Comparing Particulate Matter Exposures During Two Work Shifts in a Large University Dining Commons Kitchen

Original Research

Comparing Particulate Matter Exposures During Two Work Shifts in a Large

University Dining Commons Kitchen

Shalom Emmanuel, MPH and Atin Adhikari, PhD

Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Environmental Health Sciences, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern

University, Statesboro, Georgia

Corresponding Author: Atin Adhikari, PhD • Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Environmental Health Sciences • Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public

Health • P.O. Box: 8015, Georgia Southern University Statesboro, Georgia 30460 • 912-478-2289 • Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Objective: Cooking emits a huge concentration of indoor air pollutants, including particulate matter (PM). Exposure to PM can

lead to long-term adverse respiratory effects among workers engaged in cooking. Only a few studies have measured

cooking-related air pollutants in large school cafeterias where young student workers are frequently employed. The objective of

this research was to compare stationary exposures to PM from cooking during two work shifts at a very large university dining

commons kitchen.

Methods: Number concentrations of PM of varying aerodynamic sizes (1, 2.5, 5, and 10 µm) were measured at the back kitchen,

DC grill, and brick oven during two work shifts using the CEM DT-9881 air monitor and mass concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and

were measured simultaneously using the DustTrak

aerosol monitor. PM number concentrations were higher in the

afternoon shift than in the evening shift.

Results: The mean number concentrations of PM

2.5

, PM

, and PM

during the afternoon shift were 1,335,783, 320,471, and

87,915 particles/m

respectively. In the evening shift, the values were 207,020, 23,745, and 4,146 particles/m

respectively. The

mass concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

were higher during the afternoon shift compared to the evening shift. PM

2.5

levels at

the back kitchen and PM

levels at the brick oven exceeded the 24h US-EPA NAAQ and WHO mean standards. The brick oven

had the highest concentrations of PM compared to the other cooking sites.

Conclusions: The increased concentration of PM could be associated with increased cooking activities and the number of staff.

Keywords: Indoor air quality; Occupational health; Exposure science; Particulate matter; Cooking

BACKGROUND

Indoor air pollution accounts for about 2 million deaths per

year and 2.7% of the global burden of disease (Sanbata et

al., 2014). Cooking, which is a major source of indoor air

pollution, emits a significant concentration of air pollutants,

like particulate matter (PM) (Sofuoglu et al., 2015). The

American style of cooking which involves boiling, frying,

grilling, roasting, and baking, is a common daily practice in

a large cafeteria or restaurant setting. Stationary exposure to

PM causes long-term adverse respiratory effects such as

pulmonary obstruction, asthma, pulmonary edema, and

irritation of the nasal tract and lungs (Downward et al.,

2018). This is because particulate matter is a mixture of

airborne particles, including dust, solid or liquid residues of

airborne particles which are tiny and can easily be inhaled

into the lungs, as a result of their aerodynamic nature which

impacts their dispersion in the air, as well as their entrance

into the lungs.

Indoor air pollution has gained significant attention in recent

times. This is because humans spend more time indoors than

outdoors, be it in occupational or home settings. It has been

estimated that about 90% of the time is spent indoors and

there are higher levels of pollutants indoors than outdoors

(Alves et al., 2020). Hence, indoor air pollutants can pose

more significant health threats than outdoor air pollutants.

Stationary exposures to indoor air pollutants are of

importance because people are exposed to these pollutants

for a long period, either through emission from the

equipment used for routine activities or just by spending

long work hours in a setting that is susceptible to generating

a variety of indoor air pollutants.

In the past decades, the use of biomass fuels and stoves has

encouraged poor indoor air quality in private and large

cooking settings like restaurants. However, modern-day

restaurants and cafeterias that make use of gas and electric

cooking appliances have also been shown to be major

sources of occupational indoor air pollution (Zhao & Zhao,

2018), which are often overlooked. Recent studies have also

revealed that indoor air pollution levels are way higher than

outdoor pollution levels, and some days may exceed

regulatory standards levels set by the United States

Environmental Pollution Agency (J. Travers & Vogl, 2012).

Although several studies have explored indoor air pollution

at cooking sites, only a few studies have measured indoor

air pollutants in large school cafeterias where students

regularly work. These young workers could be more

vulnerable to PM related respiratory illnesses and lung

injuries (See & Balasubramanian, 2006). The objective of

this research was to compare occupational exposures to PM

from cooking during two work shifts, specifically the

afternoon and evening shifts, at a large university dining

commons kitchen.

