Particulate Matter During Food Preparation on a Barbecue: A Case Study of an Electric Barbecue

Abstract

The distribution of mass and the number of particles is a determining factor in the respirable nature of a given particulate matter (PM), and thus in the potential health effects of breathing the air in question. One of the most popular activities during the summer months is the preparation of food on a barbecue. Barbecuing represents one of the few sources of combustion particulates during the summer, a period which is otherwise characterised by a lack of heating. The objective of this study is to ascertain the fractional composition of PM emitted during food preparation on an electric barbecue and to compare these values with the measured background. The concentrations of particulate matter (PM) at the barbecue were determined with a Palas AQ Guard optical spectrometer, while the background concentrations were measured with a Palas Fidas 200 optical spectrometer that complies with the EN16450 standard. The contribution of the individual PM fractions measured in the barbecue environment differed from that observed in the ambient air. The background measurements exhibited a relatively well-defined and consistent distribution, with the PM₁ fraction representing between 10 and 30% of the PM mass and the PM₄₋₁ fraction accounting for only 10 to 20%. Thus, the mass of the PM₄ fraction did not exceed 50% of the total mass of particles. Upon analysis of the particles emitted during the grilling process, it was observed that the PM₁ fraction was capable of accounting for a substantial proportion, exceeding 90% of the PM mass. The trend related to the PM₄₋₁ fraction was maintained; however, the limit of the maximum content of this fraction increased to 40% of the PM. The results demonstrate that the barbecue process itself, utilising a barbecue without emission fuel, can exert a notable influence on the contribution of submicron PM.

1. Introduction

Particulate matter (PM) represents a significant environmental pollutant with profound implications for public health and atmospheric quality [1,2]. The emission of PM from a range of anthropogenic sources, including residential barbecues, has attracted increasing scholarly attention due to its potential adverse effects on air quality and human health [3,4]. The practice of barbecuing, particularly in urban settings where outdoor space is limited, gives rise to concerns not only regarding the direct emissions of particulate matter but also about the social dynamics that emerge when neighbours engage in this activity [5,6]. An understanding of the size distribution of particulate matter is crucial for elucidating its health effects, as different size fractions demonstrate varying capacities for respiratory penetration and systemic exposure [7,8,9,10,11]. The mass size distribution of PM can vary considerably depending on the source of emissions. Prior research has indicated that combustion processes, such as those occurring during grilling, result in the production of a diverse range of particulate sizes, which have implications for both local air quality and human exposure [10,11]. The utilisation of optical aerosol spectrometers enables the comprehensive examination of size-segregated PM, thus offering insights into the concentration and distribution of particles emitted during barbecuing activities.

The health effects associated with PM exposure from BBQ fumes are well-documented [12,13,14]. Of particular concern is fine particulate matter (PM_2.5), which has the ability to penetrate deeply into the pulmonary system and enter the bloodstream, thereby causing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases [15,16,17]. Between 2005 and 2021, the number of premature deaths in the EU attributable to PM fell by 41% [18], however, the World Health Organization (WHO) classified PM as a significant environmental health risk, with an estimated link to millions of premature deaths annually.

In light of the growing prevalence of residential barbecuing, particularly in urban areas, it is imperative to gain a comprehensive understanding of the emissions generated by this activity in order to safeguard public health and inform regulatory measures.

While existing literature has primarily focused on traditional charcoal [4,10,19,20] or gas grills [10,11], there is a significant gap in the research addressing the emissions from electric grills [10,21]. In recent years, and particularly during the pandemic, the practice of electric grilling has gained increasing popularity. It is, therefore, important to assess the emissions produced by electric barbecues. It has been demonstrated that the chemical composition of PM can vary considerably depending on the fuel source, affecting its toxicity and the associated health effects. The combustion of organic materials during grilling can yield not only particulate matter but also volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are known to have deleterious effects on human health [22,23,24]. Short-term exposure to PAHs can lead to respiratory issues such as decreased lung function, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, coughing, chest tightness, and a sore throat. Meanwhile, VOCs, often found indoors, can cause headaches and dizziness. Long-term exposure to PAHs, known carcinogens, is associated with cancers (lung, skin, bladder, and gastrointestinal), liver damage, cardiovascular diseases, and endocrine disruption, which can affect fertility and pregnancy. Chronic exposure to VOCs is linked to cancer and neurological issues, including cognitive impairment [25,26,27,28,29,30,31].

For example, a recent study [32] reported that occupational exposure to VOCs among beauty salon workers led to symptoms such as dry eyes, skin irritation, and dry skin. The mean non-carcinogenic risks of acetaldehyde and formaldehyde, as well as the mean carcinogenic risk of formaldehyde, exceeded acceptable levels. Another study [33] on emissions from typical Chinese residential cooking, based on field measurements of PAHs, VOCs, and PM_2.5, highlighted significant health risks associated with these practices. Grilling was identified as the cooking method producing the highest PM_2.5 concentrations (28.79 ± 9.36 mg/m³), with a distinct emission profile. The primary PAH species detected were Phenanthrene, Anthracene, Benzo[a]pyrene, and Fluorene, while oxygenated VOCs dominated VOC emissions, followed by alkanes and aromatic hydrocarbons. The high concentrations of PAHs and VOCs emitted from Chinese cooking, as measured by the researchers, indicate that long-term exposure to these emissions poses severe health hazards.

