OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the pulmonary functions in healthy non-smoking women who used either biomass or liquified petroleum gas (LPG) as their sole cooking fuel. The effects of passive smoking, ventilation, over crowding and cooking index were also taken into account. METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted over a period of two years from January 1994. One hundred healthy non-smoking women were included 50 cooked solely with biomass and 50 cooked with LPG. A standardised respiratory symptoms questionnaire was administered to all the subjects and spirometry was carried out. RESULTS: Passive smoking showed no significant difference between the two groups. No statistically significant differences was found in lung functions in the two groups except for the PEFR, which was significantly lower (P < 0.01) in women using biomass. No correlation was observed between different variables and pulmonary functions. The step-wise multivariate linear regression analysis showed no correlation between cooking fuel and the pulmonary functions. CONCLUSION: The absence of the expected adverse effects of biomass on pulmonary functions was possibly due to better ventilation in the kitchens of subjects in the biomass group compared to previous studies.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the pulmonary functions in healthy non-smoking women who used either biomass or liquified petroleum gas (LPG) as their sole cooking fuel. The effects of passive smoking, ventilation, over crowding and cooking index were also taken into account. METHODOLOGY: The study was conducted over a period of two years from January 1994. One hundred healthy non-smoking women were included 50 cooked solely with biomass and 50 cooked with LPG. A standardised respiratory symptoms questionnaire was administered to all the subjects and spirometry was carried out. RESULTS: Passive smoking showed no significant difference between the two groups. No statistically significant differences was found in lung functions in the two groups except for the PEFR, which was significantly lower (P < 0.01) in women using biomass. No correlation was observed between different variables and pulmonary functions. The step-wise multivariate linear regression analysis showed no correlation between cooking fuel and the pulmonary functions. CONCLUSION: The absence of the expected adverse effects of biomass on pulmonary functions was possibly due to better ventilation in the kitchens of subjects in the biomass group compared to previous studies.