| Literature DB >> 30792415 |
Sarmila Mazumder1, Alison Lee2, Brinda Dube1, Divya Mehra3, Phue Khaing4, Sunita Taneja1, Beizhan Yan5, Steven N Chillrud5, Nita Bhandari1, Jeanine M D'Armiento6.
Abstract
Household air pollution (HAP) secondary to the burning of solid fuels is a major risk factor for the development of COPD. Our study seeks to examine the impact of a clean cookstove, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), on respiratory outcomes. Women (n = 200) from neighboring Indian communities, one cooking with LPG and one with biomass, were enrolled. Spirometry was performed. Relationships between primary cooking fuel and spirometry measures, as raw values, Global Lung Initiative (GLI) percent predicted (pp), and GLI z-scores, were examined using linear regression. Effect modification by age was explored. Women were young (average age 33.3 years), with low education (median 5.0 years), and the majority had multiple sources of air pollution exposures. Overall, the lung function in both groups was poor [FEV1 z-score median -2.05, IQR (-2.64, -1.41). Biomass was associated with lower FEV1/FVC (raw values -7.0, p = 0.04; GLI pp -7.62, p = 0.05, and z-score -0.86, p = 0.05) and FEF25-75 (GLI pp -25.78, p = 0.05, z-score -1.24, p = 0.05), after adjusting for confounders. Increasing impairment in lung function with age was found among biomass users (p-interaction = 0.01). In conclusion, use of a clean fuel cookstove may improve lung function. These findings have broad implications for research and public policy.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30792415 PMCID: PMC6385496 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-37887-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Participant Characteristics.
| Categorical Variables | All (N = 200) | Biomass (N = 100) | LPG (N = 100) |
|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N | N | |
| Smoker | |||
| No | 171 (85.5) | 75 | 96 |
| Yes | 29 (14.5) | 25 | 4 |
| Hookah | 16 (8.0) | 16 | 0 |
| Bidi | 19 (9.5) | 15 | 4 |
| Cigarette | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 |
| Secondhand Smoke Exposure | |||
| No | 83 (41.5) | 21 | 62 |
| Yes | 117 (58.5) | 79 | 38 |
| Hookah | 42 (21.0) | 42 | 0 |
| Bidi | 101 (50.5) | 71 | 30 |
| Cigarette | 31 (15.5) | 14 | 17 |
| Primary Cooking Area | |||
| Indoors | 118 (59.0) | 20 | 98 |
| Any Ventilation | 84 (42.0) | 0 | 84 |
| 4-Walls | 10 (5.0) | 2 | 8 |
| 3-Wall | 7 (3.5) | 4 | 3 |
| 2-Walls | 11 (5.5) | 14 | 34 |
| Secondary Biomass Fuels | |||
| Kerosene | 26 (13.0) | 20 | 6 |
| Wood | 78 (39.0) | 72 | 6 |
| Paper | 24 (12.0) | 24 | 0 |
| Twigs | 45 (22.5) | 44 | 1 |
| Polythene | 25 (12.5) | 24 | 1 |
| Charcoal | 1 (0.5) | 1 | 0 |
| Husk | 11 (5.5) | 11 | 0 |
| Time spent cooking | |||
| 1–2 Hours | 48 (24) | 14 | 34 |
| 2–4 Hours | 123 (61.5) | 66 | 57 |
| 4–6 Hours | 23 (11.5) | 15 | 8 |
| >6 Hours | 6 (3) | 5 | 1 |
| Years as Primary Cook | |||
| 1–3 years | 15 (7.5) | 2 | 13 |
| 3–6 years | 19 (9.5) | 5 | 14 |
| >6 years | 166 (83.0) | 93 | 73 |
| Continuous Variables | |||
| Age (year; mean, SD) | 33.3 (9.0) | 35.1 (10.0) | 31.4 (7.4) |
| Education (years; median, IQR) | 5.0 (0–8) | 4.5 (0–7) | 6.5 (0–10) |
| Height (m; mean, SD) | 1.52 (0.05) | 1.54 (0.05) | 1.51 (0.05) |
| Weight (kg; mean, SD) | 54.5 (11.0) | 53.5 (10.2) | 55.5 (11.8) |
| FEV1 (L; mean, SD) | 2.05 (0.40) | 2.06 (0.44) | 2.04 (0.35) |
| FVC (L; mean, SD) | 2.60 (0.45) | 2.64 (0.49) | 2.55 (0.39) |
| FEF25–75 (L/s; mean/SD) | 2.07 (0.86) | 2.00 (0.96) | 2.14 (0.73) |
| FEV1/FVC ratio (%; mean, SD) | 78.8 (7.01) | 77.9 (7.06) | 79.8 (6.86) |
| PEF (L/s; mean, SD) | 3.21 (0.64) | 3.19 (0.68) | 3.22 (0.61) |
Figure 1Distribution of spirometry variable Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) z-scores. The X-axis displays the spirometry variables and the Y-axis demonstrates the z-score values. The box portion of the boxplot represents the 25th and 75th percentile with the solid mid-line representing the median and the whisker portion representing the 2.5th to the 97.5th percentile. Each dot represents a participant measurement. Median z-score values were well below zero [FEV1 = −2.05 (IQR −2.64, −1.41); FVC = −1.61 (IQR −2.30, −0.99); FEV1/FVC = −0.78 (IQR −1.40, −0.23); FEF25–75 = −1.53 (IQR −2.41, −0.86)]. Notably the median value for FEV1 z-score was less than −1.64, the GLI-defined lower limit of normal, and FVC and FEF25–75 approached this value.
