Raphael E Arku1, Michael Brauer2, MyLinh Duong3, Li Wei4, Bo Hu4, Lap Ah Tse5, Prem K Mony6, P V M Lakshmi7, Rajamohanan K Pillai8, Viswanathan Mohan9, Karen Yeates10, Lanthe Kruger11, Sumathy Rangarajan3, Teo Koon3, Salim Yusuf3, Perry Hystad12. 1. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA; School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Electronic address: rarku@umass.edu. 2. School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 3. Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Canada. 4. Medical Research and Biometrics Center, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, China. 5. The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 6. Division of Epidemiology & Population Health, St John's Medical College & Research Institute, Bangalore, India. 7. Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India. 8. School of Health Policy, Kerala University of Health Sciences, Trivandrum, India. 9. Madras Diabetes Research Foundation, Chennai, India. 10. Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 11. North-West University, Africa Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research (AUTHeR), South Africa. 12. College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kerosene, which was until recently considered a relatively clean household fuel, is still widely used in low- and middle-income countries for cooking and lighting. However, there is little data on its health effects. We examined cardiorespiratory effects and mortality in households using kerosene as their primary cooking fuel within the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. METHODS: We analyzed baseline and follow-up data on 31,490 individuals from 154 communities in China, India, South Africa, and Tanzania where there was at least 10% kerosene use for cooking at baseline. Baseline comorbidities and health outcomes during follow-up (median 9.4 years) were compared between households with kerosene versus clean (gas or electricity) or solid fuel (biomass and coal) use for cooking. Multi-level marginal regression models adjusted for individual, household, and community level covariates. RESULTS: Higher rates of prevalent respiratory symptoms (e.g. 34% [95% CI:15-57%] more dyspnea with usual activity, 44% [95% CI: 21-72%] more chronic cough or sputum) and lower lung function (differences in FEV1: -46.3 ml (95% CI: -80.5; -12.1) and FVC: -54.7 ml (95% CI: -93.6; -15.8)) were observed at baseline for kerosene compared to clean fuel users. The odds of hypertension was slightly elevated but no associations were observed for blood pressure. Prospectively, kerosene was associated with elevated risks of all-cause (HR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.14-1.53)) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.00-1.80)) mortality, as well as major fatal and incident non-fatal cardiovascular (HR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.08-1.66)) and respiratory (HR: 1.55 (95% CI: 0.98-2.43)) diseases, compared to clean fuel use. Further, compared to solid fuel users, those using kerosene had 20-47% higher risks for the above outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Kerosene use for cooking was associated with higher rates of baseline respiratory morbidity and increased risk of mortality and cardiorespiratory outcomes during follow-up when compared to either clean or solid fuels. Replacing kerosene with cleaner-burning fuels for cooking is recommended.
BACKGROUND: Kerosene, which was until recently considered a relatively clean household fuel, is still widely used in low- and middle-income countries for cooking and lighting. However, there is little data on its health effects. We examined cardiorespiratory effects and mortality in households using kerosene as their primary cooking fuel within the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study. METHODS: We analyzed baseline and follow-up data on 31,490 individuals from 154 communities in China, India, South Africa, and Tanzania where there was at least 10% kerosene use for cooking at baseline. Baseline comorbidities and health outcomes during follow-up (median 9.4 years) were compared between households with kerosene versus clean (gas or electricity) or solid fuel (biomass and coal) use for cooking. Multi-level marginal regression models adjusted for individual, household, and community level covariates. RESULTS: Higher rates of prevalent respiratory symptoms (e.g. 34% [95% CI:15-57%] more dyspnea with usual activity, 44% [95% CI: 21-72%] more chronic cough or sputum) and lower lung function (differences in FEV1: -46.3 ml (95% CI: -80.5; -12.1) and FVC: -54.7 ml (95% CI: -93.6; -15.8)) were observed at baseline for kerosene compared to clean fuel users. The odds of hypertension was slightly elevated but no associations were observed for blood pressure. Prospectively, kerosene was associated with elevated risks of all-cause (HR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.14-1.53)) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.00-1.80)) mortality, as well as major fatal and incident non-fatal cardiovascular (HR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.08-1.66)) and respiratory (HR: 1.55 (95% CI: 0.98-2.43)) diseases, compared to clean fuel use. Further, compared to solid fuel users, those using kerosene had 20-47% higher risks for the above outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Kerosene use for cooking was associated with higher rates of baseline respiratory morbidity and increased risk of mortality and cardiorespiratory outcomes during follow-up when compared to either clean or solid fuels. Replacing kerosene with cleaner-burning fuels for cooking is recommended.
Authors: M R Miller; J Hankinson; V Brusasco; F Burgos; R Casaburi; A Coates; R Crapo; P Enright; C P M van der Grinten; P Gustafsson; R Jensen; D C Johnson; N MacIntyre; R McKay; D Navajas; O F Pedersen; R Pellegrino; G Viegi; J Wanger Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Aaron van Donkelaar; Randall V Martin; Michael Brauer; N Christina Hsu; Ralph A Kahn; Robert C Levy; Alexei Lyapustin; Andrew M Sayer; David M Winker Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Dewan S Alam; Muhammad Ashique H Chowdhury; Ali Tanweer Siddiquee; Shyfuddin Ahmed; Mohammad Didar Hossain; Sonia Pervin; Kim Streatfield; Alejandro Cravioto; Louis W Niessen Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2012-09
Authors: M L Clark; A M Bachand; J M Heiderscheidt; S A Yoder; B Luna; J Volckens; K A Koehler; S Conway; S J Reynolds; J L Peel Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 5.770
Authors: Michael N Bates; Amod K Pokhrel; Ram K Chandyo; Palle Valentiner-Branth; Maria Mathisen; Sudha Basnet; Tor A Strand; Richard T Burnett; Kirk R Smith Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Raphael E Arku; Majid Ezzati; Jill Baumgartner; Günther Fink; Bin Zhou; Perry Hystad; Michael Brauer Journal: Environ Res Date: 2017-11-05 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Ahmad Kantar; Julie M Marchant; Woo-Jung Song; Michael D Shields; Grigorios Chatziparasidis; Angela Zacharasiewicz; Alexander Moeller; Anne B Chang Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Akorede Adekoya; Sudhir K Tyagi; Christiana N Duru; Imran Satia; Vibhu Paudyal; Om P Kurmi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-29 Impact factor: 4.614