The maximum temperature achieved by electric grills following preheating varies considerably between different models, with some reaching temperatures in excess of 200 °C [11]. Furthermore, electric grills are known for their uneven heat distribution, which may impact the food quality [34]. Electric grills do not burn fossil fuels and, thus, do not produce combustion-related pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are commonly found in gas grills. As previously demonstrated, the calculated risk from inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact of Σ15PAH in the case of professional cook exposure to grilling over lumps and briquettes was found to be between 3.5 × 10⁻³ and 3.9 × 10⁻³, respectively, while for humans exposed to electric grill fumes in Shenzhen, China, it was a value of 3.6 × 10⁻⁵ for the professional cook [35]. In our previous study, in which we tested PAHs and BTEX emissions from three types of BBQ grilles—electric, gas grill, and the most typical charcoal grill (lump and charcoal briquettes)—we found that the sum of 15PAHs for the mentioned types of grills while grilling meat, was as follows: 4251.93 ng/m³; 1442.16 ng/m³, lump charcoal 48,189.17 ng/m³, and 382,020.39 ng/m³ [11].

Furthermore, the social implications of barbecuing on balconies, where the grilling practices of one neighbour can adversely affect the air quality experienced by others, have not been adequately addressed in the existing literature. Such social interactions have the potential to give rise to conflicts or feelings of discomfort among residents, particularly in densely populated urban environments. The phenomenon of “barbecue smoke” can potentially create a nuisance for non-participating neighbours, resulting in complaints and potential disputes. This highlights the necessity for a comprehensive understanding of the emissions involved. The social dynamics of urban living, including the negotiation of shared spaces and the impact of individual behaviours on community wellbeing, are critical factors that warrant further exploration.

Notwithstanding the increasing number of studies on PM emissions from a variety of sources [36,37,38,39], there is a significant deficiency in research focusing on the mass-size distribution of PM emitted from electric grills. The existing literature on this topic is limited [10,21,40,41] and has primarily focused on the overall concentration of PM without delving into the size distribution and its implications for health and air quality. An understanding of the size distribution of PM is essential for the assessment of its potential health impacts, given that different particle sizes can exhibit varying deposition patterns within the respiratory tract.

The present study aims to address this gap by analysing the mass and number size distribution of particulate matter emitted during electric grilling on a balcony. The concentrations of PM at the grilling site, in a nearby flat, and at a background site will be compared using optical aerosol spectrometers to obtain precise measurements. The objective of this research is to contribute to a better understanding of the environmental and social implications of residential barbecuing, with the ultimate goal of informing guidelines for urban living and air quality management. In addition to enhancing our knowledge of PM emissions from electric grills, the findings of this study will also provide insights into the broader context of urban air quality and community interactions.

The results of the study are not limited to a specific type of electric barbecue or to specific meteorological conditions, but aim to indicate the impact of electric barbecue activity as a potential additional source contributing to air pollution.

2. Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted in Warsaw, Poland, on 28 April 2024, during the informal start of the BBQ season in Poland (“long May weekend” [42]). The weather on this day was acceptable for a BBQ, and the average temperature during grilling was 19.5 °C, the average wind speed was 2 m/s, and the pressure was 1004 hPa at ground level [43]. The location of sites on the background of OpenStreetMap [44] is provided in Figure 1.

The grilling was performed on a balcony of a block of flats in Bielany, a district of Warsaw, on the fifth floor (approx. 13 m above the ground). The location is built-up with high blocks of flats. The sampling was performed simultaneously in two adjacent flats, and the distance between measurement devices was 10 m. The sampling of the PM was performed using two Palas AQ Guards (Palas GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany) [45]. The Palas AQ Guard is an optical aerosol spectrometer with the range of 0.175 to 20 µm, with 32 channels per decade, and a sampling flow rate of 1 L/min. The device has $R^2>0.98$ for PM_2.5 and $R^2>0.94$ for PM₁₀ versus Palas Fidas 200 [45]. The device was calibrated according to the maintenance instruction provided by the manufacturer and just before the experiment was calibrated using MonoDust 1500 [46], silicon dioxide particles of a mean diameter of 1.28 µm. The scheme of devices location is provided in Figure 2. The first AQ Guard was mounted next to the grill while the second was in the next flat, which is not occupied on a daily basis, and thus appears to be free from common sources of indoor particles, including smoking, dust generation, and cooking. However, the apartment’s premises are not subjected to regular ventilation, which effectively prevents the migration of atmospheric particles and other pollutants from the external environment. The devices were sampling with 1 min average time. The clocks of all sampling devices were synchronised.

The grilling was performed using a typical table grill with an open “stove” rated at 2000–2300 W (the device utilised in the study, akin to numerous other devices currently available on the market, was the Philips HD4419 (Koninklijke Philips N.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [47]). The decision to select the grill was predicated on the observation that its construction was analogous to that of a conventional grill, powered by coal or briquettes and facilitating future comparisons with conventional grills. The food prepared on the grill was consistent with the traditional fare of a barbecue, comprising pork neck, bacon, camembert cheese, and an assortment of vegetables.

The aerosol concentration at a background site was measured using Airpointer (recordum Messtechnik GmbH, Wiener Neustadt, Austria) [48] equipped with the Palas Fidas 200 (Palas GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany), an optical aerosol spectrometer [49]. The device was maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and the specifications outlined in the QAL-1 certificate [50] using MonoDust 1500 (Palas GmbH, Germany), [46] from the same bottle as the AQ Guard. Calibration is conducted on a quarterly basis, with the most recent calibration occurring approximately one month prior to the measurements described in this study. The certified sampling range of the device is 0.18–18 µm, with 32 channels per decade. The device was mounted on the roof of Fire University, with a sampling head 14.9 m above ground level [51].

All the data analyses were performed using Python programming language, version 3.12.3 [52] with the package scipy 1.14.1 [53] and visualisation was performed using packages matplotlib 3.9.2 [54] and mpltern 1.0.4 [55].

Figure 1

The location of sampling sites presented on the OpenStreetMap background [44], a map created using QGIS 3.22 Białowieża [56].

