4.1 Article

Increased risk of respiratory symptoms and chronic bronchitis in women using biomass fuels in Nigeria

期刊

JORNAL BRASILEIRO DE PNEUMOLOGIA
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 441-446

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA PNEUMOLOGIA TISIOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/S1806-37132010000400008

关键词

Signs and symptoms, respiratory; Biofuels; Bronchitis, chronic; Air pollution, indoor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether respiratory symptoms and chronic bronchitis are associated with the use of biomass fuels (BMFs) among women residing in rural areas of the Ekiti State, in southwestern Nigeria. Methods: From January to June of 2009, we carried out a cross-sectional study including 269 adult women. To collect data on sociodemographic status, type of fuel used for cooking in the household, respiratory symptoms, and smoking history, we used a questionnaire adapted from the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. All of the participants were invited to undergo spirometry. Results: Of the 269 women in the study, 161 (59.9%) used BMFs for cooking. The proportion of women who reported respiratory symptoms was greater among those using BMFs than among those using a non-BMF cough (13.7% vs. 3.7%); wheezing (8.7% vs. 2.8%); chest pain (7.5% vs. 1.9%); breathlessness (11.8% vs. 6.5%); nasal symptoms (9.3% vs. 4.6%); and chronic bronchitis (10.6% vs. 2.8%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the use of BMFs was associated with the following variables: cough (OR = 4.82; p = 0.01); chronic bronchitis (OR = 3.75; p = 0.04); wheezing (OR = 2.22; p = 0.23); chest pain (OR = 3.82; p = 0.09); breathlessness (OR = 1.54; p = 0.35); and nasal symptoms (OR = 2.32; p = 0.20). All of the spirometric parameters evaluated (FEVi, FVC, FEVEVC ratio, and PEF) were lower in the women using BMFs than in those using a non-BMF. Conclusions: Our results underscore the need for women using BMFs in their households to replace them with a nontoxic type of fuel, such as electricity or gas.

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

4.1
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