Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Real-Time Boundary Conditions from the CAMS Database on CHIMERE Model Predictions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Air
Volume 3
Issue 3
10.3390/air3030020
air-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Excessive Smoke from a Neighborhood Restaurant Highlights Gaps in Air Pollution Enforcement: Citizen Science Observational Study

by
Nicholas C. Newman
1,2,3,*,
Deborah Conradi
4,
Alexander C. Mayer
3,†,
Cole Simons
5,
Ravi Newman
6,‡ and
Erin N. Haynes
3,§
1
Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA
2
Division of General and Community Pediatrics, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA
3
Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA
4
Independent Researcher, Cincinnati, OH 45231, USA
5
College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA
6
Department of Political Science, College of Arts and Sciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Current address: Independent Researcher, Cincinnati, OH 45213, USA.
‡
Current address: Independent Researcher, Chicago, IL 60657, USA.
§
Current address: Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40536, USA.
Air 2025, 3(3), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/air3030020
Submission received: 13 April 2025 / Revised: 10 July 2025 / Accepted: 16 July 2025 / Published: 18 July 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Regulatory air pollution monitoring is performed using a sparse monitoring network designed to provide background concentrations of pollutants but may miss small area variations due to local emission sources. Low-cost air pollution sensors operated by trained citizen scientists provide an opportunity to fill this gap. We describe the development and implementation of an air pollution monitoring and community engagement plan in response to resident concerns regarding excessive smoke production from a neighborhood restaurant. Particulate matter (PM2.5) was measured using a low-cost, portable sensor. When cooking was taking place, the highest PM2.5 readings were within 50 m of the source (mean PM2.5 36.9 µg/m3) versus greater than 50 m away (mean PM2.5 13.0 µg/m3). Sharing results with local government officials did not result in any action to address the source of the smoke emissions, due to lack of jurisdiction. A review of air pollution regulations across the United States indicated that only seven states regulate food cookers and six states specifically exempted cookers from air pollution regulations. Concerns about the smoke were communicated with the restaurant owner who eventually changed the cooking fuel. Following this change, less smoke was observed from the restaurant and PM2.5 measurements were reduced to background levels. Although current environmental health regulations may not protect residents living near sources of food cooker-based sources of PM2.5, community engagement shows promise in addressing these emissions.

1. Introduction

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is one of five criteria air pollutants regulated by The Clean Air Act and has well-known respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurologic health effects [1,2,3,4]. Air pollution monitoring for PM2.5 uses a monitoring network that is designed to provide background concentrations of PM2.5 [5]. Due to a variety of factors, these monitoring stations are often limited in number and are unable to characterize neighborhood-level gradients in exposure due to point sources [6]. There is evidence demonstrating that other non-industrial sources, such as restaurants, may be significant contributors to local or neighborhood levels of PM2.5 air pollution [7,8,9,10,11]. Based on measurement of emission plumes in Las Vegas, NV with supplemental data from Los Angeles, CA, and Boulder, CO, restaurant sources may contribute up to 20% of the anthropogenic volatile organic compounds in those areas [12]. Comparing the type of cooking (bakery versus bar-b-que) suggests higher variability in particle counts with bar-b-que cooking [13]. Investigators from Pittsburgh noted that restaurant emissions can create daily increases in particulate matter in restaurant districts after the emissions associated with vehicular transport for commuting have decreased [14]. Thus, those who live near these establishments may be exposed to higher average levels of air pollution and experience peaks of exposure that the general population does not.
Citizen science, defined as “the involvement of the public in scientific research,” typically involves projects in which members of the public partner with scientists to answer real-world questions [15]. With the development of lower-cost air pollution sensors, citizen science is one approach to address gaps in air pollution exposure assessment at a neighborhood level [16,17]. Pairing interested citizens with academic researchers is one way to empower citizens with the knowledge and equipment to conduct citizen science (e.g., air pollution sensors, training, data analysis capabilities) [17,18].
The National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) funds a network of Environmental Health Sciences Core Centers, each with a Community Engagement Core (CEC) “to foster community–university partnerships.” [19]. The CEC funds are not meant for environmental health research. The University of Cincinnati’s CEC has a history of working with Citizen Scientists and engaging communities on monitoring and environmental health dissemination projects [20,21,22,23]. The CEC partners with communities on projects in three domains: (1) environmental health research translation, (2) participant engagement, or (3) socio-ecological systems (policy change, building community capacity) [20,21,22,23,24].
In the summer of 2014, a local resident became concerned about air quality near their home when a new restaurant moved into their neighborhood. There were clouds of smoke extending beyond the fenced outdoor cooking area. The restaurant is approximately 350 m from their home. Anecdotal reports of smoke and odors penetrating homes with windows closed, respiratory symptoms, and eye irritation that improved when not in the home resulted in air quality complaints to the municipality and the Southwest Ohio Air Quality Agency in 2014 and 2015. The Agency noted clouds of smoke drifting over the neighborhood from the fenced-in cooking area in the back of the restaurant. The Southwest Ohio Air Quality Agency investigated the smoke but could not act because existing regulations from Ohio EPA did not provide air permits to restaurant cookers. Lack of action prompted a community member to contact the University of Cincinnati NIEHS-funded CEC for assistance and objectives were articulated (Table 1). To assist the community member in reducing pollution from the source, we also reviewed state policies regulating emissions from cooking sources.
The objective of this project was to create and implement a community–academic partnership by working with a concerned community member to objectively measure PM2.5 levels in the vicinity of a local restaurant and to advocate for reduction in emissions. This data would be presented to the proprietor of the restaurant, local regulatory authorities, and the community at large to demonstrate the problem and to stimulate additional action. This paper is a case report of this project.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Location

