Beijing-flux-measuring

Flux measuring equipment in Beijing. Credit: UKCEH

Delhi’s Traffic Still Outweighs Cooking, Unlike London and Beijing

In A Nutshell

  • Cooking produced up to 87% of central London’s early evening particle emissions, and up to 76% of Beijing’s.
  • Delhi was different: traffic-related sources led, and cooking averaged just 8%.
  • In the air people breathe, cooking made up only 5% to 10% of fine particle mass in London and Beijing.
  • Controlling kitchen fumes could be a low-cost step, researchers say, but it will not meet health targets alone.

Dinner prep in central London now releases more tiny, lung-damaging particles than traffic exhaust does. Instruments on the BT Tower found cooking accounted for 87% of the fine particles released directly into the air during the early evening, and up to 83% at midday.

Beijing showed a similar pattern, with cooking responsible for up to 76% of early evening emissions. Delhi looked nothing like either city. There, traffic-related sources made up 56% of emissions, and cooking averaged just 8%. Results appear in npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, based on readings from instruments high above all three cities.

Researchers see a likely reason. Decades of tighter vehicle and fuel rules appear to have cut traffic and combustion pollution in London and Beijing, leaving cooking, a source missing from national, European and global emissions tallies, as the largest remaining local one. Cooking was not tracked over time, so the study cannot say kitchens have become dirtier.

Tower Measurements Show Cooking Emissions Peak at Mealtimes

Rather than relying on ground-level monitors, the research team mounted instruments on tall structures: the BT Tower in London, a tower at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Beijing, and a university building in Old Delhi, at roughly 620, 335 and 110 feet above street level. Sampling five times per second, the equipment tracked how much particle material was rising off the city below, then used each particle’s chemical fingerprint to sort it into a source, such as cooking, traffic or coal burning.

Instruments captured particles less than a thousandth of a millimeter across, far thinner than a human hair. Fine particles in that size range are tied to heart and lung disease and can travel deep into the lungs. Brake wear, tire wear and road dust fell outside what the equipment could detect, so traffic’s full contribution is undercounted.

Measurements covered winter 2016 and summer 2017 in Beijing, autumn 2018 in Delhi, and summer and winter 2021 in London. Each site sampled the neighborhood around it. London’s included a dense commercial center with restaurants, major roads and rail stations. Beijing’s covered a mix of homes and businesses, big roads and many restaurants. Delhi’s was shaped by busy roads, a railway station and a large bus terminal.

Cooking emissions climbed around lunch and dinner, right when restaurant kitchens are busiest. At those hours cooking was the largest source in London and Beijing, with Beijing’s midday share reaching 61%. Traffic-related emissions, including black carbon (soot), made up a smaller share: 16% to 38% in London and 28% to 46% in Beijing, and at times less than 10% in both. Beijing’s cooking readings ran higher in winter than summer, though the area sampled also shifted toward more restaurants. London’s winter readings also overlapped with a stretch of COVID-19 precautions that likely thinned restaurant crowds, so cooking emissions there may have run lower than usual.

Cooking’s Role in Urban PM1 Emissions
Kids with lead levels below the CDC action level had over double the odds of strep throat in a study of 13,221 children. (Image by StudyFinds)

Traffic and Combustion Still Dominate Delhi’s Particle Emissions

Delhi’s small cooking share does not mean residents cook less. Cooking particle emissions measured there were similar in size to London’s. Traffic and combustion emissions were simply far larger, shrinking cooking’s slice.

Cooking Emissions Make Up Only 5% to 10% of Fine Particles in London and Beijing Air

Emissions released at the source differ from what ends up in the air people breathe. In the air itself, cooking made up just 5% to 10% of the fine particle mass measured in London and Beijing, similar to traffic’s 5% to 18%. City air also carries particles drifting in from surrounding regions and ones that form when gases react in the atmosphere. In both cities, particles formed from reacting gases made up 55% to 62% of the mass measured.

Researchers also compared tower readings with official estimates for Westminster, a central London borough. The UK national estimate leaves out cooking directly. London’s regional estimate, which only recently began counting it, put cooking at 44% of annual emissions once brake and tire wear are set aside. Tower data pointed to about 45%, a close match.

Cleaner Traffic Leaves Cooking Fumes as a Top Local Source

Cooking fumes already carry known health risks, and chefs show higher rates of respiratory illness than the general population. UK and European rules govern how kitchens vent fumes outdoors but do not require filtering, and enforcement is low. Researchers say controlling these fumes could be a relatively low-cost way to cut particle emissions in developed city centers.