Multivariable linear regression models examining biomass exposure in relation to spirometry, analyzed as raw data, Global Lung Function Initiative (GLI) percent predicted and GLI z-score, in Indian adults aged 20–62.
| Model 1: Raw Spirometric Data† | Model 2: GLI Percent Predicted (pp)* | Model 3: GLI Z-ScoreΩ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PE (SE) | p | PE (SE) | p | PE (SE) | p | |||
| FEV1 | −0.05 (0.17) | 0.80 | FEV1 pp | −2.85 (7.05) | 0.69 | FEV1 z-score | −0.19 (0.49) | 0.70 |
| FVC | 0.18 (0.19) | 0.36 | FVC pp | 4.88 (6.91) | 0.48 | FVC z-score | 0.34 (0.49) | 0.49 |
| FEV1/FVC (%) | −7.0 (3.4) | 0.04 | FEV1/FVC pp | −7.62 (3.88) | 0.05 | FEV1/FVC z-score | −0.86 (0.43) | 0.05 |
| FEF25–75 | −0.75 (0.41) | 0.07 | FEF25–75 pp | −25.78 | 0.05 | FEF25–75 z-score | −1.24 (0.63) | 0.05 |
†Adjusted for age, height, ethnicity, education level, any tobacco smoke exposure, duration of cooking as primary cook, and secondary solid fuel burning.
*Using GLI equations (which account for age, sex, race, height) to determine percent predicted (pp) values. Models adjusted for education level, any tobacco smoke exposure, duration of cooking as primary cook, and secondary solid fuel burning.
ΩGLI z-scores are independent of sex, age, and height. Models adjusted for education level, any tobacco smoke exposure, duration of cooking as primary cook, and secondary solid fuel burning.
Figure 2FEV1/FVC and Age Stratified by Biomass Exposure. Linear regression models and 95% CI of Age and FEV1/FVC stratified by Biomass Exposure after adjustment for height, education level, and other environmental exposures. Biomass x Age p for interaction 0.01. Similar results were seen for FEV1 and FEF25–75.
Associations between airway obstruction (FEV1/FVC < 70%) and Biomass exposure*.
| Biomass (n = 100) | LPG (n = 100) | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Any Obstruction | 13 | 4 | 0.04 |
| Mild | 1 | 0 | 0.49 |
| Moderate | 9 | 2 | 0.06 |
| Severe | 2 | 2 | 1.0 |
| Very Severe | 1 | 0 | 0.49 |
*Fisher’s exact test.
Cumulative logistic regression models examining association between biomass exposure and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire scores grouped into quartiles in Indian adults aged 20–62.
| St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire | Univariate Model | Adjusted Model* | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||
| Symptom | 1.66 | 1.00 | 2.74 | 1.87 | 1.07 | 3.28 |
| Activity | 0.96 | 0.59 | 1.57 | 0.70 | 0.40 | 1.22 |
| Impacts | 0.92 | 0.55 | 1.54 | 0.73 | 0.41 | 1.30 |
| Total | 1.13 | 0.69 | 1.85 | 0.94 | 0.55 | 1.63 |
*Adjusted for age, height, education, number of hours spent cooking, and environmental exposures (tobacco smoke and secondary cooking fuels).
Figure 3(A) Household and (B) Ambient levels of average PM2.5 concentration of black carbon and UV-POC by fuel use. Mean levels determined from 10 households in each village ± SE.