4.0 Article

Respiratory symptoms, lung function decrement and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in pre-menopausal Indian women exposed to biomass smoke

期刊

INHALATION TOXICOLOGY
卷 26, 期 14, 页码 866-872

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/08958378.2014.965560

关键词

Biomass smoke; COPD; india; lung function; women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The impact of chronic exposure to smoke from biomass burning on respiratory health has been examined. Methods: Six-hundred and eighty-one non-smoking women (median age 35 years) from eastern India who cook exclusively with biomass (wood, dung and crop residues) and 438 age-matched women from similar neighborhood who cook with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) were examined. Pulmonary function test was done by spirometry. The concentrations of particulate matter having diameter of < 10 mu m (PM10) and < 2.5 mu m (PM2.5) in indoor air was measured by real-time aerosol monitor. Results: Compared with LPG users, biomass users had greater prevalence of upper (50.9 versus 28.5%) and lower respiratory symptoms (71.8 versus 30.8%) and dyspnea (58.4 versus 19.9%). They showed reduction in all parameters measured by spirometer especially in mid-expiratory volume. PM10 and PM2.5 concentration in biomass using kitchen were 2-3-times more than LPG-using kitchen, and the decline in spirometry values was positively associated PM10 and PM2.5 levels in indoor air after controlling education, family income and kitchen location as potential confounders. Overall, 29.7% of biomass users and 16.4% of LPG users had deficient lung function, and restrictive type of deficiency was predominant. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was diagnosed in 4.6% of biomass and 0.9% of LPG users. Women who predominantly used dung cake and did not possess separate kitchen had poorer lung function. Conclusion: Cumulative exposure to biomass smoke causes lung function decrement and facilitates COPD development even in non-smoking and relatively young pre-menopausal women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据