Reduced lung function due to biomass smoke exposure in young adults in rural Nepal.
ABSTRACT This study aimed to assess the effects of biomass smoke exposure on lung function in a Nepalese population addressing some of these methodological issues from previous studies.We carried out a cross-sectional study of adults in a population exposed to biomass smoke and a non-exposed population in Nepal. Questionnaire and lung function data were acquired along with direct measures of indoor and outdoor air quality.Ventilatory function (FEV1, FVC, FEF25-75) was significantly reduced in the population using biomass across all age groups compared to the non-biomass using population, even in the youngest (16-25) age group [mean FEV1 (95% CI) 2.65 (2.57-2.73) vs. 2.83 (2.74-2.91), p=0.004]. Airflow obstruction was twice as common among biomass users compared to liquefied petroleum gas users (8.1% vs. 3.6%, p<0.001) with similar patterns for males (7.4% vs. 3.3%, p=0.022) and females (10.8% vs. 3.8%, p<0.001) based on lower limit of normal. Smoking was a major risk factor for airflow obstruction but biomass exposure added to the risk.Exposure to biomass smoke is associated with deficits in lung function, an effect which can be detected as early as late teenage years. Biomass smoke and cigarette smoke have additive adverse effects on airflow obstruction in this setting.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Almost 3 billion people worldwide burn solid fuels indoors. Despite the large population at risk worldwide, the effect of exposure to indoor solid fuel smoke has not been adequately studied. Indoor air pollution from solid fuel use is strongly associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute respiratory tract infections, and lung cancer, and weakly associated with asthma, tuberculosis, and interstitial lung disease. Tobacco use further potentiates the development of respiratory disease among subjects exposed to solid fuel smoke. There is a need to perform additional interventional studies in this field.Clinics in chest medicine 12/2012; 33(4):649-65. · 2.51 Impact Factor