The study location is a suburb of Cincinnati, Ohio approximately 15 miles north of downtown Cincinnati, Ohio, with a population of approximately 6850 people. The community has approximately 3000 households with a median household income of USD 45,546 [25]. It ranks twenty-sixth-highest out of ninety-one communities in Hamilton County for childhood admissions for asthma at the regional children’s hospital [26]. According to US EPA Environmental Justice Screen Tool, it is in the eighty-seventh percentile in the US for PM2.5, with an annual mean PM2.5 of 10.3 μg/m3 [27]. The restaurant is located in the downtown business district and prepares grilled meats cooked using a charcoal fired outdoor commercial grill and bar-b-que foods. To assess other potential sources of PM2.5, a manual review of a 200 m radius circle centered on the location of the restaurant, created using Google Maps and Federal Communications Commission Circleplot [28], was used to identify businesses close to the restaurant. Potential sources of PM2.5 emissions within that circle were a US Post Office, seven restaurants, three bus stops, one auto repair shop, and five offices for construction/maintenance companies (Table 2). The restaurant was within 40 m of a major street. Additionally, US EPA daily average PM2.5 data for the four closest monitors (7.25 km–12.63 km distance from the restaurant) from the US EPA website https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/download-daily-data (accessed on 10 February 2025) were used to provide measured ambient PM2.5 from a “gold standard” monitor. If the US EPA monitor reported more than one reading for a given day, the average of these readings was taken as the reading for that day. The readings from the four closest monitors were used because not all monitors were working on all days that readings were collected using the portable sensor.

2.2. Air Quality Assessment Protocol

To quantify the ambient air pollution levels in the vicinity of the BBQ restaurant of concern, an air monitoring protocol was developed. Since PM2.5 is an expected pollutant from grilling and burning food [29], air pollution was measured using the AirBeam by HabitatMap (HabitatMap, Brooklyn, NY, USA), a portable, low-cost, manufacturer-calibrated, user-friendly real-time sensor. The AirBeam measures PM2.5 using a light scattering method that has demonstrated good correlation with reference methods [30]. The AirBeam was paired by Bluetooth® with an Android (“Android” is a trademark of Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA) mobile device via the open source AirCasting app [31]. Each monitoring session output a datafile with PM2.5 measurements averaged over one second as well as a map (displayed on the Android device), overlaid with color-coded dots that correspond to the US EPA Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM2.5 at the location based on the global-positioning-system coordinates from the Android mobile device. The software calculated the average and peak PM2.5 measured during each session.
Based on the expected dispersion of PM2.5, the monitoring plan consisted of the community member carrying the AirBeam on a walking route from their home located approximately 350 m south of the restaurant towards the restaurant. The route also included approximately two blocks in each direction (north, south, east, west) along the sidewalks of local streets (public right of way) adjacent to the source restaurant in question. This route placed the restaurant in the center with additional monitoring taken approximately three-hundred meters in each direction, then returning home. Sessions occurred between 7 AM and 7 PM on days that the community member was available. Over the course of the project, there were sessions spread across seven days of the week. The community member walked with the sensor held at approximately chest-height with the inlet exposed, typically on days when there was not heavy rain. Average daily windspeed and wind direction were obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration records for the monitoring days. Air pollution monitoring sessions were carried out by a single community member with a single sensor. The sessions took place when the community member was available to carry them out. Sensor data was collected from June 2016–June 2017. This allowed us to characterize the emission source and compare it with the surrounding neighborhood. For quality assurance, the academic partner provided training and was present for the first air monitoring session and available periodically during the process to help the community member with the device. The community partner conducted the remaining seventeen sessions. One additional session was conducted approximately one-thousand meters away to assess background levels of PM2.5.
In April 2024, members of the team returned to the neighborhood to measure PM2.5 emissions due to reports from the community member that the smoke had improved over the previous two years. Since the original AirBeam sensors were not functional after several years, these sessions used newer AirBeam3 sensors (HabitatMap Brooklyn, NY, USA). To collect additional background PM2.5, there were stationary sessions conducted as well. Members from the academic partner met with the community member to plan out the monitoring and instructed on the use of the sensor and to perform quality assurance with a companion monitor. They were available to the community member to provide technical support, feedback on results, and to analyze the data.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Analysis and visualization were carried out by the academic partner. Measurements from the AirBeam sensors (PM2.5 and latitude, longitude coordinates) were transferred to Microsoft Excel. Missing data was not included in analysis. Distance between the restaurant location and sensor measurements was calculated using the “Great Circle Distance” calculator for Microsoft Excel [32], descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) were calculated, and the distance from the restaurant vs. PM2.5 levels were analyzed. One minute average PM2.5 was calculated to align values with the US EPA AQI Pilot 1 min guidance for low-cost personal air quality monitors [33]. The ArcGIS for Microsoft 365 Excel Add-In (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA) was used to create visualizations of PM2.5 measurements from air pollution monitoring sessions. Since the monitoring sessions were mobile (conducted whilst walking in the neighborhood), bearing relative to the restaurant and relative to the wind were calculated (using Microsoft Excel’s IMARGUMENT function) to determine when the sensor was downwind (sensor bearing 135°–225° relative to the restaurant and wind direction). To test the hypothesis that PM2.5 readings would be higher closer to the restaurant, Pearson correlation between PM2.5 and distance was calculated. This was further tested by adjusting for average daily windspeed, and relative position (downwind or upwind) in a multiple linear regression model. Wizard for Mac v2.0.19 (Evan Miller) was used for statistical analyses.

