Effects of cooking fuel smoke on respiratory symptoms and lung function in semi-rural women in Cameroon

Abstract

Background: Indoor air pollution is a major health problem in the developing world. In sub-Saharan Africa more than 90% of people rely on biomass to meet their domestic energy demands. Pollution from biomass fuel ranks 10th among preventable risk factors contributing to the global burden of diseases. Objectives: The present study aimed to determine the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and the factors associated with reduced lung function in a population of women exposed to cooking fuel smoke. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in a semi-rural area in Cameroon. We compared forced respiratory volume between women using wood (n5145) and women using alternative sources of energy (n5155) for cooking. Results: Chronic bronchitis was found in 7.6% of the wood smoke group and 0.6% in the alternative fuels group. We observed two cases of airflow obstruction in the wood smoke group. Factors associated with lung function impairment were chronic bronchitis, use of wood as cooking fuel, age, and height. Conclusion: Respiratory symptoms and reduced lung function are more pronounced among women using wood as cooking fuel. Improved stoves technology should be developed to reduce the effects of wood smoke on respiratory health.

Respiratory Symptoms and Lung Function among Ethiopian Women in Relation to Household Fuel Use

“…As already mentioned in our study, women using solid fuel for cooking in the living house showed 1.89 times higher odds of having at least one respiratory symptom compared with cleaner energy users, which is consistent with previous studies [26,27,31,33,37]. Meanwhile, the distribution of at least one of the respiratory symptoms was nearly equal among those having a window in the cooking area and those having only the door as a means of ventilation.…”

“…We found an increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms and lower FVC, FEV1 and FEV1 percent predicted lung function indices among the rural mothers and solid fuel users. A higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms in our study among mothers using solid fuel for cooking was consistent with studies from Cameroon [26], Bangladesh [27] and Nepal [28]. However, the result was not consistent with a study from Peru, which suggested that chronic bronchitis appeared to be as much of a problem in urban centres as it was in rural [29].…”

The Proportion of Non-smokers in Cases of Chronic Obstructive pulmonary Disease in Padang City West Sumatra

“…Different results were obtained by Hiroto Takiguchi in Japan who stated that cases of non-smokers COPD were found in women with a 72% percentage (Takiguchi et al, 2018) and Thomsen's study in Denmark with findings of non-smoking COPD cases in women by 52%. The difference in the results of this study compared to other studies may be due to different habits in the community In Indonesia, most women live at home and rarely smoke so that exposure to cigarette smoke or other pollutants is smaller than men who are often outside the home and in the work environment which causes them to be exposed to cigarette smoke both as active and passive smokers and also exposed to pollutants in travel or because of work (Brashier & Kodgule, 2012;Ngahane et al, 2015). The presence of women at home does not mean that their exposure to COPD risk factors is low, the use of kerosene for cooking, exposure to house dust, wood dust from furniture and home cleaning habits carried out by women and the possibility of passive smoking if the couple smokes with exposure for a long time it increases the risk of women suffering from COPD although no history of smoking (Jain,…”

Longitudinal study of lung function in pregnant women: Influence of parity and smoking

“…In addition, the results were compared according to parity and smoking. Spirometry is the most widely used pulmonary function test, although it is estimated that approximately 15% of spirometry tests are inadequate 7 , 8 . Because we required two complete examinations (i.e., in T1 and T3), some patients were excluded (22%).…”