Delhi calls for a different approach. Researchers expect kitchen controls to be less effective there because of poorly ventilated homes and more outdoor cooking, so traffic and combustion remain the bigger target.

Kitchen exhaust deserves regulators’ attention in central London and Beijing, where cooking now tops the list of local particle sources at mealtimes. Cleaner kitchens alone will not meet health-based targets, though. Further cuts will also depend on reducing the gases that react in the air to form particles, the researchers say.


Disclaimer: This article summarizes peer-reviewed research for general readers and is not medical, legal or professional advice. Findings from one study do not apply to every city or situation. Anyone with concerns about air quality or health should consult a qualified professional.


Paper Notes

Limitations

Instruments mainly captured particles smaller than one micrometer that vaporize when heated, plus black carbon, so mineral dust, sea salt, and brake, tire and road wear went uncounted, and total traffic emissions are underestimated. Measurements covered specific seasons rather than full years, and annual figures were extrapolated by treating summer as eight months and winter as four. The three sites sat at different heights and sampled different mixes of city blocks, so the authors describe cross-city comparisons as contrasts between source mixtures, not like-for-like matches. Beijing’s higher winter cooking readings may partly reflect a restaurant-heavy area upwind of the tower. The locations and release heights of individual cooking vents were not identified. London’s winter readings overlapped with COVID-19 Plan B measures that likely reduced restaurant activity. London’s regional estimate overestimated measured cooking emissions in absolute terms by about 76%, even though cooking’s share matched closely. Cooking estimates also depend on instrument calibration assumptions, which the authors varied to show uncertainty. Suburban areas, where cooking emissions come mostly from homes, were not studied. The data cannot show whether cooking emissions have changed over time or whether the sampled neighborhoods represent entire cities.

Funding and Disclosures

Funding came from the Natural Environment Research Council through several projects: CityFlux, AIRPOLL-Beijing, DelhiFlux, and OSCA. A student researcher’s work was supported by the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Additional support came from the Earth System Science Organization, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India, through an Indo-UK joint collaboration grant. One author, Pingqing Fu, serves as an Associate Editor of the journal but was not involved in the review or decision process for this paper. The authors declared no competing interests.

Publication Details

Titled “Traffic and combustion emission controls leave cooking as a dominant local source of primary PM1 in megacities,” the paper appeared in npj Climate and Atmospheric Science (2026, volume 9, article 212) on October 23, 2026, after acceptance on October 8, 2026. The corresponding author is Ben Langford of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Other listed authors include Chiara F. Di Marco, James M. Cash, James D. Allan, Zixuan Cheng, Hugh Coe, Delphine K. Farmer, Pingqing Fu, Ranu Gadi, Bhola Ram Gurjar, Jose L. Jimenez, Joel Kimmel, Dantong Liu, Tuhin Kumar Mandal, Neil J. Mullinger, Gavin J. Phillips, Ernesto Reyes-Villegas, Rutambhara Joshi, Shivani Shivani, and Eiko Nemitz. The paper is open access, and data supporting its figures are available at Figshare (10.6084/m9.figshare.32626185). The paper’s DOI is https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-026-01583-6.

About StudyFinds Analysis

Called "brilliant," "fantastic," and "spot on" by scientists and researchers, our acclaimed StudyFinds Analysis articles are created using an exclusive AI-based model with complete human oversight by the StudyFinds Editorial Team. For these articles, we use an unparalleled LLM process across multiple systems to analyze entire journal papers, extract data, and create accurate, accessible content. Our writing and editing team proofreads and polishes each and every article before publishing. With recent studies showing that artificial intelligence can interpret scientific research as well as (or even better) than field experts and specialists, StudyFinds was among the earliest to adopt and test this technology before approving its widespread use on our site. We stand by our practice and continuously update our processes to ensure the very highest level of accuracy. Read our AI Policy (link below) for more information.

Our Editorial Process

StudyFinds publishes digestible, agenda-free, transparent research summaries that are intended to inform the reader as well as stir civil, educated debate. We do not agree nor disagree with any of the studies we post, rather, we encourage our readers to debate the veracity of the findings themselves. All articles published on StudyFinds are vetted by our editors prior to publication and include links back to the source or corresponding journal article, if possible.

Our Editorial Team

Steve Fink

Editor-in-Chief

John Anderer

Associate Editor