Zheng Li1, Adwoa Commodore2, Stella Hartinger3, Michael Lewin4, Andreas Sjödin5, Erin Pittman5, Debra Trinidad5, Kendra Hubbard5, Claudio F Lanata6, Ana I Gil6, Daniel Mäusezahl7, Luke P Naeher8. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, USA; Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Atlanta, USA. Electronic address: ZJLi@cdc.gov. 2. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA. 3. Instituto de Investigación Nutricional, Lima, Perú; Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú. 4. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Atlanta, USA. 5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Atlanta, USA. 6. Instituto de Investigación Nutricional, Lima, Perú. 7. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 8. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú; University of Georgia, Athens, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Household air pollution (HAP) from indoor biomass stoves contains harmful pollutants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and is a leading risk factor for global disease burden. We used biomonitoring to assess HAP exposure and association with self-reported symptoms in 334 non-smoking Peruvian women to evaluate the efficacy of a stove intervention program. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study within the framework of a community randomized control trial. Using urinary PAH metabolites (OH-PAHs) as the exposure biomarkers, we investigated whether the intervention group (n=155, with new chimney-equipped stoves) were less exposed to HAP compared to the control group (n=179, with mostly open-fire stoves). We also estimated associations between the exposure biomarkers, risk factors, and self-reported health symptoms, such as recent eye conditions, respiratory conditions, and headache. RESULTS: We observed reduced headache and ocular symptoms in the intervention group than the control group. Urinary 2-naphthol, a suggested biomarker for inhalation PAH exposure, was significantly lower in the intervention group (GM with 95% CI: 13.4 [12.3, 14.6] μg/g creatinine) compared to control group (16.5 [15.0, 18.0] μg/g creatinine). Stove type and/or 2-naphthol was associated with a number of self-reported symptoms, such as red eye (adjusted OR with 95% CI: 3.80 [1.32, 10.9]) in the past 48h. CONCLUSIONS: Even with the improved stoves, the biomarker concentrations in this study far exceeded those of the general populations and were higher than a no-observed-genotoxic-effect-level, indicating high exposure and a potential for increased cancer risk in the population. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Household air pollution (HAP) from indoor biomass stoves contains harmful pollutants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and is a leading risk factor for global disease burden. We used biomonitoring to assess HAP exposure and association with self-reported symptoms in 334 non-smoking Peruvian women to evaluate the efficacy of a stove intervention program. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study within the framework of a community randomized control trial. Using urinary PAH metabolites (OH-PAHs) as the exposure biomarkers, we investigated whether the intervention group (n=155, with new chimney-equipped stoves) were less exposed to HAP compared to the control group (n=179, with mostly open-fire stoves). We also estimated associations between the exposure biomarkers, risk factors, and self-reported health symptoms, such as recent eye conditions, respiratory conditions, and headache. RESULTS: We observed reduced headache and ocular symptoms in the intervention group than the control group. Urinary 2-naphthol, a suggested biomarker for inhalation PAH exposure, was significantly lower in the intervention group (GM with 95% CI: 13.4 [12.3, 14.6] μg/g creatinine) compared to control group (16.5 [15.0, 18.0] μg/g creatinine). Stove type and/or 2-naphthol was associated with a number of self-reported symptoms, such as red eye (adjusted OR with 95% CI: 3.80 [1.32, 10.9]) in the past 48h. CONCLUSIONS: Even with the improved stoves, the biomarker concentrations in this study far exceeded those of the general populations and were higher than a no-observed-genotoxic-effect-level, indicating high exposure and a potential for increased cancer risk in the population. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Authors: Zheng Li; James A Mulholland; Lovisa C Romanoff; Erin N Pittman; Debra A Trinidad; Michael D Lewin; Andreas Sjödin Journal: J Environ Monit Date: 2010-05
Authors: S M Hartinger; C F Lanata; J Hattendorf; A I Gil; H Verastegui; T Ochoa; D Mäusezahl Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Rebeca I Martínez-Salinas; M Elena Leal; Lilia E Batres-Esquivel; Gabriela Domínguez-Cortinas; Jacqueline Calderón; Fernando Díaz-Barriga; Iván N Pérez-Maldonado Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2009-11-03 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: L G Pruneda-Álvarez; F J Pérez-Vázquez; M Salgado-Bustamante; R I Martínez-Salinas; N A Pelallo-Martínez; I N Pérez-Maldonado Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 5.770
Authors: Daniel P Pope; Vinod Mishra; Lisa Thompson; Amna Rehana Siddiqui; Eva A Rehfuess; Martin Weber; Nigel G Bruce Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2010-04-08 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Jamie Rylance; Stephen B Gordon; Luke P Naeher; Archana Patel; John R Balmes; Olorunfemi Adetona; Derek K Rogalsky; William J Martin Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2013-03-01 Impact factor: 5.464
Authors: Arturo Torres-Dosal; Iván N Pérez-Maldonado; Yolanda Jasso-Pineda; Rebeca I Martínez Salinas; Jorge A Alegría-Torres; Fernando Díaz-Barriga Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Tone Smith-Sivertsen; Esperanza Díaz; Dan Pope; Rolv T Lie; Anaite Díaz; John McCracken; Per Bakke; Byron Arana; Kirk R Smith; Nigel Bruce Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-05-14 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Eugene A Gibbs-Flournoy; M Ian Gilmour; Mark Higuchi; James Jetter; Ingrid George; Lisa Copeland; Randy Harrison; Virginia C Moser; Janice A Dye Journal: Environ Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Sabrina B Sholts; Kevin Smith; Cecilia Wallin; Trifa M Ahmed; Sebastian K T S Wärmländer Journal: Environ Health Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: John R Weinstein; Anaité Diaz-Artiga; Neal Benowitz; Lisa M Thompson Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Giovanna Cilluffo; Giuliana Ferrante; Nicola Murgia; Rosanna Mancini; Simona Pichini; Giuseppe Cuffari; Vittoria Giudice; Nicolò Tirone; Velia Malizia; Laura Montalbano; Salvatore Fasola; Roberta Pacifici; Giovanni Viegi; Stefania La Grutta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Divyani Garg; Man Mohan Mehndiratta; Mohammad Wasay; Vasundhara Aggarwal Journal: Ann Indian Acad Neurol Date: 2022-03-25 Impact factor: 1.714
Authors: Frederick G B Goddard; Radu Ban; Dana Boyd Barr; Joe Brown; Jennifer Cannon; John M Colford; Joseph N S Eisenberg; Ayse Ercumen; Helen Petach; Matthew C Freeman; Karen Levy; Stephen P Luby; Christine Moe; Amy J Pickering; Jeremy A Sarnat; Jill Stewart; Evan Thomas; Mami Taniuchi; Thomas Clasen Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 9.028