METHODS

Study Site

This study was carried out at one of the two large dining

commons in Georgia Southern University (GSU) campus, in

Statesboro, Georgia, USA. The Georgia Southern University

has two large dining commons where students, members of

staff, and visitors go to get their meals. These dining

locations include the Lakeside View dining commons and a

larger dining common where more students prefer to eat.

This study was carried out at the larger dining commons

which is located across from the University's store and the

bus park. It offers the most variety of any of the school's

Eagle Dining Service's dining locations, with nine different

servers and a wide range of cuisine choices from all across

the globe (Dining Commons, Eagle Dining Services,

Georgia Southern University, 2019). The stations in the

dining commons include the breakfast club, no whey,

signatures, traditions, DC Grill, sweet shop, today's brews,

and smoothies, rotisserie, and southern gourmet. The table

below shows a summary of some of the foods served at the

four major dining stations (Table 1).

According to the Director of Residential Dining Dr. Greg

Crawford, the dining commons has about 150 employees,

most of which are students at the school, and it serves a total

number of 35,000 guests per week, with about 4500 students

per day. However, this number reduced to 18,000 guests per

week as a result of the modifications made to accommodate

the COVID-19 pandemic. It operates for about 10.5 hours

on weekdays and 13 hours on weekends (University, 2021).

With employees working spontaneously for four to six hours

during the three major work shifts, the morning, afternoon,

and evening shifts.

Experimental Design

An email was sent to the Director of Residential Dining,

Georgia Southern University to seek approval to carry out

this study for the duration of the study period. The study

was approved and carried out three days a week for seven

weeks, including weekdays and weekends between February

to April 2021. Data on indoor air quality was collected

during the afternoon and evening work shifts at the dining

commons. These shifts were selected because more cooking

activities are done during these shifts, with a greater number

of students and staff, eating in, than during the morning

shift.

Data were collected at three different sites in the dining

commons, including the back kitchen, the DC grill, and the

brick oven. The back kitchen is the central kitchen of the

GSU dining commons where general cooking activities are

done on a large scale. This cooking site has the greatest

number of staff working there at a time and foods cooked

there are supplied to other stations where cooking activities

are not done in the dining commons. The DC grill is a

station located within the dining commons where grilling

and frying activities are carried out, including grilling of

meat, and preparing of fires, and so on. Students easily walk

up to this station to get their fried and grilled foods and they

can serve themselves at that station. The brick oven is a

station located inside the dining commons where pizza is

being baked and pasta is made. At this station, there is a

furnace, with the fire constantly burning during the repeated

baking operations. This furnace has a ventilation control

system above it to control combustion release at that station.

Students also walk up to this station to get their food.

Hence, diners and staff members are exposed to the air

quality at that station. These three stations were selected for

data collection because these stations have the most cooking

activities carried out repeatedly, and so are suspected to

have high levels of indoor air pollutants. Images of the three

cooking stations are shown in figures 1, 2, and 3 below.

Table 1

Summary of foods served at the four major stations in the

dining commons.

Dining Stations

Food Served at the Stations

Brick Oven

Spaghetti & Meatballs, Chicken Florentine,

Buﬀalo Chicken Pasta, Italian Mac n’