[Figure omitted. See PDF]

Figure 2

Scheme of sampling sites at two flats. On the balcony in the left flat there is a grill with the AQ Guard while in the second flat, completely separate, there is an opened window with the AQ Guard inside.

[Figure omitted. See PDF]

3. Results and Discussion

As shown in Figure 3, the ternary plot shows the fractional contributions of the different PM fractions. The figure shows PM₁ (submicron particles), PM₄₋₁ (particles between 1 and 4 µm), and PM₁₀₀₋₄ (particles between 4 and 100 µm) for three environments: grilling point (denoted grill), indoor of the adjacent flat (indoor), and background. An examination of the grill data (represented by the blue dots in Figure 3) shows that they are distributed mainly along the grid lines of the PM₄₋₁ axis, with a slight tilt towards the 100% PM₁ vertex. This suggests that the particles generated by the grilling process are predominantly composed of fine submicron particles. The generation of submicron particles (PM₁) is often associated with high-temperature processes, including combustion, heating, and even food-related emissions such as fat evaporation [3,6,57]. Our study used an electric grill (which does not involve direct fuel combustion), but grilling still involves high temperatures that generate fine particles through processes such as fat evaporation. When fats and oils from food reach high temperatures, they can vaporise. Upon cooling, these vapours condense into submicron aerosols, significantly increasing the proportion of PM₁ [58,59,60]. This effect is further enhanced by the high power of electric grills (round 2000 watts), which rapidly heats fats and oils, thereby accelerating the production of ultrafine particles. This is consistent with the finding that PM₁ can account for over 90% of the total particle mass during grilling. It is noteworthy that a study by Alves et al. (2022) [6], in which the researchers used a charcoal grill, found that PM_2.5 accounted for 97–99% of PM₁₀. In addition, PM₁ accounted for 98–99% of PM_2.5, indicating that the majority of particulate emissions from charcoal grilling are very small, submicron particles. This suggests that submicron particles remain a concern, even with electric barbecues. Another process that can potentially affect the concentration of submicron particles is the presence of cooking by-products. In addition, particulate matter can result from the emission of small solid particles from food surfaces, including charred or burnt particles that are extremely fine [61]. The reasons for the reduction in PM₄₋₁ and PM₁₀₀₋₄ near the grill can be observed. Larger particles (PM₄₋₁ and PM₁₀₀₋₄) are typically generated by mechanical processes, such as the production of dust, dirt or larger combustion particles in traditional fuel-based barbecues [13,62]. In the case of the electric barbecue, the absence of combustion of fuels such as charcoal reduces mechanical disturbance and the generation of particulate matter from these sources. The absence of traditional combustion also explains the lower concentration of coarser particles (PM₁₀₀₋₄), as there is no burning fuel to produce ash or large particles. The slight shift of the blue data points (representing barbecue emissions) towards the PM₁₀₀₋₄ axis can be attributed to the influence of background particles present on the balcony. Although the barbecue emits mainly fine particles (PM₁), some coarser background particles (in the PM₁₀₀₋₄ range) from the surrounding outdoor environment, such as dust, pollen or urban pollution, may mix with the barbecue emissions [63].

Indoor air, represented by the orange data points in Figure 3, is reflected in the more evenly distributed PM₁ fraction. This reflects common indoor sources of fine particles such as cooking, aerosols from cleaning products, smoking and general human activities [64,65,66]. The lack of clustering along the PM₄₋₁ and PM₁₀₀₋₄ axes confirms that larger particles are not dominant indoors, which is consistent with typical indoor particle size distributions where submicron particles are more common [67,68,69]. It also suggests that grilling may affect indoor air at the moment of cooking, as the usual movement of people in and out of the home causes the wind to flow indoors together with submicron particles generated by the grilling process.

With regard to the background environment, as illustrated by the green data points in Figure 3, it is predominantly characterised by PM₁₀₀₋₄ particles, as evidenced by the clustering along the right side of the plot. This pattern is to be expected in ambient outdoor air, where larger particles such as dust and pollen are prevalent [70,71]. The low concentration of PM₁ comprises 10 to 30% of the dust mass, and the PM₄₋₁ fraction accounts for only 10 to 20%. Therefore, it can be concluded that the mass of the PM₄₋₁ fraction did not exceed 50% of the PM mass. Similarly, the trend associated with the PM₄₋₁ fraction in grilling (blue dots) was maintained; however, the limit of the maximum content of this fraction increased to 40% of the PM. Overall, the results demonstrate that the grilling process itself, using a grill without emission fuel, can be a significant factor affecting the contribution of submicron PM.

The boxplots presented in Figure 4 demonstrate notable disparities in particulate matter (PM) concentrations values across environmental contexts for PM₁, PM₄, and PM₁₀₀. The findings demonstrate that the barbecue environment exerts a pronounced influence on the concentrations of PM₁, PM₄, and PM₁₀₀ particles, particularly as a consequence of the grilling process. The elevated levels of PM₁ in the grill environment serve to highlight the presence of submicron particles, which have the potential to have adverse health implications due to their capacity to penetrate deeply into the respiratory system [72,73]. These findings corroborate those of the preceding plot (Figure 3), indicating that even electric grills, which lack traditional combustion fuels, nevertheless generate considerable quantities of fine and submicron particles, presumably as a result of the burning of fats and other food compounds. In their study, Xu et al. [58] examined the particulate matter emissions produced when various types of meat were grilled using charcoal as fuel. The findings revealed that pork, which is known for its high-fat content, emitted the highest levels of PM₁ among the tested meats, contributing significantly to ultrafine particle concentrations. These results suggest that even with electric grills, submicron particles are likely generated from the volatilisation and combustion of fats in the meat itself.

