Household smoke monitoring
Practical Action
At the same time, the cook is asked to wear a CO monitor round her neck during monitoring: The
monitor is attached and a check is made that she feels comfortable. Many people thought the
participants were wearing mobile phones.
How many households should be monitored?
Practical Action monitored thirty households in each of the three project countries: Kenya, Nepal
and Sudan. Each household was monitored twice before any technology was installed and twice
after – reflecting seasonal changes that could affect pollution. As anticipated, particulate and
carbon monoxide levels varied widely from household to household. However, households with
high levels during the first monitoring tended to have high levels in the second as well.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
Relationship between PM and CO_rm
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
CO
Figure 9: Relationship between mean and median values of
particulates and carbon monoxide in three-country study
It was also shown that, when the mean and median of data from each of the three countries and
each round was put together, there was a good relationship between particulates (PMresp) and
carbon monoxide (CO rm) (Figure 9).
Working with thirty households enabled Practical Action to see if there were substantial changes
brought about by the technologies that had been installed. Other factors were checked that could
have had a major effect on the results. For some factors, such as a small number of women
brewing alcohol in Nepal (part of the usual week’s work), it was necessary to compare figures
excluding those households who were brewing from both pre- and post- measurements as there
was not enough data to account for it in other ways. This exclusion was, of course, recorded as
part of the results.
Projects to alleviate smoke should be looking for substantial reductions - not just for a few
percentage change. Thus the thirty households per country were sufficient to provide a clear
picture of whether the changes had been successful in reducing smoke substantially.
Monitoring acceptance
Data should ideally be collected a few months after the technology has been installed. At this
time it will be evident whether the switch to the new way of cooking has been continued or not.
Questions on the stove and the fuel used on the day and in general will provide information on
whether the majority are using the new appliances.
Further questions can be asked about the impacts of the technology on people’s lives. Care
should be taken that the questions are asked in a way that allows criticism as well as positive
change. Particularly in research projects, learning what is wrong is almost more important than
finding out the good things.
5