Cheese, Shrimp Primavera, Asiago Garlic

Alfredo Pasta, Cheesesteak Casserole,

Cajun Chicken Bake, Taco Mac Casserole,

Jambalaya Skillet, Cheesy Beef Goulash,

Pepperoni Pizza, Sausage Gravy Breakfast

Pizza, Margherita Pizza, Spinach and

Artichoke Dip Pizza

DC Grill

Hamburger, Turkey Burger, Breaded

Chicken (Chicken Patty), Popcorn Shrimp,

Hotdogs, Hamburger Buns, Hotdog Buns,

French Fries, Grilled Chicken, Buﬀalo

Chicken, Pastrami, Buﬀalo Chicken,

Chicken Parm

Signatures

Wheat Wrap, Wheat Bread, Rye Bread,

Texas Toast, Vidalia Onion Peppercorn,

Apple Cider Vinaigrette, Soba Noodles,

Kohlrabi, Hard Boiled Eggs, Buﬀalo

Chicken Salad, Pasta Salad, Chickpeas,

Spinach

Central Station

Red Drum, Shrimp, Sword Fish, Tuna,

Barbacoa, Mexican Chicken, Ground

Turkey, Taco Beef, Shrimp, White Rice,

Spanish Rice, Refried Beans, Black Beans,

Pinto Beans, Mexi Ranch Bean, Mushroom,

Tzatziki Sauce, Cucumbers, Tomato,

Olives, Goat Cheese, Mozzarella Cheese

Source:https://auxiliary.georgiasouthern.edu/eagledining/hours-and-locatio

ns/diningcommons/dining-commons-menus/

Figure 1

The DC Grill station inside the dining commons

Figure 2

The Brick Oven station in the dining commons

Figure 3A

Images of the back kitchen at the dining commons

Figure 3B

Images of the back kitchen at the dining commons

Data Collection and Analysis

Particle number concentrations (particles/m

) of varying

aerodynamic sizes (1, 2.5, 5, and 10 µm) were measured

using the six-channel CEM DT-9881 air monitor, pulling air

at 2.83L/min flow rate at 15 seconds intervals 5 times at

respirable heights in each of the selected cooking sites

during the afternoon and evening work shifts at the GSU

dining commons kitchen. This particle counter operates

based on light refraction by detecting the light scattered by

individual particle sizes, revealing their number

concentrations measured with a particle counter (Heim et

al., 2008).

, PM

2.5

, and PM

Mass concentrations were measured

using the DustTrak™ Aerosol Monitor 8532 (TSI Inc.,

Shoreview, MN) aerosol monitor. The device was used to

collect data 5 times at 2 minutes intervals in the selected

cooking stations during each work shift. The DustTrack is

an aerosol monitor photometer that provides a real-time

mass reading of particles (DustTrak II Aerosol Monitor

8532, 2021). It makes use of a sheath air system that

separates the aerosol in the optics chamber to ensure clean

optics for enhanced reliability and low maintenance

(DustTrak II Aerosol Monitor 8532, 2021). This device has

a TrakPro™ data analysis software that stores and analyzes

data collected on the device. Mass concentrations of

particulate matter were measured to compare the levels of

particulate matter to the US EPA regulatory standards. Both

measuring devices were fixed at respirable levels at each

collection station. Number concentrations of particles are

also essential for confirming the result from the mass

concentration of particles. The air quality parameters

measured are also essential for monitoring indoor and

outdoor air quality in occupational and other settings

(Adeoye et al., 2021). Data analysis was carried out using

Microsoft Excel 2016 version. The normal distributions of

data in different locations were checked by Q-Q

(quantile-quantile) plots and we found that data were not

normally distributed in some cases. Therefore, we

conducted Mann-Whitney U tests to compare a pair of data

sets and Kruskal-Wallis tests when we have more than two

sets of data to compare. The results are presented below.

RESULTS

A total number of 120 data samples of PM mass

concentrations were collected from the three cooking

stations during both working shifts. Table 2 below shows

the comparison of five particles categories between the

afternoon and evening shifts, at the three sampling

locations. At a significance level of 0.05, all particles except

show a statistically significant difference in their

concentrations during the afternoon and the evening shifts.

This is because PM

are very small particles and do not

settle easily, and as a result, they stay in the air for a long

period. These particles can also be present in the air from

other sources of indoor air pollutants because the filters used

in housing systems do not filter them out. The total particles

also show a statistically significant difference between the

afternoon and the evening shifts because the mass

concentrations of individual particles are computed in the

data analysis.

In table 3 below, the levels of the three particle categories

(PM

2.5

, PM

and total particles) show a statistically

significant difference (P <0.05) between the afternoon and

the evening shifts. A possible explanation for this finding is

the different cooking activities carried out at different

locations during these shifts generating different sizes and

levels of particles. Larger particles do not move around

easily, and as a result affect more local cooking areas. On

the contrary, smaller particles disperse quickly and do not

settle quickly, hence, they affect the whole kitchen area.

To further understand the difference between the levels of

PM at specific locations, Table 4 below reveals the

non-parametric post hoc analysis of the dining shifts in

Table 3 above that showed statistically significant difference

in PM concentrations. In total, seven shifts (three afternoon

shifts and four evening shifts), showed varying

concentrations of PM at specific locations. During the

evening shift, the PM levels at the back kitchen do not show

any statistically significant difference from the PM levels at

the DC grill. This may be because there are similar cooking

activities which involve grilling, frying, and roasting at the

back kitchen and the DC grill during the evening.