2.4. Dissemination Plan

The dissemination plan focused on the socio-ecological systems (policy change, building community capacity) and research domains of the project. We distributed a PM2.5 and health fact sheet at a local health fair (April 2017) and attendees were invited to play an educational air pollution dice game. The results from the initial set of air monitoring sessions were summarized for the health fair and were communicated to relevant governmental agencies and elected officials (Hamilton County Auditor, Hamilton County Commissioners Office, Hamilton County Public Health, Ohio EPA, and US EPA). During this project, the owner of the restaurant and the community member communicated and discussed the smoke emissions, including identifying potential interventions (e.g., changing the fuel used for grilling from charcoal to wood, addition of exhaust fans, etc.) that could reduce community exposure.

2.5. Policy Review

To review air pollution regulations state-by-state with regard to cooking emissions, a search of state air quality agency websites was performed. Specifically, a search of “food”, “cook”, “broiler”, “roaster”, “charboiler” or “cooker” was made within the permits or permitting requirements for each state’s air quality agency. If it was not found, then a search within the state law database would be performed using “food”, “cook”, “broiler”, “roaster”, “charbroiler” or “cooker” as the search term. If this was not successful, then a Google search using the name of the state and “air pollution regulations” “air quality regulations” and “food”, “cook”, or “cooker” would be performed. Since state permitting refers to the device being used to cook the food (“food cooker”) and not to restaurants themselves, that is why this term is used. The if there was an entry found, then the regulation was reviewed and data regarding specific regulations for that state would be recorded.

3. Results

3.1. Air Pollution Sensor Results

Characteristics of the 2016–2017 monitoring sessions are presented in Table 3. Eighteen air monitoring sessions took place in the vicinity of the restaurant of concern between June 2016 to June 2017, thirteen in the Spring (Mar–May 2017), three in the summer (June 2016 and June 2017), and two in the Winter (February 2017). The mean length of sampling sessions was 10.3 min (range 5–41 min), the mean ± SD PM2.5 per session was 19.8 ± 38.1 µg/m3 with measurements ranging from 0.48 to 339.4 µg/m3.
Overall, 78% (14/18) of sessions had peak PM2.5 levels at or above 35.5 µg/m3, the US EPA breakpoint for “Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups,” 17% of sessions had an average PM2.5 level at or above 35.5 µg/m3. Air monitoring sessions took place as a neighborhood walkaround; there were noticeable differences in PM2.5 levels at different points along the walking route. Increased PM2.5 levels were observed closer to the restaurant (Figure 1). Of the measurements above 35.5 µg/m3, 63.4% of those 1 s peak measurements were recorded within 50 m of the restaurant, additionally 78.2% of the measurements above 250.5 µg/m3 (EPA “Hazardous”) were measured within 50 m of the restaurant of concern. When examining the 1 min PM2.5 measurements and comparing them with the US EPA AQI 1-Minute Pilot range, all the measurements in the “High” category (>70 µg/m3) were within 150 m of the restaurant (Figure 1).
Characteristics of the 2024 monitoring sessions are presented in Table 4 and Figure 2. There were 21 sessions, and these sessions overall had much lower levels of measured PM2.5 than in 2016–2017. Seven sessions were stationary, with the sensor mounted at roughly head height on the community member’s (DC) porch. One session was carried out with a duplicate sensor.
For the 2016–2017 sessions, distance to the restaurant and 1 min average PM2.5 were significantly correlated, r = −0.364, df = 236, p < 0.0001. With decreasing distance to the restaurant being associated with increased PM2.5 readings. In the 2024 sessions, distance to the restaurant was not significantly correlated with PM2.5 readings, r = 0.032, df = 424, p = 0.507. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to test the relationship between PM2.5 readings and distance to the restaurant, windspeed, and whether the measurement was taken upwind or downwind of the restaurant. For the 2016–2017 sessions, distance to the restaurant when adjusted for windspeed and location downwind of the restaurant was significantly negatively associated with PM2.5 measurements (R2 = 0.13, F(3, 234) = 11.90, p < 0.001). This relationship was explained by distance to the restaurant (β = −136.02, p < 0.001) whereas windspeed (β = 6.695 × 10−4, p = 0.999) and being downwind of the restaurant (β = −1.261, p = 0.791) were not significantly associated with PM2.5 measurements. For the 2024 mobile sessions, increased distance from the restaurant was associated with increased PM2.5 (R2 = 0.096, F(3, 422) = 14.967, p < 0.001), with distance to the restaurant (β = 1.757, p < 0.029), and windspeed (β = 0.339, p < 0.001) explaining this relationship. Being downwind of the restaurant trended towards lower PM2.5 measurements (β = −1.375, p < 0.275).

3.2. Government Response

The Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3745-15-07, states that air pollution nuisances are prohibited [34]. Although they agreed that excessive smoke emissions were potentially harmful, government entities could not investigate the emissions and therefore did not enforce any restrictions, because restaurant emissions were not within their jurisdiction. However, the proprietor of the restaurant was informed of the complaints. The AirBeam not being a Federal Reference Method, nor a Federal Equivalent Method was another concern to the regulatory authorities. Ohio EPA succinctly summarized this: “Ohio EPA does not have any requirements to require controls on restaurant cookers, nor do we plan to adopt regulations to control local BBQs…” (letter from Ohio EPA, 11/8/2016). Although the restaurant may have been eligible for an exhaust scrubber through the US EPA “Making a Visible Difference in Communities” program, this program ended in early 2017.