The background environment, dominated by PM₁₀₀ as illustrated in Figure 4, plays a role in the results presented in Figure 3, where clustering of PM₁₀₀₋₄ was observed. It can be observed that the background environment has a limited number of sources of fine particles (PM₁), resulting in relatively low concentrations of PM₁ and PM₄ in comparison to those observed in the vicinity of the grill. This pattern of low fine particle concentration in the background air is consistent with the presence of ambient outdoor air that is dominated by coarser particles, such as dust and pollen [74].

The indoor air, with relatively low concentrations of PM₁ and PM₄, demonstrates the least diversity and overall concentration of particles. While grilling on the balcony may contribute to the presence of particles in the indoor environment, the concentrations generally remain stable. This stability can be attributed to the controlled indoor environment, where ventilation systems and building characteristics effectively limit exposure to both fine and coarse particles [75,76].

Finally, the data presented in this figure demonstrate that grilling on an electric barbecue can significantly increase PM concentrations, particularly for fine particles (PM₁). In contrast, the background and indoor environments exhibit lower and more stable particle concentrations due to limited sources of submicron PM, which highlights the impact of grilling on air quality in the vicinity of the cooking area. The increase in concentration observed at the grill is less pronounced than that seen in our previous studies involving gas and coal-powered grills [77]. However, the results presented here should be interpreted in the context of the background conditions.

Figure 4

Boxplots of the PM₁, PM_4, and PM₁₀₀ concentrations during grilling with calculated values of means, standard deviation, and 95th percentile. The boxes are from the 1st to 3rd quartile, the orange line denotes the median, while the green triangle is the position of the mean. Whiskers are from the minimum to maximum. The concentrations between sites were significantly different (Brunner Munzel test [78], p < 0.001) except for PM₁ indoor and grill (p = 0.2).

[Figure omitted. See PDF]

An examination of the sum of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Figure 5 reveals a correlation with the observations derived from the particulate matter (PM) analysis. The elevated levels of volatile organic compounds in the vicinity of the grill are mirrored by the elevated concentrations of particulate matter, particularly in the PM₁ fraction. Both VOCs and PM with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 1 μm (PM₁) are by-products of the grilling process. Our previous study, conducted using passive devices—sorbent tubes [11] —indicated that the PAHs concentration over electric, for specific dishes, are very similar to the lump charcoal–powered grill and even exceed values for the propane-powered grill. VOCs, which are often the result of the thermal breakdown of organic compounds in food, contribute to the mixture of fine particles that are detected in the vicinity of the grill [58]. This correlation indicates that grilling, even with an electric grill, introduces both VOCs and fine particles of PM₁ into the air, which can have implications for air quality and human health, especially in enclosed or semi-enclosed spaces. A study conducted by Cheng et al. [79] identified 51 distinct VOC species across various cooking methods and reported that grilling resulted in the highest total VOC concentrations. The study conducted by Cheng et al. substantiated the assertion that grills utilising charcoal as a fuel source contribute significantly to the emission of VOCs. However, the experimental setup employed an electric grill. This indicates that even in the absence of direct combustion, grilling results in the release of a considerable quantity of VOCs, which may be attributed to elevated cooking temperatures and the volatilisation of organic compounds present in the food. Further investigation into the emission characteristics of VOCs during grilling with an electric grill could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the sources and mechanisms involved. The relatively low and stable indoor VOC concentrations indicate that the indoor environment lacks significant VOC sources during the measurement period. This finding corroborates the low PM concentrations observed indoors, thereby supporting the notion that indoor air quality remains stable in the absence of combustion or cooking activities. The minor VOC presence indoors may have originated from background sources, such as cleaning products, furniture off-gassing, or minimal outdoor air infiltration [80,81]. Although data regarding the background environment for volatile organic compounds is not provided in this plot, the previously analysed particulate matter concentrations indicate that outdoor air is dominated by larger particles (PM₁₀₀₋₄) rather than fine particles or VOCs. This suggests that ambient air in this setting may have lower VOC contributions compared to the grill environment, which is consistent with the clustering of background PM data points along the PM₁₀₀₋₄ axis in the ternary plot.

4. Conclusions

The grilling process represents a significant source of fine submicron particles (PM₁), which are frequently associated with high-temperature processes, including combustion and heating. In addition to these processes, food-related emissions, particularly the evaporation of fats, contribute to the formation of these particles. When fats and oils are subjected to elevated temperatures during grilling, they vaporise and subsequently condense into submicron aerosols, thereby increasing PM₁ concentrations. Furthermore, fine particulate matter may be released from food surfaces in the form of charred or burnt particles.

In the context of electric barbecues, the absence of fuel combustion, such as that produced by charcoal, results in a reduction in mechanical disturbance and a concomitant decrease in the generation of particulate matter from these sources. This observation indicates that the grilling process can markedly impact indoor air quality, as human activities may facilitate the introduction of submicron particles from grilling into indoor environments. However, concentrations of these particles typically remain stable due to the presence of controlled environments and effective ventilation systems, which mitigate exposure to both fine and coarse particulate matter.

The findings of our study indicate that grilling, even with electric grills that do not utilise emission fuels, substantially contributes to submicron PM levels, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the barbecue. The marked increase in PM₁ particles, along with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), during the grilling process underscores their potential health risks, given their ability to penetrate deeply into the respiratory system. This concern is further amplified by the fact that other pollutants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), can adsorb onto the surfaces of solid particles, posing additional health hazards.

The results, although obtained under specific conditions, reveal a general trend in the submicron particle contribution of a typical electric grill. This finding is particularly novel and significant, as previous studies on barbecue emissions have primarily concentrated on fuel-powered grills or especially focused on larger particulate matter or gaseous pollutants, thereby overlooking the potential impact of submicron particles.

