulate matter would see over an 80% reduction in inhaled PM2.5 mass if they switched from a simple wick lamp to an electric lighting technology.
A more recent review of the literature of indoor air pollution from kerosene lanterns (as well as other health effects) was recently published by Nick Lam and colleagues (here).
Comment
Comment by Hans Mutzbauer on March 25, 2013 at 1:48am An interesting and helpful report, I did not know it yet (shame).
I should spend mot time on LumiaNet ;-)
Comment by Evan Mills on March 24, 2013 at 6:54pm Hans - No info at my fingertips on effects. Take a look at the study from Nick Lam (referenced at the end of my post). Nick is also a member now, so you could ping him.
One item in my subsequent report on health impacts may be relevant to your question: Fig 6, page 18 summarizes SELF-reported changes in various symptoms when kerosene is reduced/replaced with LED lighting.
Comment by Hans Mutzbauer on March 24, 2013 at 2:27pm Great Job and clear facts.
Thank you for publishing.
I miss a study or at least facts about the health-effects of inhaled particles from burned kerosene.
A friend worked a few years in epidemic control in Africa and he told me about a few very bad effects of theese particles. Another friend told me about an 10 years old boy in a hospital in Nepal, suffering from "smoker-leg" and endangered to loose his led, due to the intensive exposurer of smoke from the open fire.
Does anybody know about such reports, possibly from WHO?
Comment by Hakeem Adebola Lawal on March 24, 2013 at 1:46am This is an amazing research. Kudos!
Welcome to
LuminaNET
iboxs Technologies( UK) replied to Evan Mills's discussion Field Projects: Africa
Sowmya Suryanarayanan joined Evan Mills's group
Sowmya Suryanarayanan commented on Sowmya Suryanarayanan's blog post REACHING THE BOP: MICRO-GRID PAYMENT AND METERING SOLUTIONS – PART II
Patrick Velasco updated an event
Aaron Wong replied to Evan Mills's discussion Field Projects: Africa
You need to be a member of LuminaNET to add comments!