3.3. Findings from Policy Review

A review of air pollution regulations across the United States indicated that only six states regulate food cookers (Alaska, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Utah) and six states (Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Wisconsin) specifically exempted cookers from air pollution regulations. Within those six states, Wisconsin and Alabama more specifically exempted outdoor cooking and non-commercial open fire. Current environmental health regulations may not protect residents living near sources of restaurant-based sources of PM2.5.

3.4. Engagement with the Restaurant Owner

During this project (2016–2025), there have been periodic interactions with the restaurant owner, the community member, and the academic partner. In these conversations, the community member was able to share concerns about smoke emissions and the restaurant owner expressed concerns about the cost of installing an emissions control system. To be a good neighbor, the restaurant owner changed the fuel for their outdoor cooker from charcoal to wood but did not recall the date that this change was made, although it was reported to be likely in 2022 or 2023.

4. Discussion

This project provides insights about the promise and pitfalls of advances in air pollution monitoring technology and its application to citizen science. We adapted strategies used in other communities, using a mobile, low-cost sensor to measure air pollution, but focused on a non-industrial source [35]. We consistently detected high levels of PM2.5 in the immediate vicinity of the restaurant, coinciding with the operation of the cooker. Barriers to mitigating the emissions include the cost of emission controls combined with no legal requirement for air permits to be issued to restaurant cookers. Positive factors included ongoing connection between the academic partner, community member, and the restaurant owner.
There were several limitations to our project. The AirBeam sensor is not as accurate as a Federal Reference Method or a Federal Equivalent Method device; however, the sensor recorded high PM2.5 levels consistently in the vicinity of the source. Air pollution monitoring was performed in a single neighborhood, based on the community member’s availability and may not reflect PM2.5 levels more generally. However, air monitoring was performed over approximately 12 months and results were consistent throughout that time. Air pollution monitoring sessions were carried out according to the community member’s availability, with most sessions taking place in the Spring season, so we could not adjust for seasonality in the measurements. There was no documentation of observations of alternative sources of PM2.5 collected during the sessions; thus, we lack records of background PM2.5 sources for the study area. However, we included in Figure 1 and Figure 2 the location of other potential sources of PM2.5 in the neighborhood. Also, since the AirBeam is not weather-proof, it could not be used in rainy weather, so this is an additional limitation. Most air sampling was conducted when the restaurant cooker was active. A session conducted when the restaurant was closed demonstrated lower PM2.5 concentrations (Session 4 in February 2017). This suggests PM2.5 concentrations measured during other sessions were likely from the restaurant. We did not collect particulate matter on filters and therefore we cannot create a source apportionment model, but based on our analysis, high peak levels were consistently detected in the vicinity of the restaurant of concern. Although there were also temporal gaps in the readings available from the nearest US EPA sensor, we calculated the background PM2.5 by averaging the daily readings of the four closest US EPA sensors. For the 2024 sessions, we also included a stationary site in the neighborhood approximately 300 m from the restaurant.
During the 2016–2017 monitoring sessions, we found that distance from the restaurant was negatively associated with PM2.5 measurements, but these were not influenced by windspeed or being downwind of the restaurant. There are several possible explanations for this. We did not have real-time windspeed and direction measurements available. NOAA recorded average daily wind direction and daily sustained 5 min windspeeds from a monitoring station 18.5 km southeast of the restaurant. Therefore, we do not know the exact conditions at the location of the air pollution measurements. A similar study of short range restaurant emissions did not adjust for windspeed, wind direction, or weather conditions [11]. Future work could examine the impact of these covariates on close range restaurant emissions.
We observed that following a change in cooking fuel at the restaurant from charcoal to wood, there was a decrease in the measured PM2.5 levels and smoke visible near the restaurant. Typically, wood burning would produce more PM2.5 emissions than charcoal, in a laboratory setting [36]. It is uncertain why we have observed the opposite effect. Charcoal characteristics can influence emissions with lump charcoal (derived from hardwood) producing fewer PM2.5 precursor chemicals than charcoal briquettes [37]. Additionally, emissions from wood burning tend to be higher when the stove is cold, but can decrease as the when combustion conditions are optimized (warm stove, optimal air/fuel ratio) [38]. We did not collect information from the operators of the cooker to assess how the wood was being burned when measurements were taken, this is a limitation.
Public concern about the health impacts of air pollution following highly publicized and fatal incidents through the first half of the 20th Century, such as the extreme smog conditions in Donora, Pennsylvania and Meuse Valley, Belgium [39] culminated in the passage of the 1970 Clean Air Act and amendments (1977 and 1990). This reduced emissions from industrial sources and motor vehicles with a resulting trend towards improved air quality since that time. Recent and ongoing citizen science studies have helped to bring improvements in local air pollution levels as a result of industrial sources [35]. One notably successful project combined multiple community groups, academic partners, and a successful lawsuit to make improvements in air quality in a neighborhood impacted by industrial emissions [40]. Some jurisdictions do regulate food cookers, but these regulations are predominantly directed at chain-operated charbroilers so that they can comply with Clean Air Act requirements, not to address neighborhoods with potentially disproportionately high levels of exposure. Local laws do not yet reflect the more recent science regarding sources of air pollution in urban environments and therefore there were no regulatory tools with which to address the emissions identified in our project. With restaurant emissions accounting for up to 17% of particle emissions in urban areas overall and >70% of PM2.5 in restaurant districts, these sources of PM2.5 require additional attention [7,8,10,11]. Previous research indicates that grilling meat and searing meat produce the highest levels of PM2.5 as compared with other methods [41,42].
Although our efforts did not result in a health-protective response from local governmental bodies, the informal engagement with the restaurant owner regarding the cooking emissions did. Suggesting that under certain circumstances, this approach has potential. We identified important lessons that can inform this community-based work in the future.
(1) Data from low-cost air pollution sensors may not be in a form that is readily useable. For example, raw data is averaged over 1 sec, but other intervals may be more appropriate in terms of interpreting the results for health impact.
(2) Lower-cost air pollution sensors provide Citizen Scientists an assessment of air pollution exposure, but do not provide readings accurate or precise enough for regulatory action [43].
(3) The sensor data is available in a “raw form”, but not all community groups who have access to a sensor will be able to process, analyze and draw conclusions from this data without help from a trained expert.
(4) The “burden of proof” for our community-based project to provoke a health-protective response from local government was quite high. One would expect that it would be easier to dismiss subjective reports of citizens observing excessive smoke and odors, but less so to dismiss objective air pollution monitoring, particularly when using a sensor appropriate for the task. It seems unlikely that a community member would have access to a Federal Reference Method or a Federal Equivalent Method, even when working with an academic partner.
(5) Local air pollution regulations tend to address industrial point sources and traffic-related air pollution, but rarely non-industrial sources. This may reflect environmental health risk perception. A common exposure such as cooking smoke may be seen as less risky than industrial pollution [44].
(6) Due to expense, small businesses do not have access to emission mitigation resources.
(7) We lack health-based short-term air pollution exposure standards. With their Village Green Project, US EPA has created pilot guidance for PM2.5 readings averaged over 1 min, but thus far these are not to be used for regulatory purposes [33].
(8) The air pollution regulatory framework is difficult to navigate. Citizens may be concerned about air pollution, but it is unclear who has jurisdiction (state EPA, local health department, regional air quality agency, local government). All were contacted in our case; a less motivated private citizen may not have been this persistent.
(9) It is cumbersome to perform analyses like ours (measuring emissions based on distance from a source) using low-cost sensors and their accompanying software which is predominantly designed for sharing results through a cloud-based system.
(10) Addressing local environmental emissions can take many years of advocacy and engagement across the community-academic continuum; it can be difficult to maintain this over long periods.
Finally, with the advent of lower-cost air pollution sensors, an engaged citizenry may identify new “hyperlocal” sources of air pollution suggesting new opportunities for the improvement of public health. Environmental public health laws need updating to be able to better address these sources of air pollution. Including in regulations provisions for using low-cost sensors as “screening” devices that if they report high readings, would prompt further investigation using “gold standard” devices is one possible approach. Additionally, the utility of low-cost sensors would be improved by including user-friendly ways to obtain averages over time intervals, peak duration, or to calculate distance from a point source. Current work being carried out through US EPA to validate these lower-cost sensors against “gold standard” devices, may open the door for more effective response to excessive PM2.5 production from such sources in the future. Providing access to a source of funding to help businesses address these emissions, as with assistance for lead paint abatement, may help businesses and community members be more open to interventions to reduce such emissions. Improving and validating air pollution sensors is only part of the solution.
Future research should examine methods for measuring emissions from small businesses, such as restaurants and communicating these findings in a constructive way. Making just public policy in this area will require a transdisciplinary approach that includes healthcare providers, public health practitioners, policy makers, and legal professionals as these businesses face barriers to addressing air pollution emissions [45].