Submicron particles, often referred to as ultrafine particles (UFPs), are a significant concern due to their ability to penetrate deeply into the human respiratory system and potentially pose serious health risks. This research provides a unique perspective by highlighting the distinct differences in the size distribution of particulates, thereby establishing a foundation for both UFP non-combustion grill emissions and the analysis of the number and mass size distribution of such sources.

Further studies are required to advance the understanding of barbecue emissions, particularly in relation to submicron particles. The findings presented here have the potential to inform the development of more sustainable and environmentally friendly barbecue technologies, which could ultimately contribute to improvements in air quality and public health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, J.S.B. and A.B.; methodology, J.S.B.; software, J.S.B.; validation, K.W.-R. and D.C.; formal analysis, P.R.-K.; investigation, J.S.B.; resources, M.P. and G.M.; data curation, W.R.-K. and P.R.-K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.W.-R., D.C. and A.B.; writing—review and editing, A.B. and W.R.-K.; visualisation, J.S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures

Figure 3. The ternary plot of fraction shares. The direction of ticks and ticks’ labels correspond to axes labels.

Figure 5. Boxplots of the VOC sum during grilling with values of means, standard deviation, and 95th percentile. The boxes are from the 1st to 3rd quartile, the orange line denotes the median, while the green triangle is the position of the mean. Whiskers are from the minimum to maximum. The concentrations between sites were significantly different (Brunner Munzel test [78], p [less than] 0.001).

References

1. Anderson, J.O.; Thundiyil, J.G.; Stolbach, A. Clearing the Air: A Review of the Effects of Particulate Matter Air Pollution on Human Health. J. Med. Toxicol.; 2012; 8, pp. 166-175. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13181-011-0203-1] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22194192]

2. US EPA. Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Office of the Federal Register: Washington, DC, USA, 2024.

3. Lee, Y.-Y.; Park, H.; Seo, Y.; Yun, J.; Kwon, J.; Park, K.-W.; Han, S.-B.; Oh, K.C.; Jeon, J.-M.; Cho, K.-S. Emission Characteristics of Particulate Matter, Odors, and Volatile Organic Compounds from the Grilling of Pork. Environ. Res.; 2020; 183, 109162. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109162] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32018206]

4. Jelonek, Z.; Drobniak, A.; Mastalerz, M.; Jelonek, I. Emissions during Grilling with Wood Pellets and Chips. Atmos. Environ. X; 2021; 12, 100140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100140]

5. ElSharkawy, M.F.; Ibrahim, O.A. Impact of the Restaurant Chimney Emissions on the Outdoor Air Quality. Atmosphere; 2022; 13, 261. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos13020261]

6. Alves, C.A.; Evtyugina, M.; Vicente, E.; Vicente, A.; Gonçalves, C.; Neto, A.I.; Nunes, T.; Kováts, N. Outdoor Charcoal Grilling: Particulate and Gas-Phase Emissions, Organic Speciation and Ecotoxicological Assessment. Atmos. Environ.; 2022; 285, 119240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119240]

7. Saito, E.; Tanaka, N.; Miyazaki, A.; Tsuzaki, M. Concentration and Particle Size Distribution of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Formed by Thermal Cooking. Food Chem.; 2014; 153, pp. 285-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.055]

8. Zhang, S.; Peng, S.-C.; Chen, T.-H.; Wang, J.-Z. Evaluation of Inhalation Exposure to Carcinogenic PM10-Bound PAHs of People at Night Markets of an Urban Area in a Metropolis in Eastern China. Aerosol. Air. Qual. Res.; 2015; 15, pp. 1944-1954. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2015.07.0433]

9. Wu, C.C.; Bao, L.J.; Guo, Y.; Li, S.M.; Zeng, E.Y. Barbecue Fumes: An Overlooked Source of Health Hazards in Outdoor Settings?. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2015; 49, pp. 10607-10615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b01494]

10. Badyda, A.J.; Widziewicz, K.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Majewski, G.; Jureczko, I. Inhalation Exposure to PM-Bound Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Released from Barbecue Grills Powered by Gas, Lump Charcoal, and Charcoal Briquettes. Pulmonary Disorders and Therapy; Pokorski, M. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2018; 1023, pp. 11-27. ISBN 978-3-319-73702-7

11. Badyda, A.J.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Majewski, G.; Bralewska, K.; Widziewicz-Rzońca, K.; Piekarska, B.; Rogulski, M.; Bihałowicz, J.S. Inhalation Risk to PAHs and BTEX during Barbecuing: The Role of Fuel/Food Type and Route of Exposure. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2022; 440, 129635. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129635]

12. Lyu, J.; Shi, Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, X.; Chu, W.; Lian, Z. Characteristics of PM_2.5 Emissions from Six Types of Commercial Cooking in Chinese Cities and Their Health Effects. Environ. Pollut.; 2022; 313, 120180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120180]

13. Figueiredo, D.; Vicente, E.D.; Gonçalves, C.; Lopes, I.; Oliveira, H.; Alves, C.A. Outdoor Charcoal Combustion in Barbecue Grills: Potential Cytotoxic, Oxidative Stress and Mutagenic Effects. Atmos. Environ.; 2024; 322, 120383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120383]

14. Lenssen, E.S.; Pieters, R.H.H.; Nijmeijer, S.M.; Oldenwening, M.; Meliefste, K.; Hoek, G. Short-Term Associations between Barbecue Fumes and Respiratory Health in Young Adults. Environ. Res.; 2022; 204, 111868. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111868] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34453901]

15. Thangavel, P.; Park, D.; Lee, Y.-C. Recent Insights into Particulate Matter (PM_2.5)-Mediated Toxicity in Humans: An Overview. IJERPH; 2022; 19, 7511. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127511] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35742761]

16. Liu, J.; Han, Y.; Tang, X.; Zhu, J.; Zhu, T. Estimating Adult Mortality Attributable to PM_2.5 Exposure in China with Assimilated PM_2.5 Concentrations Based on a Ground Monitoring Network. Sci. Total Environ.; 2016; 568, pp. 1253-1262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.165]

17. Wei, T.; Tang, M. Biological Effects of Airborne Fine Particulate Matter (PM_2.5) Exposure on Pulmonary Immune System. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol.; 2018; 60, pp. 195-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2018.04.004]

18. European Environment Agency. European Union 8th Environment Action Programme: Monitoring Report on Progress Towards the 8th EAP Objectives; 2023rd ed. European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2023.

