Respiratory Health Status of Rural Women Exposed to Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Solid Biomass Fuel Emissions

Abstract

Combustion of solid biomass fuel (SBF) releases a high concentration of airborne pollutants, resulting in household air pollution (HAP). HAP is considered as a leading risk factor for the development of various respiratory diseases. The increased exposure to HAP significantly affects the health of the vulnerable population, including the women, elderly, and children who stay indoors for most of the time. Considering this, self-reported respiratory health symptoms were assessed using a standard American Thoracic Society (ATS) questionnaire, whereas lung function capacity of women using SBF, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and mix fuels were assessed using a cross-sectional study design. Lung function capacity was examined with help of spirometry. Results suggest that compared with LPG users, SBF and mix fuel users had a relatively high prevalence of phlegm (25.7%), cough (54%), and eye irritation (74.3%). Use of SBF was found to be associated significantly with lower forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV₁) values (P < .01). The study concludes that women cooking with SBF and mix fuels have an impact on lung function and increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms. The findings suggest that women who cook using LPG have improved lung function and respiratory health status. Hence, it is suggested to increase the scope of clean fuel programmes such as Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) by identifying the barriers for the choice of clean fuel uses for household energy.

Keywords

Household air pollution PMUY LPG women health

Introduction

Approximately 3 billion people worldwide burn solid biomass fuels (SBFs; agricultural residue, cow dung cake, wood, coal, etc) in inefficient and highly polluting traditional cookstoves used for cooking purposes.^1-3 These cookstoves are used in inadequately ventilated indoor kitchens resulting in an elevated concentration of pollutants and increased exposure level experienced by household members.⁴ Thus, it leads to adverse human health effects. According to the latest Global Burden of Disease Study (2016) and World Health Organization (WHO), pre-mature deaths attributable to household air pollution (HAP) varies between 2.6 and 3.8 million.^5-9 Air pollution has been linked to various non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), stroke, lung cancer, etc, and is an important risk factor for them. Furthermore, among women COPD and among children, aged <5 years, acute respiratory infections (ARIs) contributes mainly to the disease burden.^6,7 Household air pollution is ranked among the top 5 preventable risk factors leading to Global Burden of Disease.¹⁰ Considering the adverse health effects of SBF uses, Government of India launched Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) to provide free liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to the below poverty line (BPL) families.^3,11 Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana is the largest social intervention scheme that can be useful in preventing respiratory diseases and other NCDs.^11,12

Several studies have reported an increased incidence of SBF combustion and COPD among women and ARIs in children.^13-15 SBF exposure is reported to be strongly associated with several other conditions, including asthma, tuberculosis, low birth weight, cataracts, and cancer of upper airways.^16-18 Cooking with SBF increases the probability of developing COPD (1.38 times) in non-smoking women.^19,20 Studies have reported a decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) and an increased history of respiratory diseases such as asthma, COPD, tuberculosis, and chronic bronchitis.^21-23 A meta-analysis shows that HAP has a range of short-term and long-term harmful respiratory impacts such as wheezing, cough, phlegm, asthma, and COPD.²⁴ In particular, COPD among non-smoking women has been linked to exposure to household SBF smoke in India and other parts of the world.^25-30 The prevalence of smoking among Indian women is low (3.4%) in comparison to men (26.25%); however, the prevalence of COPD found to be equivalent in both women (1.2%-19%) and men (2%-22%).^20,31,32 Thus, in Indian rural settings, SBF exposure may be a leading risk factor for COPD in women.^33,34

Many efforts have been made in the past to measure the effect of exposure to SBF on pulmonary functions. Spirometric measurements, along with the respiratory questionnaire, are recommended to be the basic tool for diagnosis of respiratory illnesses.^35-37 Based on these recommended tools, Abbasi et al³⁵ carried out a cross-sectional survey in a rural community setting by using the American Thoracic Society (ATS) questionnaire (ATS-DLD-78A) and by conducting spirometric measurements. Previous studies have compared the exposure to mixed fuels (households using both SBF and LPG in combination) and LPG in outcomes on asthma, bronchitis, and respiratory symptoms.^38,39 Literature suggests higher risk in using mixed fuel rather than using SBF alone.²² However, other studies report a higher risk among SBF users.^36,40 Although evidence exists that HAP increases the risk for respirable diseases, the impact of clean fuel intervention on lung function is lacking. Thus, improvement in respiratory health status (lung function and symptoms) associated with clean fuel use need to be evaluated to extend the scope of clean fuel programmes such as PMUY. Considering this, this study was conducted to know the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and to comparatively assess the lung function of women using SBF, mixed fuel, and LPG in rural households of Punjab.

Methodology

The study includes spirometry examination and collection of detailed personal and household information using a standard questionnaire. Study participants from Khera block of district Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, were interviewed using a standard respiratory questionnaire based on the ATS (1978) and a household questionnaire was adapted from WHO methods for ‘evaluation of household energy and health interventions’.³⁷ The initial household assessment included a study on fuel use, and consumption pattern as detailed by Kaur-Sidhu et al.⁴ Study participant recruitment criteria were non-smoking women aged between 30 and 60 years. The questionnaire and visual inspection method along with 24 hour daily activity pattern recall data in hourly increments of the participants were obtained to determine primary fuel/cookstove used, cooking/non-cooking periods, and housing and kitchen characteristics. Potential confounders, pathway variables were controlled by selecting the participants from the same socio-economic status and only non-smoking women with the same occupational status in the study.

The 65 study participants were divided into 3 groups, namely, LPG/Clean fuel users (15), mix fuel users (15), and SBF users (35). Users were categorized based on fuel type assessed from the questionnaire, and the same was confirmed during the field observation. The clean fuel users were exclusively using only LPG; those using only SBF were exclusive SBF users and those using both LPG and SBF were categorized in mixed fuel. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the differences between the various groups (SBF, mix fuel, LPG).

Health assessment questionnaire included a detailed history of symptoms including cough, phlegm, cough with phlegm, wheezing breath, chest pain, shortness of breath, nasal obstruction, nausea, etc. Study participants performed spirometry with a calibrated portable electronic handheld spirometer (Micro-Medical Limited, UK) in accordance with ATS recommendations.^15,31,39,41 Study subjects performed at least 3 forced expiratory manoeuvres, and the highest values for FVC and forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration (FEV₁) were recorded and compared with predicted norms. Subjects with decreased FEV₁/FVC ratio (observed value < 0.7) were categorized as having an obstructive defect, whereas those with normal FEV₁/FVC but decreased FVC were categorized as having a restrictive defect. Quality assurance was ensured by conducting frequent equipment calibration and by ensuring that expiratory manoeuvres met acceptability and reproducibility criteria as described in the standardized methodology guidelines by ATS. Data for age, sex, and height were entered before conducting the spirometry analysis. Height of each subject was measured with the subject standing bare feet on the floor.

The results of the women cook were described concerning COPD severity into the following cases: normal, mild, moderate, and severe as detailed in Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD).³⁹ Further based on the prevalence of self-reported respiratory symptoms using the SPSS software package (IBM SPSS Statistics 18), statistical analysis was done. One way ANOVA was used to determine the difference between the groups at 5% level of significance. Chi-square test was also performed at 5% and 1% level of significance for the prevalence of respiratory symptoms in different groups.

Results and Discussion

Prevalence of respiratory symptoms

Cough and chest pain

Cough was found to be more prevalent in SBF users (54.3%) as compared with mix fuel users (26%) and LPG users (20%). The difference was found to be significant (P < .05). Desalu et al⁴³ described symptoms of cough (13.7% vs 3.7%) and chest pain (7.5% vs 1.9%) 3-fold higher in SBF using women than those using non-SBF. However, the exposure to HAP was not significantly found to be associated with chest tightness in this study.

Phlegm and cough with phlegm

The prevalence of phlegm and cough with phlegm is shown in Table 1. The analysis shows that SBF users have more prevalence of cough and phlegm (20%), but no significant difference was observed in mix fuel user groups (13%) as compared with LPG users. Regalado et al⁴² reported that women exposed to SBF smoke have more frequent phlegm and cough with phlegm incidences in comparison to those cooking with gas.

Table 1.

Prevalence of respiratory symptoms prevalence in women cook based on household fuel type.

Symptoms	SBF users (n = 35)	LPG/biogas users (n = 15)	Mix fuel users (n = 15)	Chi-square value	P value
Symptoms	No. (%)	No. (%)	No. (%)		P value
Cough	19 (54.3)	3 (20.0)	4 (26.7)	9.028	0.03*
Phlegm	9 (25.7)	1 (6.7)	1 (6.7)	4.169	0.12
Both cough phlegm	3 (20.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (13.3)	3.525	0.17
Wheezy or whistling	11 (31.4)	2 (13.3)	3 (20.0)	2.077	0.35
Headache	26 (74.3)	5 (33.3)	10 (66.7)	7.669	0.02*
Chest pain	10 (28.6)	1 (6.7)	2 (13.3)	8.270	0.08
Shortness of breath	15 (42.9)	3 (20.0)	4 (26.7)	2.899	0.23
Eye irritation	26 (74.3)	3 (20.0)	8 (46.7)	13.122	0.00**
Blackout	19 (54.3)	2 (13.3)	4 (26.7)	8.586	0.01**
Sneezing	9 (25.7)	2 (13.3)	5 (33.3)	1.666	0.43
Chest tightness	6 (17.1)	1 (6.7)	1 (6.7)	1.643	0.44
Joint pain	23 (65.7)	8 (53.3)	6 (40.0)	2.934	0.23
Dizziness	22 (62.9)	2 (13.3)	5 (33.3)	11.426	0.00**
Nausea	2 (5.7)	1 (6.7)	2 (13.3)	0.887	0.64
Nasal discharge	5 (14.3)	1 (6.7)	1 (6.7)	0.976	0.61
Nasal obstruction	6 (17.1)	1 (6.7)	2 (13.3)	0.970	0.62
Continuously sneezing	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	−	−
Tuberculosis	3 (8.6)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2.696	0.26
Heart disease	1 (2.9)	0 (0.0)	1 (6.7)	1.130	0.57

Abbreviations: LPG, liquefied petroleum gas; SBF, solid biomass fuel.

Significant at .05 level; **Significant at .01 level.

Wheezing

The sound of whistling while breathing, called wheezing, was more prevalent in SBF users (31%) as compared with the other 2 groups (LPG 13%, mix fuel users 20%). In a Mexican study, 46% of women exposed to SBF reported having wheezing problem as compared with 21% biogas users.⁴²

Headache and nausea

More than 75% of SBF users reported headache. Prevalence of headache was more common in SBF users, and the difference was also found to be significant (P = .02). Headache prevalence among mix fuel users and LPG users was 67% and 33%, respectively. Carbon monoxide released from incomplete combustion of SBF is reported to cause various short-term health effects including headache, dizziness, nausea, etc.^43-45 Symptoms of nausea were present in >15% in women who cooked exclusively with SBF against 6% in women using clean fuels.

Eye irritation and blackout

Solid biomass fuel users had more prevalence rate of having eye irritation and the occurrence of frequent blackouts. The occurrence of both these symptoms was found to be highly statistically significant (P = .01). West et al⁴⁶ summarized the evidence of the high prevalence of blindness and various other diseases (cataract, dry eye disease, age-related macular degeneration, etc) in women exposed to SBF combustion.

Joint pain

These symptoms were not found to be much associated with the type of fuel usage. The results indicate that symptoms were not statistically significant (Table 1). Hence, a detailed study is required to identify the association between joint pain and SBF uses.

Dizziness

Dizziness was highly present among SBF users (63%), as compared with mix fuel users (33%) and LPG users (13%). The difference was found to be significant (P = .01). An almost similar observation was also made by Chakraborty et al⁴⁴ and Sinha et al⁴⁵ from India.

Lung function assessment

The study presents the results of lung function test measured by spirometry. In the SBF using group, 25 of 35 subjects (71.4%) had a normal pulmonary function. Of the 10 subjects with abnormal spirometry (Table 2), 7, 1, and 2, respectively, had mild, moderate, and severe obstruction. Among mix fuel users, 13 of 15 subjects (86.7%) had normal spirometry, and the remaining 2 (13.3%) show moderate obstruction. All LPG users had normal spirometry. Table 3 gives the summary findings for observed and predicted FEV₁, FVC, and FEV₁/FVC values stratified based on different fuel type. These results of lung function assessment indicate that mean FEV₁, FVC, and FEV₁/FVC was higher in LPG group (FVC: 2.83 ± 0.50; FEV₁: 2.35 ± 0.45; FEV₁/FVC: 82.53 ± 5.49) as compared with mix fuel (FVC: 2.71 ± 0.48; FEV₁: 2.18 ± 0.47; FEV₁/FVC: 79.58 ± 10.0) and SBF users (FVC: 2.54 ± 0.59; FEV₁: 2.00 ± 0.56; FEV₁/FVC: 78.8 ± 15.3). The decrease in lung functions in SBF and mix fuel users as compared with LPG users may be due to inhalation of household air pollutants form household cooking. The exposure measurements detailed by Kaur-Sidhu et al⁴ from the same region reported the levels of respirable particulate matter (PM_2.5) and carbon monoxide (CO) about 5 times more in kitchens using SBF (549.6 µg/m³ of PM_2.5; 4.24 ppm of CO) in comparison to LPG kitchens (78.8 µg/m³ of PM_2.5; 1.05 ppm of CO). Similarly, studies from North India reported higher pollution levels in kitchens using SBFs (SBF: LPG-774:25 µg/m³ of PM_2.5 and 33.5: 0.44 ppm of CO).^4,47,48,69 Statistically, a significant difference was found in FEV₁, whereas for FVC, the difference was not significant (P = .08). Moreover, the proportion of subjects with obstructive defects was higher among SBF and mix fuel users, as compared with LPG users. Hence, it could be inferred that the exposure to SBF pollutants had more effect on airflow limitation rather than the total lung volume of women cooks.

Table 2.

Comparison of lung functions among the SBF, mix fuel, and LPG fuel users.

Study population	Normal	Non-normal
SBF users (N = 35)	25 (71.4%)	10 (28.6%)
LPG users (N = 15)	15 (100%)	0 (0%)
Mix fuel users (N = 15)	13 (86.7%)	2 (13.3%)

Abbreviations: LPG, liquefied petroleum gas; SBF, solid biomass fuel.

Table 3.

Variation in lung function parameters in women exposed to various household fuel types.

Type of fuel	SBF users (n = 35)		LPG/biogas users (n = 15)		Mix fuel users (n = 15)		F value	P value
Type of fuel	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	F value	P value
FVC observed, L	2.54	0.59	2.83	0.50	2.71	0.48	1.580	.21
FVC, % predicted	91.92	19.68	104.44	18.58	98.36	13.00	2.631	.08
FEV₁ observed, L	2.00	0.56	2.35	0.45	2.18	0.47	2.588	.08
FEV₁, % predicted	86.47	19.30	105.40	16.14	96.08	15.65	6.189	<.01*
FEV₁/FVC, %	78.80	15.32	82.53	5.49	79.58	10.00	0.466	.63

Abbreviations: FEV₁, forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration; FVC, forced vital capacity; LPG, liquefied petroleum gas; SBF, solid biomass fuel; SD, standard deviation.

Significant at .01 level.

Similar findings were reported from rural Mexico by Regalado et al,⁴² about 2.8% adjusted decline was seen in FEV₁/FVC ratio among SBF users. Reddy et al⁴⁹ reported that burning of SBF in poorly ventilated kitchens contributes to chronic bronchitis. In agreement with this study, several studies from developing countries also identify the linkage between SBF use and COPD.^4,46 Similarly, a study from North India, by Behera and Jindal,⁴⁷ on respiratory health of approximately 3700 women using various types of cooking fuels suggested that women relying on mixed fuel reported 16.7% occurrence of respiratory symptoms in comparison to LPG users (9.9%). Other studies originating from developing countries have recognized a linkage between SBF uses and COPD.^48-50 Reduced lung function parameters among SBF users have been reported from North India (Haryana, Delhi).^4,48,50,51 Women using SBF as primary fuel showed a decline of 7.62% in FEV₁/FVC ratio in comparison to clean fuel users.^52-55 Gupta and Kaul⁵⁶ also reported a considerable reduction in lung function values among the population dependent on SBF. Sana et al¹⁶ summarized available studies on potential health risk associated with SBF uses and suggested to identify the chemical constituents of HAP for better understanding of biomass exposure and the onset as well as aggravation of respiratory diseases. Table 4 summarizes various epidemiologic studies providing an association between SBF use and impaired lung functions. Present study results also indicate that the decrease in lung function has some associated with the exposure to SBF smoke in Khera block of Fatehgarh Sahib district of Punjab, India. However, considering a limited sample size, a detailed study needs to be conducted to better understand the association between SBF uses and impaired lung function.

Table 4.

Lung function parameters in SBF and non-SBF users across the world.

Lung function parameters	Solid biomass fuel using group	LPG using group	Reference
FVC, % predicted	91.92 ± 19.68	104.4 ± 18.58	Current study
FEV₁, % predicted	86.47 ± 19.37	105.40 ± 16.14
FEV₁/FVC, %	84.62 ± 3.95	87.54 ± 2.00
FVC, % predicted	100.60 ± 10.36	107.18 ± 11.91	Revathi et al⁵⁷
FEV₁, % predicted	106.8 ± 11.7	114.6 ± 11.9
FEV_1/FVC, %	86.27 ± 5.71	87.49 ± 4.72
FVC, % predicted	Adults: 99 ± 19.7	Adults: 87.6 ± 6.5	Kurti et al⁵⁴
FVC, % predicted	Children: 86.8 ± 14.8	Children: 86.3 ± 10.3
FEV₁, % predicted	Adults: 100.1 ± 14.6	Adults: 91 ± 5.6
FEV₁, % predicted	Children: 86.8 ± 14.8	Children: 86.3 ± 10.3
FEV_1/FVC	Adults: 100.8 ± 12.5	Adults: 103.6 ± 6.3
FEV_1/FVC	Children: 100.3 ± 12.8	Children: 104.0 ± 3.7
FEV₁, L	2.65	2.83	Kurmi et al³³
FVC, L	3.16	3.58	Rinne et al⁵⁸
FVC, L	2.79 ± 0.52	2.76 ± 0.54	Reddy and Gupta³⁴
FEV₁, L	2.27 ± 0.40	2.28 ± 0.43	Reddy and Gupta³⁴
FVC, L	3.08 ± 0.43		Díaz et al⁵⁹
FVC, % predicted	103.7 ± 10.7		Smith-Sivertsen et al⁶⁰
FEV₁, L	2.68 ± 0.38
FEV₁, % predicted	105.4 ± 11.3
FEV₁/FVC	87.2 ± 5.53
FEV₁, L	2.63 ± 0.32
FVC, L	3.10 ± 0.36		Montaño et al⁶¹
FVC, % predicted	78 ± 19		Montaño et al⁶¹
FEV₁, % predicted	62.1 ± 25.6		Orozco-Levi et al⁶²
FEV₁, %	9.54 ± 17
FEV₁/FVC	53 ± 16
FEV₁, L	0.90
FVC, % predicted	85.88 ± 10.39	88.40 ± 10.28	Whitehouse et al⁶³
FEV₁, % predicted	87.62 ± 11.88	89.23 ± 9.6
FEV₁/FVC	0.86 ± 0.06	0.86 ± 0.05
FVC, % predicted	89.6 ± 18.2	114.5 ± 37.7	Umoh and Peters⁶⁴
FEV₁, % predicted	77.8 ± 25.1	112.1 ± 39.0
FEV₁/FVC	68.8 ± 15.3	78.3 ± 9.6
FVC, L	81.6 ± 10.5	92.38 ± 12.2	Raj⁶⁵
FEV₁, L	81.9 ± 11.7	92.9 ± 12.2	Raj⁶⁵

Abbreviations: FEV₁, forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration; FVC, forced vital capacity; LPG, liquefied petroleum gas; SBF, solid biomass fuel.

SBF vs clean fuel: the way forward

The study observes a higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms and lung function capacity impairment in SBF users as compared with clean fuel (LPG), users. This urges to have a greater emphasis on clean fuel programmes to improve the health of women cooks. As highlighted by Ravindra and Smith,¹¹ recently Government of India has launched various schemes to extend the uses of clean fuel such as PMUY, including Give-it-Up (GiU), and Pratyaksha Hastaantarit Laabh (PAHAL)-Direct Benefits Transfer for LPG (DBTL). These programmes helped to significantly increase the adoption of clean fuels, especially in lower-middle-income families and mainly in urban areas.^11,66 However, LPG uptake in rural areas remain a major challenge due to various behavioural, social, cultural, and economical factors such as taste, safety, refilling cost of LPG cylinder, and doorstep delivery.^3,70 Hence, there is a need to extend the scope of clean fuel programme in rural and geographically inaccessible areas. Further, better understanding of the various health risks associated with the uses of SBF to be studied using advance modelling approaches.⁶⁷ Awareness activities about the adverse impact of HAP should be conducted to minimize the burden of respiratory diseases including the NCDs. This would bridge the gender disparity, end the drudgery of fuel collection and help in empowering marginalized women. Extension of clean fuel programme also provides an opportunity to timely attain Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which focus on gender equality, clean energy, better environment, and health for all.

Conclusions

The findings of this study indicate that SBF users have a reduction of lung functions than LPG users. Study data provide evidence on the association between clean fuel use and improved lung function. Lung function abnormalities were identified in 28% of SBF users, 13% in mix fuel users against all normal among clean fuel users. Furthermore, it was found that respiratory symptoms such as cough, headache, dizziness, eye irritation, and blackout were found to have more occurrence in women cooks using only SBF. The risk of respiratory diseases increases with the type of fuel used, ie, highest with SBF followed by mixed fuel use and having the lowest in LPG users. Forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration ratio among LPG group was found to be more than 80% whereas in SBF users it was significantly reduced. No significant reduction was found in the FVC values of SBF users. The fair decline in FEV₁ values was observed among the SBF user group. Results indicate that use of SBF for cooking purposes increases the risk of COPD in women cooks. Extending community-wide adoption of LPG under PMUY may help to reduce the burden of respiratory and other NCDs. Hence, there is a need to increase the scope of clean, fuel programme by engaging and creating community awareness on harmful health effects of SBF uses to avert diseases pertaining to HAP and timely achieve SDGs.

Limitations of the study

The sample size for the study is small in comparison to the population size of the region. Further work can be done on comparatively large population for obtaining better statistically significant results. Other limitations are those associated with cross-sectional studies and issues with self-reported data. Self-reported symptoms are subjected to recall bias, self-reported replies may be overstated; respondents may be hesitant to reveal private details, which further may affect the results.⁶⁷ Also several false positives and false negatives are expected in similar surveys using self-reported measures.⁶⁸

Footnotes

Funding:

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is linked to Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) project entitled ‘Identification of the Barrier for the Choice of Clean Cooking Fuel and its Uses including Impact of Clean Cooking Fuel Programme (PMUY)’ funded via letter no. 58/11/5/NTF-LPG/2019-NCD-II dated 28.05.2019.

Declaration of conflicting interests:

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Contributions

RK, SJ, SM developed the theory, and supervised this study. MK-S performed the spirometry and collected household data. ANA provided training for conducting spirometry, verified the analytical methods and results.

All authors helped to develop the intellectual content of the manuscript including reviewing/ editing of the final manuscript.

ORCID iD

Khaiwal Ravindra

References

Bonjour

Adair-Rohani

Wolf

, et al. Solid fuel use for household cooking: country and regional estimates for 1980–2010. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:784-790.

Ravindra

Kaur-Sidhu

Mor

John

Pyne

Air pollution in India: bridging the gap between science and policy. J Hazard Toxic Radioactive Waste. 2015;20:A4015003.

Ravindra

Kaur-Sidhu

Mor

John

Trend in household energy consumption pattern in India: a case study on the influence of socio-cultural factors for the choice of clean fuel use. J Clean Prod. 2019;10:1024-1034.

Kaur-Sidhu

Ravindra

Mor

John

Household air pollution from various types of rural kitchens and its exposure assessment. Sci Total Environ. 2017;586:419-429.

Vos

Barber

Bell

, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2015;386:743-800.

Ezzati

Kammen

DM.

The health impacts of exposure to indoor air pollution from solid fuels in developing countries: knowledge, gaps, and data needs. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110:1057-1068.

Vos

Abajobir

Abate

, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390:1211-1259.

Jain

Khare

Urban air quality in mega cities: a case study of Delhi City using vulnerability analysis. Environ Monit Assess. 2008;136:257-265.

World Health Organization (WHO). Global health estimates and world health statistics, 2016. Website. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/en/. Assessed May 30, 2019.

10.

Mortimer

Balmes

JR.

Cookstove trials and tribulations: what is needed to decrease the burden of household air pollution?

Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2018;15: 539-541.

11.

Ravindra

Smith

KR.

Better kitchens and toilets: both needed for better health. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2018;25:12299-12302.

12.

Kumar

Ram

Patterns, factors associated and morbidity burden of asthma in India. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0185938.

13.

Ramírez-Venegas

Velázquez-Uncal

Pérez-Hernández

, et al. Prevalence of COPD and respiratory symptoms associated with biomass smoke exposure in a suburban area. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:1727-1734.

14.

Sharma

Ravindra

Mor

Kaur-Sidhu

Sehgal

Detection and identification of dust mite allergens in the air conditioning filters in Chandigarh, India. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26:24262-24271.

15.

Van Vliet

Kinney

Owusu-Agyei

, et al. Current respiratory symptoms and risk factors in pregnant women cooking with biomass fuels in rural Ghana. Environ Int. 2019;124:533-540.

16.

Sana

Somda

SMA

Meda

Bouland

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease associated with biomass fuel use in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2018;5:e000246.

17.

Smith

Bruce

Balakrishnan

, et al. Millions dead: how do we know and what does it mean? methods used in the comparative risk assessment of household air pollution. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:185-206.

18.

Balakrishnan

Ghosh

Thangavel

, et al. Exposures to fine particulate matter (PM2. 5) and birthweight in a rural-urban, mother-child cohort in Tamil Nadu, India. Environ Res. 2018;161:524-531.

19.

Salvi

Barnes

PJ.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in non-smokers. Lancet. 2009;374:733-743.

20.

Pope

Diaz

Smith-Sivertsen

, et al. Exposure to household air pollution from wood combustion and association with respiratory symptoms and lung function in non-smoking women: results from the RESPIRE trial, Guatemala. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:285-292.

21.

Sharma

Kalra

Saini

Kelkar

Pilot study of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in an industrial town in India. J Health Pollut. 2019;9:190304.

22.

Kelkar

Sharma

Chaturvedi

Association of air pollution and lung function of young adult females in New Delhi. J Health Pollut. 2019;9:190611.

23.

Pope

Mishra

Thompson

, et al. Risk of low birth weight and stillbirth associated with indoor air pollution from solid fuel use in developing countries. Epidemiol Rev. 2010;32:70-81.

24.

Patel

Dhande

Pusdekar

Borkar

Badhoniya

Hibberd

PL.

Childhood illness in households using biomass fuels in India: secondary data analysis of nationally representative national family health surveys. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2013;19:35-42.

25.

Schraufnagel

Balmes

Cowl

, et al. Air pollution and non-communicable diseases: a review by the forum of international respiratory societies’ environmental committee. Part 2: air pollution and organ systems. Chest. 2019;155:417-426.

26.

Ravindra

Emission of black carbon from rural households kitchens and assessment of lifetime excess cancer risk in villages of North India. Environ Int. 2019;122:201-212.

27.

Golshan

Faghihi

Marandi

MM.

Indoor women jobs and pulmonary risks in rural areas of Isfahan, Iran, 2000. Respir Med. 2002;96:382-388.

28.

Mannucci

Harari

Martinelli

Franchini

Effects on health of air pollution: a narrative review. Intern Emerg Med. 2015;10:657-662.

29.

Berend

Contribution of air pollution to COPD and small airway dysfunction. J Asian Pacific Soc Respirol. 2016;21:237-244.

30.

Peabody

Riddell

Smith

, et al. Indoor air pollution in rural China: cooking fuels, stoves, and health status. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2005;60: 86-95.

31.

Liu

Zhou

Wang

, et al. Biomass fuels are the probable risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in rural South China. Thorax. 2007;62:889-897.

32.

Bentayeb

Simoni

Norback

, et al. Indoor air pollution and respiratory health in the elderly. J Environ Sci Health A Tox. 2013;48:1783-1789.

33.

Kurmi

Devereux

Smith

WCS

, et al. Reduced lung function due to biomass smoke exposure in young adults in rural Nepal. Eur Respir J. 2013;41:25-30.

34.

Reddy

Gupta

PC.

Report on Tobacco Control in India. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; 2004.

35.

Abbasi

Ahsan

Nafees

AA.

Correlation of respiratory symptoms and spirometric lung patterns in a rural community setting, Sindh, Pakistan: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Pulm Med. 2012;12:81.

36.

Gerald

Tang

Bruce

, et al. A decision tree for tuberculosis contact investigation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166:1122-1127.

37.

World Health Organization (WHO). Evaluation household energy and health interventions: a catalogue of methods, 2008. Website. http://www.un-energy.org/publications/138-evaluating-household-energy-and-healthinterventions-a-catalogue-of-methods.

38.

Gupta

Biswas

Agrawal

KM.

Air pollution from bleaching and dyeing industries creating severe health hazards in Maheshtala textile cluster, West Bengal, India. Air Soil Water Res. 2017;10:720787.

39.

Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2015. Website. http://www.goldcopd.org.

40.

Mishra

Smith

Retherford

RD.

Effects of cooking smoke and environmental tobacco smoke on acute respiratory infections in young Indian children. Popul Environ. 2005;26:375-396.

41.

American Thoracic Society. Lung function testing: selection of reference values and interpretative strategies. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1991;144:1202-1218.

42.

Regalado

Pérez-Padilla

Sansores

, et al. The effect of biomass burning on respiratory symptoms and lung function in rural Mexican women. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174:901-905.

43.

Desalu

Adekoya

Ampitan

BA.

Increased risk of respiratory symptoms and chronic bronchitis in women using biomass fuels in Nigeria. J Bras Pneumol. 2010;36:441-446.

44.

Chakraborty

Mondal

Datta

JK.

Indoor pollution from solid biomass fuel and rural health damage: a micro-environmental study in a rural area of Burdwan, West Bengal. Int J Sustain Built Environ. 2014;3:262-271.

45.

Sinha

Kulkarni

Shah

, et al. Environmental monitoring of benzene and toluene produced in indoor air due to combustion of solid biomass fuels. Sci Total Environ. 2006;357:280-287.

46.

West

Bates

Lee

, et al. Is household air pollution a risk factor for eye disease? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10:5378-5398.

47.

Behera

Jindal

. Respiratory symptoms in Indian women using domestic cooking fuels. Chest. 1991;100:385-388.

48.

Joon

Kumari

Chandra

Bhattacharya

. Predicting exposure levels of respirable particulate matter (PM2.5) and carbon monoxide for the cook from combustion of cooking fuels. In: Joon

Kumari

Chandra

Bhattacharya

, eds International Conference on Chemistry and Chemical Process. Vol 3. Singapore: IACSIT; 2011:229-232.

49.

Reddy

Guleria

Sinha

Sharma

Pande

JN.

Domestic cooking fuel and lung functions in healthy non-smoking women. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci. 2004;46:85-90.

50.

Schumacher

Shandas

Rescaling air quality management: an assessment of local air quality authorities in the United States. Air Soil Water Res. 2019;12:842125.

51.

Ravindra

Agarwal

Kaur-Sidhu

Mor

Appraisal of thermal comfort in rural household kitchens of Punjab, India and adaptation strategies for better health. Environ Int. 2019;124:431-440.

52.

Kar

PS.

Air Pollution in Delhi and Six Blind Men (SAGE Business Cases Originals). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2019.

53.

Mazumder

Lee

Dube

, et al. A clean fuel cookstove is associated with improved lung function: effect modification by age and secondhand tobacco smoke exposure. Sci Rep. 2019;9:2487.

54.

Kurti

Emerson

, et al. Household air pollution exposure and influence of lifestyle on respiratory health and lung function in Belizean adults and children: a field study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13:643.

55.

Sumer

Turaclar

Onarlioglu

Ozdemir

Zwahlen

The association of biomass fuel combustion on pulmonary function tests in the adult population of Mid-Anatolia. Soz Präventivmed. 2004;49:247-253.

56.

Gupta

Kaul

Indoor air quality due to different kitchen fuels and its impact on human respiratory health–a case study. In: Gupta

Kaul

, eds Indo-French Indoor Air Quality Seminar. Jaipur: Malaviya National Institute of Technology Jaipur; 2010.

57.

Revathi

Kutty

Annamalai

Pulmonary function in rural women exposed to biomass fuel. J Pulmon Resp Med. 2012;2:1-4.

58.

Rinne

Rodas

Bender

, et al. Relationship of pulmonary function among women and children to indoor air pollution from biomass use in rural Ecuador. Respir Med. 2006;100:1208-1215.

59.

Díaz

Bruce

Pope

, et al. Lung function and symptoms among indigenous Mayan women exposed to high levels of indoor air pollution. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2007;11:1372-1379.

60.

Smith-Sivertsen

Diaz

Pope

, et al. Effect of reducing indoor air pollution on women’s respiratory symptoms and lung function: the RESPIRE Randomized Trial, Guatemala. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170:211-220.

61.

Montaño

Sansores

Becerril

, et al. FEV 1 inversely correlates with metalloproteinases 1, 7, 9 and CRP in COPD by biomass smoke exposure. Respir Res. 2014;15:74.

62.

Orozco-Levi

Garcia-Aymerich

Villar

Ramirez-Sarmiento

Anto

Gea

Wood smoke exposure and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Eur Respir J. 2006;27:52705.

63.

Whitehouse

Miyashita

Liu

, et al. Use of cleaner-burning biomass stoves and airway macrophage black carbon in Malawian women. Sci Total Environ. 2018;635:405-411.

64.

Umoh

Peters

The relationship between lung function and indoor air pollution among rural women in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. Lung India. 2014;31:110-115.

65.

Raj

TJ.

Altered lung function test in asymptomatic women using biomass fuel for cooking. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:BC01-BC03.

66.

Ravindra

Singh

Mor

, et al. Real-time monitoring of air pollutants in seven cities of North India during crop residue burning and their relationship with meteorology and transboundary movement of air. Sci Total Environ. 2019;690:717-729.

67.

Tilert

Dillon

Paulose-Ram

Hnizdo

Doney

. Estimating the U.S. prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2007–2010. Respir Res. 2013;14:103.

68.

Health and Safety Executive. Review on the validity and reliability of self-reported work-related illness, 2012. Website. http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr903.pdf.

69.

Joon

Kumar

Bhattacharya

Chandra

Non-invasive measurement of carbon monoxide in rural Indian woman exposed to different cooking fuel smoke. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2014;14:1789-1797.

70.

Sharma

Ravindra

Kaur

et al. Cost evaluation of different household fuels and identification of the barriers for the choice of clean cooking fuels in India. Sustain Cities Soc. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.101825.