Adesuwa Queen Aigbokhaode1, Alphonsus Rukevwe Isara2. 1. Department of Public Health, Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, Delta State, Nigeria. 2. Department of Community Health, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Globally, the morbidity and mortality caused by exposure to household air pollution from the use of solid fuels remain a significant public health burden. This study assessed the levels of PM2.5 in households using clean and unclean fuels and their associations with the respiratory health of women and children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Daytime PM2.5 sampling was done in 62 households (31 in each group) in Isiohor, a suburban community in southern Nigeria using Casella CEL-712 Microdust Pro Real-time Dust Monitor. Validated American Thoracic Society questionnaire was used to assess respiratory symptoms. RESULTS: PM2.5 levels exceeded World Health Organization-recommended limits in most households. The median (range) concentration of PM2.5 was lower in households using clean fuels (26 (14 to 358) μg/m3) than those using unclean fuels (29 (14 to 650) μg/m3). This difference was not statistically significant (P = .272). At least 1 respiratory symptom was reported by women (25.8% vs. 22.6%) and children (64.5% vs. 77.4%) in household using clean and unclean fuels, respectively. The most commonly reported respiratory symptoms were being woken up by an attack of cough (41.9% vs. 51.6% ) and cough first thing in the morning (16.1% vs 38.7%) for clean and unclean fuels, respectively (P = .046). More children in household using unclean fuel missed school for up to a week because of respiratory illness when compared to those in households using clean fuel, 61.3% vs. 29.0% (P = .011). In the sample as a whole, burning of candles in the house (22.6%) was associated with respiratory symptoms (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 14.81, 95% CI 1.79 to 122.51) among the women. CONCLUSION: The use of unclean fuel was associated with higher levels of PM2.5. The household air pollution resulting from the use of unclean fuels and activities like burning of candles in the home may compromise the respiratory health of women and children.
OBJECTIVE: Globally, the morbidity and mortality caused by exposure to household air pollution from the use of solid fuels remain a significant public health burden. This study assessed the levels of PM2.5 in households using clean and unclean fuels and their associations with the respiratory health of women and children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Daytime PM2.5 sampling was done in 62 households (31 in each group) in Isiohor, a suburban community in southern Nigeria using Casella CEL-712 Microdust Pro Real-time Dust Monitor. Validated American Thoracic Society questionnaire was used to assess respiratory symptoms. RESULTS: PM2.5 levels exceeded World Health Organization-recommended limits in most households. The median (range) concentration of PM2.5 was lower in households using clean fuels (26 (14 to 358) μg/m3) than those using unclean fuels (29 (14 to 650) μg/m3). This difference was not statistically significant (P = .272). At least 1 respiratory symptom was reported by women (25.8% vs. 22.6%) and children (64.5% vs. 77.4%) in household using clean and unclean fuels, respectively. The most commonly reported respiratory symptoms were being woken up by an attack of cough (41.9% vs. 51.6% ) and cough first thing in the morning (16.1% vs 38.7%) for clean and unclean fuels, respectively (P = .046). More children in household using unclean fuel missed school for up to a week because of respiratory illness when compared to those in households using clean fuel, 61.3% vs. 29.0% (P = .011). In the sample as a whole, burning of candles in the house (22.6%) was associated with respiratory symptoms (Adjusted Odds Ratio = 14.81, 95% CI 1.79 to 122.51) among the women. CONCLUSION: The use of unclean fuel was associated with higher levels of PM2.5. The household air pollution resulting from the use of unclean fuels and activities like burning of candles in the home may compromise the respiratory health of women and children.
Authors: E S Gurley; N Homaira; H Salje; P K Ram; R Haque; W Petri; J Bresee; W J Moss; P Breysse; S P Luby; E Azziz-Baumgartner Journal: Indoor Air Date: 2013-03-21 Impact factor: 5.770
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kirk R Smith; Nigel Bruce; Kalpana Balakrishnan; Heather Adair-Rohani; John Balmes; Zoë Chafe; Mukesh Dherani; H Dean Hosgood; Sumi Mehta; Daniel Pope; Eva Rehfuess Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2014 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Sophie Bonjour; Heather Adair-Rohani; Jennyfer Wolf; Nigel G Bruce; Sumi Mehta; Annette Prüss-Ustün; Maureen Lahiff; Eva A Rehfuess; Vinod Mishra; Kirk R Smith Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Stephen B Gordon; Nigel G Bruce; Jonathan Grigg; Patricia L Hibberd; Om P Kurmi; Kin-bong Hubert Lam; Kevin Mortimer; Kwaku Poku Asante; Kalpana Balakrishnan; John Balmes; Naor Bar-Zeev; Michael N Bates; Patrick N Breysse; Sonia Buist; Zhengming Chen; Deborah Havens; Darby Jack; Surinder Jindal; Haidong Kan; Sumi Mehta; Peter Moschovis; Luke Naeher; Archana Patel; Rogelio Perez-Padilla; Daniel Pope; Jamie Rylance; Sean Semple; William J Martin Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 30.700