19. Kim, H.; Lee, S.-b. Charcoal Grill Restaurants Deteriorate Outdoor Air Quality by Emitting Volatile Organic Compounds. Pol. J. Environ. Stud.; 2012; 21, pp. 1667-1673.

20. Susaya, J.; Kim, K.-H.; Ahn, J.-W.; Jung, M.-C.; Kang, C.-H. BBQ Charcoal Combustion as an Important Source of Trace Metal Exposure to Humans. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2010; 176, pp. 932-937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.11.129]

21. Torkmahalleh, M.A.; Gorjinezhad, S.; Keles, M.; Unluevcek, H.S.; Azgin, C.; Cihan, E.; Tanis, B.; Soy, N.; Ozaslan, N.; Ozturk, F. et al. A Controlled Study for the Characterization of PM_2.5 Emitted during Grilling Ground Beef Meat. J. Aerosol. Sci.; 2017; 103, pp. 132-140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2016.10.011]

22. Farhadian, A.; Jinap, S.; Hanifah, H.N.; Zaidul, I.S. Effects of Meat Preheating and Wrapping on the Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Charcoal-Grilled Meat. Food Chem.; 2011; 124, pp. 141-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.05.116]

23. Kafouris, D.; Koukkidou, A.; Christou, E.; Hadjigeorgiou, M.; Yiannopoulos, S. Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Traditionally Smoked Meat Products and Charcoal Grilled Meat in Cyprus. Meat Sci.; 2020; 164, 108088. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108088]

24. Onopiuk, A.; Kołodziejczak, K.; Szpicer, A.; Wojtasik-Kalinowska, I.; Wierzbicka, A.; Półtorak, A. Analysis of Factors That Influence the PAH Profile and Amount in Meat Products Subjected to Thermal Processing. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2021; 115, pp. 366-379. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.06.043]

25. Wang, L.; Zhao, B.; Liu, C.; Lin, H.; Yang, X.; Zhang, Y. Indoor SVOC Pollution in China: A Review. Chin. Sci. Bull.; 2010; 55, pp. 1469-1478. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11434-010-3094-7]

26. Ramesh, A.; Archibong, A.E. Reproductive Toxicity of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 577-591. ISBN 978-0-12-382032-7

27. Patra, S.; Madhuri, R.; Sharma, P.K. Role of Nanomaterials as an Emerging Trend Towards the Detection of Winged Contaminants. Nanotechnology in Oil and Gas Industries; Saleh, T.A. Topics in Mining, Metallurgy and Materials Engineering Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 245-289. ISBN 978-3-319-60629-3

28. Sampaio, G.R.; Guizellini, G.M.; Da Silva, S.A.; De Almeida, A.P.; Pinaffi-Langley, A.C.C.; Rogero, M.M.; De Camargo, A.C.; Torres, E.A.F.S. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Foods: Biological Effects, Legislation, Occurrence, Analytical Methods, and Strategies to Reduce Their Formation. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2021; 22, 6010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22116010] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34199457]

29. Jindal, S.; Chaudhary, Y.; Aggarwal, K.K. Toxicity of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons and Their Biodegradation in the Environment. Green Chemistry Approaches to Environmental Sustainability; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 43-66. ISBN 978-0-443-18959-3

30. Rouf, Z.; Dar, I.Y.; Javaid, M.; Dar, M.Y.; Jehangir, A. Volatile Organic Compounds Emission from Building Sector and Its Adverse Effects on Human Health. Ecological and Health Effects of Building Materials; Malik, J.A.; Marathe, S. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 67-86. ISBN 978-3-030-76072-4

31. Leachi, H.F.L.; Marziale, M.H.P.; Martins, J.T.; Aroni, P.; Galdino, M.J.Q.; Ribeiro, R.P. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Development of Respiratory and Cardiovascular Diseases in Workers. Rev. Bras. Enferm.; 2020; 73, e20180965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2018-0965]

32. Choi, Y.-H.; Kim, H.J.; Sohn, J.R.; Seo, J.H. Occupational Exposure to VOCs and Carbonyl Compounds in Beauty Salons and Health Risks Associated with It in South Korea. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.; 2023; 256, 114873. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2023.114873]

33. Li, L.; Cheng, Y.; Dai, Q.; Liu, B.; Wu, J.; Bi, X.; Choe, T.-H.; Feng, Y. Chemical Characterization and Health Risk Assessment of VOCs and PM_2.5-Bound PAHs Emitted from Typical Chinese Residential Cooking. Atmos. Environ.; 2022; 291, 119392. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2022.119392]

34. Over 60% Electric Grills Posed Safety Risks 1 with Potential Fire Hazard Beware of Health Impacts of Indoor Cooking Fumes. Available online: https://www.consumer.org.hk/tc/article/545-electric-bbq-grills/545-electric-bbq-grills-test-samples (accessed on 10 December 2024).

