Graydon Snider1, Ellison Carter2, Sierra Clark1, Joy Tzu Wei Tseng3, Xudong Yang4, Majid Ezzati5, James J Schauer6, Christine Wiedinmyer7, Jill Baumgartner8. 1. Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. 2. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 3. Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada. 4. Department of Building Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 5. MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK. 6. Environmental Chemistry and Technology Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA; Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 7. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA. 8. Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada; Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada; Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA. Electronic address: jill.baumgartner@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decades of intervention programs that replaced traditional biomass stoves with cleaner-burning technologies have failed to meet the World Health Organization (WHO) interim indoor air quality target of 35-μg m-3 for PM2.5. Many attribute these results to continued use of biomass stoves and poor outdoor air quality, though the relative impacts of these factors have not been empirically quantified. METHODS: We measured 496 days of real-time stove use concurrently with outdoor and indoor air pollution (PM2.5) in 150 rural households in Sichuan, China. The impacts of stove use patterns and outdoor air quality on indoor PM2.5 were quantified. We also estimated the potential avoided cardiovascular mortality in southwestern China associated with transition from traditional to clean fuel stoves using established exposure-response relationships. RESULTS: Mean daily indoor PM2.5 was highest in homes using both wood and clean fuel stoves (122 μg m-3), followed by exclusive use of wood stoves (106 μg m-3) and clean fuel stoves (semi-gasifiers: 65 μg m-3; gas or electric: 55 μg m-3). Wood stoves emitted proportionally higher indoor PM2.5 during ignition, and longer stove use was not associated with higher indoor PM2.5. Only 24% of days with exclusive use of clean fuel stoves met the WHO indoor air quality target, though this fraction rose to 73% after subtracting the outdoor PM2.5 contribution. Reduced PM2.5 exposure through exclusive use of gas or electric stoves was estimated to prevent 48,000 yearly premature deaths in southwestern China, with greater reductions if local outdoor PM2.5 is also reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Clean stove and fuel interventions are not likely to reduce indoor PM2.5 to the WHO target unless their use is exclusive and outdoor air pollution is sufficiently low, but may still offer some cardiovascular benefits.
BACKGROUND: Decades of intervention programs that replaced traditional biomass stoves with cleaner-burning technologies have failed to meet the World Health Organization (WHO) interim indoor air quality target of 35-μg m-3 for PM2.5. Many attribute these results to continued use of biomass stoves and poor outdoor air quality, though the relative impacts of these factors have not been empirically quantified. METHODS: We measured 496 days of real-time stove use concurrently with outdoor and indoor air pollution (PM2.5) in 150 rural households in Sichuan, China. The impacts of stove use patterns and outdoor air quality on indoor PM2.5 were quantified. We also estimated the potential avoided cardiovascular mortality in southwestern China associated with transition from traditional to clean fuel stoves using established exposure-response relationships. RESULTS: Mean daily indoor PM2.5 was highest in homes using both wood and clean fuel stoves (122 μg m-3), followed by exclusive use of wood stoves (106 μg m-3) and clean fuel stoves (semi-gasifiers: 65 μg m-3; gas or electric: 55 μg m-3). Wood stoves emitted proportionally higher indoor PM2.5 during ignition, and longer stove use was not associated with higher indoor PM2.5. Only 24% of days with exclusive use of clean fuel stoves met the WHO indoor air quality target, though this fraction rose to 73% after subtracting the outdoor PM2.5 contribution. Reduced PM2.5 exposure through exclusive use of gas or electric stoves was estimated to prevent 48,000 yearly premature deaths in southwestern China, with greater reductions if local outdoor PM2.5 is also reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Clean stove and fuel interventions are not likely to reduce indoor PM2.5 to the WHO target unless their use is exclusive and outdoor air pollution is sufficiently low, but may still offer some cardiovascular benefits.
Authors: Alexandra L Bellows; Donna Spiegelman; Shufa Du; Lindsay M Jaacks Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sabrina Li; Ming Yang; Ellison Carter; James J Schauer; Xudong Yang; Majid Ezzati; Mark S Goldberg; Jill Baumgartner Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Ashlinn K Quinn; Gila Neta; Rachel Sturke; Christopher O Olopade; Suzanne L Pollard; Kenneth Sherr; Joshua P Rosenthal Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2019-12-20
Authors: Joshua Rosenthal; Raphael E Arku; Jill Baumgartner; Joe Brown; Thomas Clasen; Joseph N S Eisenberg; Peter Hovmand; Pamela Jagger; Douglas A Luke; Ashlinn Quinn; Gautam N Yadama Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Angela Mathee; Jocelyn Moyes; Thulisa Mkhencele; Jackie Kleynhans; Brigitte Language; Stuart Piketh; Elias Moroe; Floidy Wafawanaka; Neil Martinson; Meredith McMorrow; Stefano Tempia; Kathleen Kahn; Cheryl Cohen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ricardo Piedrahita; Michael Johnson; Kelsey R Bilsback; Christian L'Orange; John K Kodros; Sarah Rose Eilenberg; Agnes Naluwagga; Ming Shan; Sankar Sambandam; Maggie Clark; Jeffrey R Pierce; Kalpana Balakrishnan; Allen L Robinson; John Volckens Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 5.770