5. Conclusions

A low-cost air pollution sensor demonstrated high PM2.5 emissions from a local restaurant. Regulatory and public health agencies were not able to address the emissions because of a lack of jurisdiction, but informal engagement with the restaurant owner prompted action. Few states consider food cookers in their air pollution regulation. Additional work is needed to both define the scope of this problem and to create public policy to address it. A long-term community–academic partnership contributed to voluntary reductions in the source of emissions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.C.N., D.C., A.C.M. and E.N.H.; methodology, N.C.N., A.C.M. and E.N.H.; formal analysis, N.C.N. and C.S.; investigation, D.C., A.C.M., C.S. and R.N.; writing—original draft preparation, N.C.N.; writing—review and editing, N.C.N., D.C., A.C.M., C.S., R.N. and E.N.H.; visualization, N.C.N.; supervision, E.N.H. and N.C.N.; funding acquisition, E.N.H. and N.C.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements and the interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the US Government. The Center for Environmental Genetics, Community Engagement Core was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences grant P30ES006096. UK CARES was supported by the National Institute of Environmental Sciences grant P30ES026529. The sponsor was not involved in the review or approval of the manuscript for publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to it containing high resolution location data.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

AI-assisted grammar and spelling tools (Microsoft Word) were used in the process of creating this text. No other AI tools were used in creating this manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Patrick Ryan and Rachael Kiniyalocts for their assistance in carrying out this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
US EPAUnited Stated Environmental Protection Agency
PM2.5Particulate matter < 2.5 μm in diameter
AQIAir Quality Index
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
NIEHSNational Institute for Environmental Health Sciences
CECCommunity Engagement Core