35. Ding, C.; Ni, H.-G.; Zeng, H. Human Exposure to Parent and Halogenated Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons via Food Consumption in Shenzhen, China. Sci. Total Environ.; 2013; 443, pp. 857-863. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.11.018]

36. Sówka, I.; Chlebowska-Styś, A.; Pachurka, Ł.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Mathews, B. Analysis of Particulate Matter Concentration Variability and Origin in Selected Urban Areas in Poland. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 5735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11205735]

37. Querol, X. PM10 and PM_2.5 Source Apportionment in the Barcelona Metropolitan Area, Catalonia, Spain. Atmos. Environ.; 2001; 35, pp. 6407-6419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00361-2]

38. Mach, T.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Bralewska, K.; Majewski, G.; Rogula-Kopiec, P.; Rybak, J. Impact of Municipal, Road Traffic, and Natural Sources on PM10: The Hourly Variability at a Rural Site in Poland. Energies; 2021; 14, 2654. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14092654]

39. Mach, T.; Bihałowicz, J.S.; Rybak, J.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W. Elemental Composition and Origin of PM10 in a Fire Station in Poland. Real-Time Results from the XRF Analysis. Environ. Prot. Eng.; 2023; 49, pp. 57-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37190/epe230104]

40. Suleman, R.; Hui, T.; Wang, Z.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Liu, H.; Zhang, D. Semi-Quantitative and Qualitative Distinction of Aromatic and Flavour Compounds in Charcoal Grilled, Electric Barbecue Grilled, Infrared Grilled and Superheated-Steam Roasted Lamb Meat Patties Using GC/MC, E-Nose and E-Tongue. Separations; 2022; 9, 71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/separations9030071]

41. Geng, S.; Dorling, K.C.; Prenzel, T.M.; Albrecht, S. Grill and Chill: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Private Household Barbecuing in Germany. Sustainability; 2024; 16, 1041. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16031041]

42. Polish Language: What’s Majówka in Poland?. Available online: https://onlinepolishcourse.com/whats-majowka-in-poland/ (accessed on 26 September 2024).

43. G. Ballester Valor OGIMET. Available online: https://www.ogimet.com/home.phtml.en (accessed on 3 November 2024).

44. OpenStreetMap Contributors OpenStreetMap. Available online: https://openstreetmap.org/ (accessed on 25 October 2023).

45. Palas GmbH AQ Guard. Available online: https://www.palas.de/en/product/aq-guard (accessed on 17 September 2024).

46. Palas GmbH MonoDust 1500. Available online: https://www.palas.de/en/product/monodust1500 (accessed on 11 December 2024).

47. Philips Buy the Philips Table Grill HD4419/20R1 Table Grill. Available online: https://www.philips.com/c-p/HD4419_20R1/table-grill (accessed on 3 November 2024).

48. mlu-recordum Airpointer 4D—JCT NextGen AQMS. Available online: https://jct-aq.com/products/airpointer4d/ (accessed on 3 November 2024).

49. PALAS GmbH Fidas® 200 EN 16450 Approved Fine Dust Measurement Device for Simultaneous Measurement of PM_2.5 and PM₁₀. Available online: https://www.palas.de/en/product/fidas200 (accessed on 15 September 2023).

50. TÜV Rheinland Energy & Environment GmbH. CERTIFICATE of Product Conformity (QAL1). Available online: https://www.palas.de/file/Wn8698/application/octet-stream/Palas+T%C3%9CV+Certificate+Fidas+System (accessed on 11 December 2024).

51. GUGiK Download Service (WCS). Available online: https://www.geoportal.gov.pl/en/services/download-service-wcs/ (accessed on 11 October 2022).

52. Van Rossum, G.; Drake, F.L. Python 3 Reference Manual; CreateSpace: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2009; ISBN 1-4414-1269-7

53. Virtanen, P.; Gommers, R.; Oliphant, T.E.; Haberland, M.; Reddy, T.; Cournapeau, D.; Burovski, E.; Peterson, P.; Weckesser, W.; Bright, J. et al. SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nat. Methods; 2020; 17, pp. 261-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2]

54. Hunter, J.D. Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Comput. Sci. Eng.; 2007; 9, pp. 90-95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55]

55. Ikeda, Y. Zenodo. Yuzie007/Mpltern: 1.0.4. 2024. Available online: https://zenodo.org/records/11068993 (accessed on 11 December 2024).

56. QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System; Version 3.22 Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project QGIS: Białowieża, Poland, 2021.

57. Gysel, N.; Welch, W.A.; Chen, C.-L.; Dixit, P.; Cocker, D.R.; Karavalakis, G. Particulate Matter Emissions and Gaseous Air Toxic Pollutants from Commercial Meat Cooking Operations. J. Environ. Sci.; 2018; 65, pp. 162-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2017.03.022]

58. Xu, C.; Chen, J.; Zhang, X.; Cai, K.; Chen, C.; Xu, B. Emission Characteristics and Quantitative Assessment of the Health Risks of Cooking Fumes during Outdoor Barbecuing. Environ. Pollut.; 2023; 323, 121319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121319]

59. Waldraff, A.; Schaber, K. A Gas Phase Method for the Generation of Aqueous Submicron Suspensions of Poorly Water Soluble Organic Substances. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.; 2015; 102, pp. 244-252. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2015.06.031]

60. Sjaastad, A.K.; Svendsen, K. Exposure to Mutagenic Aldehydes and Particulate Matter during Panfrying of Beefsteak with Margarine, Rapeseed Oil, Olive Oil or Soybean Oil. Ann. Occup. Hyg.; 2008; 52, pp. 739-745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men060]

61. Buonanno, G.; Johnson, G.; Morawska, L.; Stabile, L. Volatility Characterization of Cooking-Generated Aerosol Particles. Aerosol. Sci. Technol.; 2011; 45, pp. 1069-1077. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.580797]

62. Grange, S.K.; Fischer, A.; Zellweger, C.; Alastuey, A.; Querol, X.; Jaffrezo, J.-L.; Weber, S.; Uzu, G.; Hueglin, C. Switzerland’s PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 Environmental Increments Show the Importance of Non-Exhaust Emissions. Atmos. Environ. X; 2021; 12, 100145. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aeaoa.2021.100145]

63. Matthaios, V.N.; Lawrence, J.; Martins, M.A.G.; Ferguson, S.T.; Wolfson, J.M.; Harrison, R.M.; Koutrakis, P. Quantifying Factors Affecting Contributions of Roadway Exhaust and Non-Exhaust Emissions to Ambient PM_10–2.5 and PM_2.5–0.2 Particles. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 835, 155368. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155368] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35460767]

64. Chen, W.; Xiao, Y.; Liu, J.; Dai, X. Emission and Capture Characteristics of Chinese Cooking-Related Fine Particles. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2023; 30, pp. 112988-113001. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30380-4]

65. Mostafa, M.Y.A.; Khalaf, H.N.B.; Zhukovsky, M.V. Dynamic of Particulate Matter for Quotidian Aerosol Sources in Indoor Air. Atmosphere; 2021; 12, 1682. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/atmos12121682]

66. Zenissa, R.; Syafei, A.D.; Surahman, U.; Sembiring, A.C.; Pradana, A.W.; Ciptaningayu, T.; Ahmad, I.S.; Assomadi, A.F.; Boedisantoso, R.; Hermana, J. The Effect of Ventilation and Cooking Activities Indoor Fine Particulates in Apartments Towards. Civ. Environ. Eng.; 2020; 16, pp. 238-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/cee-2020-0023]

67. Hussein, T.; Hämeri, K.; Heikkinen, M.S.A.; Kulmala, M. Indoor and Outdoor Particle Size Characterization at a Family House in Espoo–Finland. Atmos. Environ.; 2005; 39, pp. 3697-3709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.03.011]

68. Wang, Y.; Hopke, P.K.; Chalupa, D.C.; Utell, M.J. Long-Term Characterization of Indoor and Outdoor Ultrafine Particles at a Commercial Building. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2010; 44, pp. 5775-5780. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1001677]

69. Nazaroff, W.W. Ten Questions Concerning Indoor Ultrafine Particles. Build. Environ.; 2023; 243, 110641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110641]

70. Chelani, A.B.; Gajghate, D.G.; ChalapatiRao, C.V.; Devotta, S. Particle Size Distribution in Ambient Air of Delhi and Its Statistical Analysis. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.; 2010; 85, pp. 22-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00128-010-0010-4]

71. Bihałowicz, J.S.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Rogula-Kopiec, P.; Świsłowski, P.; Rajfur, M.; Olszowski, T. One-Year-Long, Comprehensive Analysis of pm Number and Mass Size Distributions in Warszawa (Poland). Ecol. Chem. Eng. S; 2023; 30, pp. 541-556. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/eces-2023-0047]

72. Tsuda, A.; Henry, F.S. Chaotic Mixing and Its Role in Enhancing Particle Deposition in the Pulmonary Acinus: A Review. Cardiovascular and Respiratory Bioengineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 169-185. ISBN 978-0-12-823956-8

73. Voliotis, A.; Samara, C. Submicron Particle Number Doses in the Human Respiratory Tract: Implications for Urban Traffic and Background Environments. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.; 2018; 25, pp. 33724-33735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-3253-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30276694]

74. Lianou, M.; Chalbot, M.-C.; Kotronarou, A.; Kavouras, I.G.; Karakatsani, A.; Katsouyanni, K.; Puustinnen, A.; Hameri, K.; Vallius, M.; Pekkanen, J. et al. Dependence of Home Outdoor Particulate Mass and Number Concentrations on Residential and Traffic Features in Urban Areas. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc.; 2007; 57, pp. 1507-1517. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3155/1047-3289.57.12.1507] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18200936]

75. Pei, G.; Freihaut, J.D.; Rim, D. Long-Term Application of Low-Cost Sensors for Monitoring Indoor Air Quality and Particle Dynamics in a Commercial Building. J. Build. Eng.; 2023; 79, 107774. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107774]

76. Azimi, P.; Zhao, D.; Stephens, B. Modeling the Impact of Residential HVAC Filtration on Indoor Particles of Outdoor Origin (RP-1691). Sci. Technol. Built Environ.; 2016; 22, pp. 431-462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2016.1163239]

77. Badyda, A.; Krawczyk, P.; Bihałowicz, J.S.; Bralewska, K.; Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Majewski, G.; Oberbek, P.; Marciniak, A.; Rogulski, M. Are BBQs Significantly Polluting Air in Poland? A Simple Comparison of Barbecues vs. Domestic Stoves and Boilers Emissions. Energies; 2020; 13, 6245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13236245]

78. Brunner, E.; Munzel, U. The Nonparametric Behrens-Fisher Problem: Asymptotic Theory and a Small-Sample Approximation. Biom. J.; 2000; 42, pp. 17-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(200001)42:1<17::AID-BIMJ17>3.0.CO;2-U]

79. Cheng, S.; Wang, G.; Lang, J.; Wen, W.; Wang, X.; Yao, S. Characterization of Volatile Organic Compounds from Different Cooking Emissions. Atmos. Environ.; 2016; 145, pp. 299-307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.09.037]

80. Yuan, M.-H.; Kang, S.; Cho, K.-S. A Review of Phyto- and Microbial-Remediation of Indoor Volatile Organic Compounds. Chemosphere; 2024; 359, 142120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.142120]

81. Kotzias, D. Built Environment and Indoor Air Quality: The Case of Volatile Organic Compounds. AIMS Environ. Sci.; 2021; 8, pp. 135-147. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/environsci.2021010]