Figure 4 below shows the variations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and

mass concentrations at the Back Kitchen. The levels of

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the Back Kitchen during the

afternoon shift were higher when compared to the evening

shift. The highest mass concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and

measured in the afternoon shifts were 32µg/m

72µg/m

, and 315µg/m

, respectively. The highest levels of

, PM

2.5

, and PM

measured in the evening shifts were

11µg/m

, 19µg/m

, and 91µg/m

, respectively. PM

2.5

mass

concentrations at the back kitchen during the afternoon shift

was 72µg/m

, which exceeds the US EPA 24-hours National

Ambient Air Quality (NAAQ) regulatory standards

(35µg/m

) for PM

2.5

(EPA, 2020; J. Travers & Vogl, 2012).

Figure 5 shows the variations in mass-PM concentrations at

the Brick Oven. The levels of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the

Brick Oven during the afternoon shift were higher when

compared to the levels during the evening shift. The highest

mass concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

measured in

the afternoon shifts were 28µg/m

, 35µg/m

, and 295µg/m

respectively. The highest levels of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

measured in the evening shifts were 14µg/m3, 19µg/m3,

and 123µg/m

, respectively. PM

mass concentrations at the

brick oven during the afternoon shift was 295µg/m

, which

exceeds the US EPA 24-hours National Ambient Air Quality

(NAAQ) regulatory standards (150µg/m

) for PM

(EPA,

2020; J. Travers & Vogl, 2012) and 6 and the World Health

Organization 24-hours mean standards (50µg/m

) (WHO,

2021).

Table 2

Statistical significance values (p) when comparing afternoon versus evening PM concentrations for five PM size categories at

three sampling locations in the dining commons by using Independent Sample Mann-Whitney U tests.

Location

2.5

Respirable particles

Total particles

Back kitchen

0.07

0.001*

0.02*

Brick oven

0.091

0.014*

0.002*

DC grill

0.056

0.001*

<0.001*

Note: The significance level is 0.05; * indicates a significant difference between afternoon and evening levels.

Table 3

Statistical significance values (p) when comparing afternoon versus evening PM concentrations for five PM size categories

combining all three sampling locations in the dining commons by using Independent Sample Kruskal-Wallis tests.

Dining Shifts

2.5

Respirable particles

Total particles

Afternoon

0.266

0.277

0.050*

<0.001*

Evening

0.092

0.022*

0.008*

<0.001*

Note: The significance level is 0.05; * indicates a significant difference between afternoon and evening levels.

Table 4

Statistical significance values (p) when location and time-specific PM datasets were compared by using Independent Sample

Mann-Whitney U tests to determine which specific locations have significantly higher concentrations of particle levels than other

two.

Locations

Respirable

particles -

afternoon

Total

particles -

afternoon

2.5

evening

Respirable

particles -

evening

Total

particles -

evening

Back

kitchen vs.

Brick oven

0.028*

0.001*

0.007*

0.004*

<0.001*

Back

kitchen vs.

DC grill

0.201

0.026*

0.004*

0.478

0.512

0.583

0.659

Brick oven

vs. DC grill

0.108

0.002*

0.001*

0.038*

0.012*

<0.001*

Note: The significance level is 0.05; * indicates a significant difference between locations.

Figure 4 below shows the variations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and

mass concentrations at the Back Kitchen. The levels of

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the Back Kitchen during the

afternoon shift were higher when compared to the evening

shift. The highest mass concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and

measured in the afternoon shifts were 32µg/m

72µg/m

, and 315µg/m

, respectively. The highest levels of

, PM

2.5

, and PM

measured in the evening shifts were

11µg/m

, 19µg/m

, and 91µg/m

, respectively. PM

2.5

mass

concentrations at the back kitchen during the afternoon shift

was 72µg/m

, which exceeds the US EPA 24-hours National

Ambient Air Quality (NAAQ) regulatory standards

(35µg/m

) for PM

2.5

(EPA, 2020; J. Travers & Vogl, 2012).

Figure 5 shows the variations in mass-PM concentrations at

the Brick Oven. The levels of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the

Brick Oven during the afternoon shift were higher when

compared to the levels during the evening shift. The highest

mass concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

measured in

the afternoon shifts were 28µg/m

, 35µg/m

, and 295µg/m

respectively. The highest levels of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

measured in the evening shifts were 14µg/m

, 19µg/m

, and

123µg/m

, respectively. PM

mass concentrations at the

brick oven during the afternoon shift was 295µg/m

, which

exceeds the US EPA 24-hours National Ambient Air Quality

(NAAQ) regulatory standards (150µg/m

) for PM

(EPA,

2020; J. Travers & Vogl, 2012) and 6 and the World Health

Organization 24-hours mean standards (50µg/m

) (WHO,

2021).