References

  1. Kelly, F.J.; Fussell, J.C. Air pollution and public health: Emerging hazards and improved understanding of risk. Environ. Geochem. Health 2015, 37, 631–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. US EPA. Air Pollution Monitoring. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/montring.html (accessed on 21 August 2019).
  3. Dockery, D.W.; Pope, C.A.; Xu, X.; Spengler, J.D.; Ware, J.H.; Fay, M.E.; Ferris, B.G.; Speizer, F.E. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. N. Engl. J. Med. 1993, 329, 1753–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Newman, N.C.; Ryan, P.; Lemasters, G.; Levin, L.; Bernstein, D.; Hershey, G.K.; Lockey, J.E.; Villareal, M.; Reponen, T.; Grinshpun, S.; et al. Traffic-related air pollution exposure in the first year of life and behavioral scores at 7 years of age. Environ. Health Perspect. 2013, 121, 731–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ryan, P.H.; LeMasters, G.K. A Review of Land-use Regression Models for Characterizing Intraurban Air Pollution Exposure. Inhal. Toxicol. 2007, 19 (Suppl. S1), 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Avery, C.L.; Mills, K.T.; Williams, R.; McGraw, K.A.; Poole, C.; Smith, R.L.; Whitsel, E.A. Estimating error in using ambient PM2.5 concentrations as proxies for personal exposures: A review. Epidemiology 2010, 21, 215–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Robinson, E.S.; Gu, P.; Ye, Q.; Li, H.Z.; Shah, R.U.; Apte, J.S.; Robinson, A.L.; Presto, A.A. Restaurant Impacts on Outdoor Air Quality: Elevated Organic Aerosol Mass from Restaurant Cooking with Neighborhood-Scale Plume Extents. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 9285–9294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Abernethy, R.C.; Allen, R.W.; McKendry, I.G.; Brauer, M. A Land Use Regression Model for Ultrafine Particles in Vancouver, Canada. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 5217–5225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Elser, M.; Bozzetti, C.; El-Haddad, I.; Maasikmets, M.; Teinemaa, E.; Richter, R.; Wolf, R.; Slowik, J.G.; Baltensperger, U.; Prévôt, A.S.H. Urban increments of gaseous and aerosol pollutants and their sources using mobile aerosol mass spectrometry measurements. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, 7117–7134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mohr, C.; DeCarlo, P.F.; Heringa, M.F.; Chirico, R.; Slowik, J.G.; Richter, R.; Reche, C.; Alastuey, A.; Querol, X.; Seco, R.; et al. Identification and quantification of organic aerosol from cooking and other sources in Barcelona using aerosol mass spectrometer data. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2012, 12, 1649–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vert, C.; Meliefste, K.; Hoek, G. Outdoor ultrafine particle concentrations in front of fast food restaurants. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2015, 26, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Coggon, M.M.; Stockwell, C.E.; Xu, L.; Peischl, J.; Gilman, J.B.; Lamplugh, A.; Bowman, H.J.; Aikin, K.; Harkins, C.; Zhu, Q.; et al. Contribution of cooking emissions to the urban volatile organic compounds in Las Vegas, NV. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2024, 24, 4289–4304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, S.; Machesky, J.; Gentner, D.R.; Presto, A.A. Real-world observations of reduced nitrogen and ultrafine particles in commercial cooking organic aerosol emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2024, 24, 1281–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Song, R.; Presto, A.A.; Saha, P.; Zimmerman, N.; Ellis, A.; Subramanian, R. Spatial variations in urban air pollution: Impacts of diesel bus traffic and restaurant cooking at small scales. Air. Qual. Atmos. Health 2021, 14, 2059–2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Defining Citizen Science. Cornell University. Available online: http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/about/definition (accessed on 13 April 2025).
  16. Snyder, E.G.; Watkins, T.H.; Solomon, P.A.; Thoma, E.D.; Williams, R.W.; Hagler, G.S.W.; Shelow, D.; Hindin, D.A.; Kilaru, V.J.; Preuss, P.W. The Changing Paradigm of Air Pollution Monitoring. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11369–11377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. French, R. Public Participation in Air Quality Monitoring: A New Frontier in Citizen Science; EM Magazine; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wong-Parodi, G.; Dias, M.B.; Taylor, M. Effect of Using an Indoor Air Quality Sensor on Perceptions of and Behaviors Toward Air Pollution (Pittsburgh Empowerment Library Study): Online Survey and Interviews. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018, 6, e48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. Environmental Health Sciences Core Centers–Community Engagement Cores–Program Description. NIEHS. Available online: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/centers/core/coe/index.cfm (accessed on 13 April 2020).
