A cross-sectional study of determinants of indoor environmental exposures in households with and without chronic exposure to biomass fuel smoke.
A cross-sectional study of determinants of indoor environmental exposures in households with and without chronic exposure to biomass fuel smoke.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1476-069x-13-21
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-24
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
CRONICAS Cohort Study Group
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pollard SL;Williams DL;Breysse PN;Baron PA;Grajeda LM;Gilman RH;Miranda JJ;Checkley W;CRONICAS Cohort Study Group
在室内燃烧生物质燃料进行烹饪与高浓度的颗粒物（PM）和一氧化碳（CO）有关。有人提出了更有效的生物质燃烧炉和通风烟囱，作为减少室内污染的解决办法。我们试图量化城市和农村家庭的室内PM和CO暴露，并确定与较高暴露相关的因素。次要目的是确定与暴露于生物质烟雾相关的心肺生物标志物的慢性与急性变化。我们进行了一项人口普查调查，随后对秘鲁普诺主要家庭厨师的室内环境暴露和心肺生物标志物进行了横断面研究。我们测量了86个家庭的24小时室内PM和CO浓度。我们还测量了PM2.5和PM10浓度的重量为24小时在城市家庭和农村家庭的烹饪时间，并产生了一个校准方程，使用PM2.5测量。在对4903户家庭的普查中，93%的农村家庭和16%的城市家庭使用明火炉灶; 22%的农村家庭拥有自制烟囱;<3%的农村家庭参加了鼓励安装烟囱的国家计划。农村家庭与城市家庭的24小时室内PM2.5和CO浓度中位数分别为130和22 μg/m3以及5.8和0.4 ppm（均p<0.001）。在有烟囱和没有烟囱的农村家庭中，有烟囱并没有显著降低24小时室内PM2.5（119对137 μg/m3; p=0.40）或CO（4.6对7.2 ppm; p=0.23）的中位数浓度。有烟囱并没有显着降低中位烹饪时间PM2.5（360对298 μg/m3，p=0.45）或烹饪时间CO浓度（15.2对9.4 ppm，p=0.23）。茅草屋顶（p=0.007）和烹饪时间（p=0.02）与24小时平均PM浓度较高相关。农村参与者的中位呼出CO（10对6 ppm; p=0.01）和呼出碳氧血红蛋白（1.6%对1.0%; p=0.04）高于城市参与者。与生物质烟雾相关的室内空气浓度在农村家庭比城市家庭高六倍。拥有一个自制的烟囱并没有显着减少环境暴露。呼出CO的测量为长期暴露于生物质烟雾提供了有用的心肺生物标志物。
Burning biomass fuels indoors for cooking is associated with high concentrations of particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO). More efficient biomass-burning stoves and chimneys for ventilation have been proposed as solutions to reduce indoor pollution. We sought to quantify indoor PM and CO exposures in urban and rural households and determine factors associated with higher exposures. A secondary objective was to identify chronic vs. acute changes in cardiopulmonary biomarkers associated with exposure to biomass smoke. We conducted a census survey followed by a cross-sectional study of indoor environmental exposures and cardiopulmonary biomarkers in the main household cook in Puno, Peru. We measured 24-hour indoor PM and CO concentrations in 86 households. We also measured PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations gravimetrically for 24 hours in urban households and during cook times in rural households, and generated a calibration equation using PM2.5 measurements. In a census of 4903 households, 93% vs. 16% of rural vs. urban households used an open-fire stove; 22% of rural households had a homemade chimney; and <3% of rural households participated in a national program encouraging installation of a chimney. Median 24-hour indoor PM2.5 and CO concentrations were 130 vs. 22 μg/m3 and 5.8 vs. 0.4 ppm (all p<0.001) in rural vs. urban households. Having a chimney did not significantly reduce median concentrations in 24-hour indoor PM2.5 (119 vs. 137 μg/m3; p=0.40) or CO (4.6 vs. 7.2 ppm; p=0.23) among rural households with and without chimneys. Having a chimney did not significantly reduce median cook-time PM2.5 (360 vs. 298 μg/m3, p=0.45) or cook-time CO concentrations (15.2 vs. 9.4 ppm, p=0.23). Having a thatched roof (p=0.007) and hours spent cooking (p=0.02) were associated with higher 24-hour average PM concentrations. Rural participants had higher median exhaled CO (10 vs. 6 ppm; p=0.01) and exhaled carboxyhemoglobin (1.6% vs. 1.0%; p=0.04) than urban participants. Indoor air concentrations associated with biomass smoke were six-fold greater in rural vs. urban households. Having a homemade chimney did not reduce environmental exposures significantly. Measures of exhaled CO provide useful cardiopulmonary biomarkers for chronic exposure to biomass smoke.