Figure 6 shows the variations in mass-PM concentrations at

the DC Grill. The levels of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the DC

Grill during the afternoon shift were higher when compared

to the levels during the evening shift. The maximum levels

of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

measured in the afternoon shifts

were 24µg/m

, 30µg/m

, and 56µg/m

, respectively. The

maximum levels of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

measured in the

evening shifts were 18µg/m

, 22µg/m

, and 29µg/m

respectively.

The mean concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

were

highest at the Brick Oven when compared to the mean

concentrations at the Back Kitchen and DC Grill during

both the afternoon and evening shifts. The mean

concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the Back Kitchen

during the afternoon shift were 12.8± 8.70µg/m

, 19.85±

9.57µg/m

, and 83.65± 75.54µg/m

, respectively (Table 5).

The mean concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the

Back Kitchen during the evening shift were 7.7±4.21µg/m

12.15± 5.23µg/m

, and 31.05± 25.34µg/m

, respectively

(Table 6). The lowest mean concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

and PM

were noticed at the DC Grill when compared to

the mean concentrations at the Back Kitchen and Brick

Oven during both the afternoon and evening shifts. The

mean concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the DC

Grill during the afternoon shift were 9.85± 7.56µg/m

, 17.3±

7.39µg/m

, and 30.1± 11.39µg/m

, respectively (Table 5).

The mean concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the DC

Grill during the evening shift were 5.8± 5.33µg/m

, 8.25±

6.33µg/m

, and 13.05± 8.97µg/m

, respectively (Table 6).

The results from the particle number concentrations also

support the observed levels of PM mass concentrations. A

higher concentration of PM was recorded in the afternoon

shift than the evening shift. The mean concentrations of

2.5

, PM

, and PM

during the afternoon shift were

1,335,783± 93,4438, 320,471± 217,802, and 87,915±

65,571, particles/m

respectively. The evening shift, the

values were 207,020± 22,347, 23,745± 12,219, and 4,146±

2,295, particles/m

respectively (Table 7).

As earlier mentioned in the method section, the operation

hours at the GSU dining commons were reduced to

accommodate the COVID-19 regulatory guidelines.

However, high levels of PM are still noticed from the results

of the study. Therefore, there may have been higher levels

of PM than what was found in our study, before the

COVID-19 pandemic period, since more cooking activities

were done back then, and the dining commons operated for

longer hours. The findings from this study correspond to the

results from a recent study by Chang et al. (2021), who also

measured levels of PM

2.5

and PM

in a restaurant during the

period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from their

study revealed that levels of PM

2.5

and PM

at cooking

stations inside the restaurant exceeded the US EPA and even

the WHO regulatory standards. This is an indication that

indoor cooking inside can contribute to high concentrations

of PM. This study also highlighted the importance of PM

exposure as a risk factor for causing vulnerability to

COVID-19 and exacerbating already existing breathing

problems (Chang et al., 2021).

The results from this study also correspond with the findings

from a similar study conducted, that evaluated the indoor air

quality of restaurants in Savannah, Georgia (J. Travers &

Vogl, 2012). Their study found the levels of PM

2.5

in 11

restaurants to be 195μg/m

and 16 times higher than the

levels of fine particles outdoors. However, their study

focused on measuring PM in restaurants that permitted

indoor smoking before the 100% smoke-free law was

passed (J. Travers & Vogl, 2012). Nonetheless, both studies

also prove that there are still very high levels of PM in most

restaurants and cafeterias, and cooking staff may be exposed

to levels that are detrimental to their health.

Figure 4

Box plots showing variations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the Back Kitchen

Figure 5

Box plots showing variations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the Brick Oven

Figure 6

Box plots showing variations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the DC Grill

Table 5

Variations in the mean concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the three cooking stations during the afternoon shift

Back Kitchen

Brick Oven

DC Grill

(µg/m

), Mean±SD

10.55 ± 7.59

12.8 ± 8.70

9.85 ± 7.56

2.5

(µg/m

), Mean±SD

18.45 ± 17.17

19.85 ± 9.57

17.3 ± 7.39

(µg/m

), Mean±SD

44.5 ± 78.10

83.65 ± 75.54

30.1 ± 11.39

Table 6

Variations in the mean concentrations of PM

, PM

2.5

, and PM

at the three cooking stations during the evening shift.

Back Kitchen

Brick Oven

DC Grill

(µg/m

), Mean±SD

5.15 ± 2.37

7.7 ± 4.21

5.8 ± 5.33

2.5

(µg/m

), Mean±SD

7.85 ± 3.91

12.15 ± 5.23

8.25 ± 6.33

(µg/m

), Mean±SD

15.35 ± 19.02

31.05 ± 25.34

13.05 ± 8.97

Table 7

Variations in particle number concentrations during the afternoon and evening shifts.

Work Shifts

2.5

(Particles/m

)

(Particles/m

)

(Particles/m

)

Afternoon,

(Mean±SD)

1,335,783 ± 93,4438

320,471 ± 217,802

87,915 ± 65,571

Evening,

(Mean±SD)

207,020 ± 22,347

23,745 ± 12,219

4,146 ± 2,295

DISCUSSION

Our study revealed that high levels of PM

2.5

(fine particles)

exceeding the US EPA NAAQs standard were observed in

the Back Kitchen (Fig.4). These high levels may be due to

many cooking activities at that station during the afternoon

shift. These cooking activities involve boiling, frying,

grilling, mincing, and so on, which can release fine particles

into the air. The number of staff working routinely during

the afternoon shift is increasing there. The back kitchen also

makes use of mechanical and natural ventilation systems.

However, our study proved that these ventilation systems

might not be sufficient to reduce the levels of fine particles

released at that station. A study conducted by Daly et al.

(2010) which measured contributions of fine particulate

matter sources to indoor exposure in bars, restaurants, and

cafes, also found that natural ventilation is not sufficient to

bring PM

2.5

to levels that are safe for kitchen staff workers.

Previous studies (Akbar-Khanzadeh, 2003; Carrington et al.,

2003; Dingle et al., 2002; Drope et al., 2004) have also

implied that mechanical ventilation is not adequate to

reduce exposure to fine particles. Taner et al. (2013) also

found that exposure to high levels of fine particles from

cooking activities can predispose cooking staff and other

employees to a risk of developing cancer.

Our study also found that the highest levels of PM

were

observed from measurement at the Brick Oven (Table 5) and

the levels of PM

at that station exceeded the US EPA

NAAQs 24-hr regulatory standards (Fig 6). As earlier

described, this cooking station is where pizza baking was

performed, and it contains a furnace with a ventilation

system above it. However, our study revealed that even with

the ventilation system above the stove, cooking staff at that

station are still exposed to high levels of PM

, resulting in

possible long-term adverse respiratory effects. As described

from the results of the back kitchen, the mechanical

ventilation does still not impede the levels of PM workers at

that station are exposed to. Our findings from this station are

also similar to the findings of previous studies (Embiale et

al., 2019; Embiale et al., 2020) which showed that baking

could emit extremely high levels of PM

. However, both

studies measured PM

levels emitted from baking done

with traditional cooking stoves.

The low levels of PM observed at the DC Grill (Table 5)

during both the afternoon and evening shift (Table 6), is in

contrast to a study conducted by Sofuoglu et al. (2015), who

found that deep-frying can result in high levels of PM. A

possible reason for this would be that not many frying

activities are done at the DC Grill compared to other

cooking activities. Also, the study by Sofuoglu et al. (2015)

measured levels of PM from a restaurant that made use of

only margarine for deep-frying, and this may not be the case

at the GSU dining commons. Their study also only

measured levels of PM for a period of a week; therefore,

their results may not be generalizable. The levels of PM at

the DC Grill (Fig.6) did not also exceed the US EPA 24-hr

regulatory standards, which is an indicator that kitchen

workers at that station may be exposed to safe levels of PM.

The observed high levels of particulate matter during the

afternoon shift (Table 7), supports the findings of the mass

concentration of PM at the three cooking stations. A

possible explanation for this finding would be that the

increased PM was as a result of the increased number of

cooking activities taking place during the afternoon shift

and the increased number of employees working during the

afternoon shift because most staff members would prefer to

work in the afternoon, as it is a more convenient time for

them, and more cooking activities would demand more

employees.

This study has a few limitations. First, other significant

indoor air pollutants, including Volatile Organic Compounds

(VOCs), Sulfur dioxide (SO

), Nitrogen dioxide (NO

Carbon dioxide (CO

), and Polycyclic Aromatic

Hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are released into the air from

cooking, and could subject employees to adverse health

effects like tightening of the chest, irritation of the

respiratory tract and even cancer (Schauer et al., 2002),

were not measured in this study. Secondly, the carbon

monoxide levels were below the detection limits, which may

be a result of sampling errors from the measurement

instrument used or due to the mechanical ventilation at the

cafeteria. Previous studies found that cooking could emit

high levels of carbon monoxide (Adesalu & Kunrunmi,

2016; OJIMA, 2011). Further research involving measuring

other indoor air pollutants from cooking is thus

recommended.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, PM

2.5

levels at the back kitchen and PM

levels at the brick oven exceeded the 24h US-EPA NAAQ

and WHO mean standards and workers at the dining

commons, whether cooking staff or other employees, should

adopt proper protective measures or engineering controls to

reduce their exposure to PM from cooking activities.

Mitigation measures may include wearing personal

protective equipment like face masks. It is noteworthy that

due to COVID-19 safety guidelines, employees of the GSU

dining commons were mandated to put on their face masks

while at work. However, these face masks may sag due to

prolonged wearing hours and cooking activities, and in that

way, the workers could still be exposed to some levels of

PM. Furthermore, these masks may not be effective against

PM generated from oil mists and droplets. Hence, the use of

the P95 face mask is recommended to reduce workers'

exposure to PM levels, as it filters at least 95% of airborne

particles and is resistant to oil releases (CDC, 2021). Also,

the administrative control approach can be directed towards

reducing workers’ exposures to PM by allocating staff with

pre-existing health conditions to cooking stations where

they would not be exposed to high levels of PM. Routine

maintenance and change of air filters in the ventilation

system and arrangement of adequate ventilation are also

recommended to reduce exposures to levels of PM. The

increased concentration of PM could be associated with

increased cooking activities and the number of staff.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this paper are grateful to the Director of

Residential Learning, Georgia Southern University, Mr.

Greg Crawford, for permitting us to carry out this research

at the dining commons. The authors are also thankful to

other managers at the GSU dining commons for their

contributions during the period of the research.

References

Adeoye, C., Gupta, J., Demers, N., & Adhikari, A. (2021).

Variations of radon and airborne particulate matter near three

large phosphogypsum stacks in Florida. Environmental

Monitoring and Assessment, 193(5).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-021-09054-6

Adesalu, T., & Kunrunmi, O. (2016). Diatom communities in the

riparian systems associated with Lagos Lagoon, Nigeria I.

Seasonal and anthropogenic patterns in Majidun Creek.

Algological Studies, 150(1), 39-52.

https://doi.org/10.1127/algol_stud/2016/0249

Akbar-Khanzadeh, F. (2003). Exposure to Environmental Tobacco

Smoke in Restaurants without Separate Ventilation Systems for

Smoking and Nonsmoking Dining Areas. Archives of

Environmental Health: An International Journal, 58(2), 97-103.

https://doi.org/10.3200/aeoh.58.2.97-103

Alves, C., Vicente, E., Evtyugina, M., Vicente, A., Nunes, T., &

Lucarelli, F. et al. (2020). Indoor and outdoor air quality: A

university cafeteria as a case study. Atmospheric Pollution

Research, 11(3), 531-544.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2019.12.002

Campus Maps | Georgia Southern University.

Georgiasouthern.edu. (2021). Retrieved 25 April 2021, from

https://www.georgiasouthern.edu/map/?id=465.

Carrington, J., Watson, A., & Gee, I. (2003). The effects of

smoking status and ventilation on environmental tobacco

smoke concentrations in public areas of UK pubs and bars.

Atmospheric Environment, 37(23), 3255-3266.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(03)00324-8

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2021).

NIOSH-Approved P95 Particulate Filtering Facepiece

Respirators. Retrieved 30 April 2021 from

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/disp_part/p

95list1.html,

Chang, H. S., Capuozzo, B., Okumus, B., & Cho, M. (2021). Why

cleaning the invisible in restaurants is important during

COVID-19: A case study of indoor air quality of an

open-kitchen restaurant. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 94, 102854.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102854

Daly, B., Schmid, K., & Riediker, M. (2010). Contribution of fine

particulate matter sources to indoor exposure in bars,

restaurants, and cafes. Indoor Air, 20(3), 204-212.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00645.x

Dingle, P., Tapsell, P., Tremains, I., & Tan, R. (2002).

Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Ventilation in 20 Social

Venues in Perth, Western Australia. Indoor and Built

Environment, 11(3), 146-152.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326x0201100304

Dining Commons | Eagle Dining Services | Georgia Southern

University. Auxiliary.georgiasouthern.edu. (2019). Retrieved

25 April 2021, from

https://auxiliary.georgiasouthern.edu/eagledining/hours-and-loc

ations/diningcommons/.

Downward, G., van der Zwaag, H., Simons, L., Meliefste, K.,

Tefera, Y., & Carreon, J. et al. (2018). Occupational exposure

to indoor air pollution among bakery workers in Ethiopia; A

comparison of electric and biomass cookstoves. Environmental

Pollution, 233, 690-697.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.10.094

Drope, J. (2004). Tobacco industry efforts to present ventilation as

an alternative to smoke-free environments in North America.

Tobacco Control, 13(90001), 41i-47.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2003.004101

DustTrak II Aerosol Monitor 8532. TSI.com. (2021). Retrieved 25

April 2021, from

https://www.tsi.com/products/aerosol-and-dust-monitors/dust-

monitors/dusttrak-ii-aerosol-monitor-8532/.

Embiale, A., Chandravanshi, B., Zewge, F., & Sahle-Demessie, E.

(2019). Investigation into Trace Elements in PM

from the

Baking of Injera Using Clean, Improved and Traditional

Stoves: Emission and Health Risk Assessment. Aerosol

Science and Engineering, 3(4), 150-163.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41810-019-00049-y

Embiale, A., Chandravanshi, B., Zewge, F., & Sahle-Demessie, E.

(2020). Indoor air pollution from cook-stoves during Injera

baking in Ethiopia, exposure, and health risk assessment.

Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health, 76(2),

103-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2020.1787317

Heim, M., Mullins, B., Umhauer, H., & Kasper, G. (2008).

Performance evaluation of three optical particle counters with

an efficient “multimodal” calibration method. Journal of

Aerosol Science, 39(12), 1019-1031.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.07.006

J. Travers, M., & Vogl, L. (2012). Savannah, Georgia Indoor Air

Quality Monitoring Study. Gachd.org. Retrieved 24 April

2021, from

https://www.gachd.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Savannah-

Indoor-Air-Quality-Monitoring-Study.pdf.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM | US

EPA. US EPA. (2020). Retrieved 25 April 2021, from

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/national-ambient-air-quality

-standards-naaqs

OJIMA, J. (2011). Generation Rate of Carbon Monoxide from

Burning Charcoal. Industrial Health, 49(3), 393-395.

https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.ms1189

Sanbata, H., Asfaw, A., & Kumie, A. (2014). Indoor air pollution

in slum neighborhoods of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Atmospheric

Environment, 89, 230-234.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.003

Schauer, J., Kleeman, M., Cass, G., & Simoneit, B. (2002).

Measurement of Emissions from Air Pollution Sources. 4.

C1−C27Organic Compounds from Cooking with Seed Oils.

Environmental Science & Technology, 36(4), 567-575.

https://doi.org/10.1021/es002053m

See, S., & Balasubramanian, R. (2006). Risk assessment of

exposure to indoor aerosols associated with Chinese cooking.

Environmental Research, 102(2), 197-204.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2005.12.013

Sofuoglu, S., Toprak, M., Inal, F., & Cimrin, A. (2015). Indoor air

quality in a restaurant kitchen using margarine for deep-frying.

Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 22(20),

15703-15711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4762-6

Taner, S., Pekey, B., & Pekey, H. (2013). Fine particulate matter in

the indoor air of barbeque restaurants: Elemental compositions,

sources and health risks. Science of The Total Environment,

454-455, 79-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.018

World Health Organization (WHO), "Air Quality Guidelines for

Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, and

Sulfur-Dioxide—Global Update 2005—Summary of Risk

Assessment," World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva,

2006, p. 22. - References - Scientific Research Publishing

[Internet]. Scirp.org. 2021 [cited 2021 Apr 29]; Available

from:

https://www.scirp.org/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?Refere

nceID=893265

Zhao, Y., & Zhao, B. (2018). Emissions of air pollutants from

Chinese cooking: A literature review. Building Simulation,

11(5), 977-995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-018-0456-6

University, G. (2021). Dining Commons Menus | Eagle Dining

Services | Georgia Southern University. Retrieved 29 July

2021, from

https://auxiliary.georgiasouthern.edu/eagledining/hours-and-loc

ations/diningcommons/dining-commons-menus/

University, G. (2021). Hours and Locations | Eagle Dining

Services | Georgia Southern University. Retrieved 30 July

2021, from

https://auxiliary.georgiasouthern.edu/eagledining/hours-and-loc

ations/

open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives License

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work ("first published in the Journal of the Georgia Public Health Association…") is properly cited with original URL and bibliographic

citation information. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.gapha.jgpha.org/, as well as this