  20. Haynes, E.N.; Beidler, C.; Wittberg, R.; Meloncon, L.; Parin, M.; Kopras, E.J.; Succop, P.; Dietrich, K.N. Developing a bidirectional academic-community partnership with an Appalachian-American community for environmental health research and risk communication. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011, 119, 1364–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haynes, E.N.; Heckel, P.; Ryan, P.; Roda, S.; Leung, Y.-K.; Sebastian, K.; Succop, P. Environmental manganese exposure in residents living near a ferromanganese refinery in Southeast Ohio: A pilot study. NeuroToxicology 2010, 31, 468–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Newman, N.C.; Elam, S.; Igoe, C.; Jones, C.; Menrath, W.; Porter, D.; Haynes, E.N. A Community-Academic Partnership to Reduce Lead Exposure From an Elevated Roadway Demolition, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2012. Public Health Rep. 2017, 132, 622–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haynes, E.N.; Sucharew, H.; Hilbert, T.J.; Kuhnell, P.; Spencer, A.; Newman, N.C.; Burns, R.; Wright, R.; Parsons, P.J.; Dietrich, K.N. Impact of air manganese on child neurodevelopment in East Liverpool, Ohio. NeuroToxicology 2018, 64, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shirk, J.L.; Ballard, H.L.; Wilderman, C.C.; Phillips, T.; Wiggins, A.; Jordan, R.; McCallie, E.; Minarchek, M.; Lewenstein, B.V.; Krasny, M.E.; et al. Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Deliberate Design. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts. Available online: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ (accessed on 12 March 2025).
  26. Beck, A.F.; Moncrief, T.; Huang, B.; Simmons, J.M.; Sauers, H.; Chen, C.; Kahn, R.S. Inequalities in neighborhood child asthma admission rates and underlying community characteristics in one US county. J. Pediatr. 2013, 163, 574–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen (accessed on 26 July 2022).
  28. Federal Communications Commission. Circleplot. Available online: https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/circleplot (accessed on 28 June 2022).
  29. Olson, D.A.; Burke, J.M. Distributions of PM2.5 Source Strengths for Cooking from the Research Triangle Park Particulate Matter Panel Study. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 40, 163–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Michael, H.; Besser, A. AirBeam Technical Specifications, Operation & Performance. Available online: https://www.habitatmap.org/blog/airbeam-technical-specifications-operation-performance (accessed on 10 July 2025).
  31. HabitatMap. AirCasting Is an Open-Source Environmental Data Visualization Platform that Consists of an Android App and Online Mapping System. Available online: https://www.habitatmap.org/aircasting (accessed on 27 July 2021).
  32. Pearson, C.H. Latitude, Longitude, and Great Circles. Available online: http://www.cpearson.com/excel/LatLong.aspx (accessed on 7 April 2021).
  33. US EPA. Interpretation and Communication of Short-term Air Sensor Data: A Pilot Project. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-05/documents/interpretation_and_communication_of_short-term_air_sensor_data_a_pilot_project.pdf (accessed on 24 March 2021).
  34. Ohio Administrative Code. 3745-15-07 Air Pollution Nuisances Prohibited, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Legislative Service Commission: Columbus, OH, USA, 2015.
  35. Commodore, A.; Wilson, S.; Muhammad, O.; Svendsen, E.; Pearce, J. Community-based participatory research for the study of air pollution: A review of motivations, approaches, and outcomes. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Eriksson, A.; Abera, A.; Malmqvist, E.; Isaxon, C. Characterization of fine particulate matter from indoor cooking with solid biomass fuels. Indoor Air 2022, 32, e13143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mencarelli, A.; Greco, R.; Grigolato, S. Grilling and air pollution: How charcoal quality affects emissions. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fachinger, F.; Drewnick, F.; Gieré, R.; Borrmann, S. How the user can influence particulate emissions from residential wood and pellet stoves: Emission factors for different fuels and burning conditions. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 158, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jacobs, E.T.; Burgess, J.L.; Abbott, M.B. The Donora Smog Revisited: 70 Years After the Event That Inspired the Clean Air Act. Am. J. Public Health 2018, 108, S85–S88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Garcia, A.P.; Wallerstein, N.; Hricko, A.; Marquez, J.N.; Logan, A.; Nasser, E.G.; Minkler, M. THE (Trade, Health, Environment) Impact Project: A Community-Based Participatory Research Environmental Justice Case Study. Environ. Justice 2013, 6, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lyu, J.; Shi, Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, X.; Chu, W.; Lian, Z. Characteristics of PM2.5 emissions from six types of commercial cooking in Chinese cities and their health effects. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 313, 120180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pikmann, J.; Drewnick, F.; Fachinger, F.; Borrmann, S. Particulate emissions from cooking: Emission factors, emission dynamics, and mass spectrometric analysis for different cooking methods. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2024, 24, 12295–12321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Judge, R.W.; Wayland, C. Regulatory Considerations of Lower Cost Air Pollution Sensor Data Performance; EM Magazine; Air & Waste Management Association: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, August 2014. [Google Scholar]
  44. Galvez, M.P.; Peters, R.; Graber, N.; Forman, J. Effective risk communication in children’s environmental health: Lessons learned from 9/11. Pediatr. Clin. N. Am. 2007, 54, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jackson, R.J.; Malloy, T.F. Environmental public health law: Three pillars. J. Law Med. Ethics 2011, 39, 34–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Air 03 00020 g001
Figure 1. PM2.5 sensor readings by US EPA AQI Pilot 1-Minute Average (2016–2017).
Figure 1. PM2.5 sensor readings by US EPA AQI Pilot 1-Minute Average (2016–2017).
Air 03 00020 g001
Air 03 00020 g002
Figure 2. Sensor readings by US EPA AQI Pilot 1-Minute Average (2024).
Figure 2. Sensor readings by US EPA AQI Pilot 1-Minute Average (2024).
Air 03 00020 g002
Table 1. Program partners and partners’ objectives for the project.
Table 1. Program partners and partners’ objectives for the project.
PartnerObjective
Both Community Engagement Core and Community MemberIncreased community engagement regarding local air pollution levels
Reduce community exposure to PM2.5
Community MemberEducate and empower neighbors around source of air pollution
Encourage government authorities to decrease emissions from the source
Protect the health of those living near the source
Help the restaurant reduce their emissions
Community Engagement CoreContribute environmental health technical assistance to local communities
Assist with implementing a scientifically valid air pollution monitoring plan tailored to the available resources
Leverage institutional resources to help communities to achieve their environmental health goals
Dissemination of findings
Table 2. Businesses located within a 200 m radius of the restaurant.
Table 2. Businesses located within a 200 m radius of the restaurant.
DescriptionCount
Auto Repair1
Bank2
Bar/Night Club2
Barber/Salon6
Bus stop3
Charity3
Church3
Clothing1
Construction/Maintenance5
Funeral Home1
Herb shop1
Insurance2
Library1
Medical Office1
Pet store1
Post Office1
Restaurant7
Retail11
School/Daycare1
Studio (Dance, Martial Arts)3
Table 3. Summary of 2016–2017 air pollution monitoring sessions.
Table 3. Summary of 2016–2017 air pollution monitoring sessions.
SessionDateStart
Time		Day of
Week		Length
(min)		Session Mean ± SD
PM2.5 (µg/m3)		Session Peak
(1 min) PM2.5 (µg/m3)		Average US EPA Daily PM2.5 (µg/m3)
116 June 20168:54Thursday4125.2 ± 43.3184.85.60
217 June 201612:17Friday1020.0 ± 33.166.78.43
325 February 201717:21Saturday1018.8 ± 31.168.55.67
426 February 2017 *17:27Sunday71.7 ± 0.62.26.17
52 March 201718:28Thursday95.1 ± 7.016.94.28
63 March 20178:46Friday622.0 ± 21.147.35.77
74 March 201717:50Saturday710.2 ± 14.826.78.13
85 March 201712:34Sunday555.0 ± 74.6146.38.50
99 March 201718:05Thursday106.2 ± 6.618.07.80
1011 March 201717:48Saturday1210.3 ± 9.824.84.95
1114 March 201718:45Tuesday82.4 ± 0.63.08.21
1216 March 201717:18Thursday623.6 ± 29.981.311.20
1318 March 20178:02Saturday1252.6 ± 70.3165.58.77
1423 March 201717:45Thursday917.0 ± 34.098.66.42
1530 March 201717:40Thursday1141.2 ± 56.8147.66.83
161 April 201710:39Saturday514.1 ± 13.043.24.60
1710 April 201719:42Monday52.9 ± 0.63.27.78
188 June 20177:10Thursday105.3 ± 4.213.26.83
* Restaurant was closed on this day.
Table 4. Summary of 2024 air pollution monitoring sessions.
Table 4. Summary of 2024 air pollution monitoring sessions.
SessionDateStart
Time		Day of
Week		Length
(min)		Session Mean ± SD
PM2.5 (µg/m3)		Session Peak
(1 min) PM2.5 (µg/m3)		Average US EPA daily PM2.5 (µg/m3)
113 April 202414:30Saturday50.2 ± 0.41.04.6
214 April 202419:28Sunday292.0 ± 5.624.17.65
315 Aprill 202417:38Monday352.2 ± 1.33.29.85
416 April 202417:41Tuesday442.7 ± 1.36.09.13
5 *17 April 202417:39Wednesday461.3 ± 1.35.44.28
6 *18 April 202417:38Thursday590.0 ± 0.20.54.01
719 April 202411:57Friday150.1 ± 0.30.44.02
820 April 202415:53Saturday560.0 ± 0.10.23.4
921 April 20247:42Sunday430.2 ± 0.40.86.0
1022 April 202417:37Monday380.7 ± 0.71.68.8
11 #23 April 202412:28Tuesday101.5 ± 0.72.27.7
12 *23 April 202417:36Tuesday100.9 ± 0.82.87.7
1324 April 202418:49Wednesday840.4 ± 1.38.95.55
14 *26 April 202417:34Friday351.5 ± 0.82.87.7
15 *27 April 20247:05Saturday3110.3 ± 2.913.512.68
1627 April 202416:13Saturday457.7 ± 1.08.912.68
17 *28 April 202416:04Sunday453.3 ± 1.25.48.85
18 *29 April 202417:35Monday453.2 ± 1.24.39.13
1930 April 202417:45Tuesday1000.0 ± 0.10.24.06
202 May 202411:12Thursday147.3 ± 1.19.29.3
213 May 202410:40Friday146.4 ± 0.97.19.98
* Stationary session. # Mobile session with duplicate sensor.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Newman, N.C.; Conradi, D.; Mayer, A.C.; Simons, C.; Newman, R.; Haynes, E.N. Excessive Smoke from a Neighborhood Restaurant Highlights Gaps in Air Pollution Enforcement: Citizen Science Observational Study. Air 2025, 3, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/air3030020

AMA Style

Newman NC, Conradi D, Mayer AC, Simons C, Newman R, Haynes EN. Excessive Smoke from a Neighborhood Restaurant Highlights Gaps in Air Pollution Enforcement: Citizen Science Observational Study. Air. 2025; 3(3):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/air3030020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Newman, Nicholas C., Deborah Conradi, Alexander C. Mayer, Cole Simons, Ravi Newman, and Erin N. Haynes. 2025. "Excessive Smoke from a Neighborhood Restaurant Highlights Gaps in Air Pollution Enforcement: Citizen Science Observational Study" Air 3, no. 3: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/air3030020

APA Style

Newman, N. C., Conradi, D., Mayer, A. C., Simons, C., Newman, R., & Haynes, E. N. (2025). Excessive Smoke from a Neighborhood Restaurant Highlights Gaps in Air Pollution Enforcement: Citizen Science Observational Study. Air, 3(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/air3030020

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop