Abstract
Background Kerosene, which was until recently considered a relatively clean household fuel, is still widely used in low and middle-income countries for cooking and lighting. However, there is little data on its health effects. We examined cardiorespiratory effects and mortality in households using kerosene as their primary cooking fuel within the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.
Methods We analyzed baseline and follow-up data on 31,490 individuals from 154 communities in China, India, South Africa, and Tanzania where there was at least 10% kerosene use for cooking at baseline. Baseline comorbidities and health outcomes during follow-up (median 9.4 years) were compared between households with kerosene versus clean (gas or electricity) or solid fuel (biomass and coal) use for cooking. Multi-level marginal regression models adjusted for individual, household, and community level covariates.
Results Higher rates of prevalent respiratory symptoms (e.g. 34% [95% CI:15-57%] more dyspnea with usual activity, 44% [95% CI: 21-72%] more chronic cough or sputum) and lower lung function (differences in FEV1: -46.3 ml (95% CI: -80.5; -12.1) and FVC: -54.7 ml (95% CI: -93.6; -15.8)) were observed at baseline for kerosene compared to clean fuel users. The odds of hypertension was slightly elevated but no associations were observed for blood pressure. Prospectively, kerosene was associated with elevated risks of all-cause (HR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.14-1.53)) and cardiovascular (HR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.00-1.80)) mortality, as well as major fatal and incident non-fatal cardiovascular (HR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.08-1.66)) and respiratory (HR: 1.55 (95% CI: 0.98-2.43)) diseases, compared to clean fuel use. Further, compared to solid fuel users, those using kerosene had 20 – 47% higher risks for the above outcomes.
Conclusions Kerosene use for cooking was associated with higher rates of baseline respiratory morbidity and increased risk of mortality and cardiorespiratory outcomes during follow-up when compared to either clean or solid fuels. Replacing kerosene with cleaner-burning fuels for cooking is recommended.
Highlights
Kerosene was (until 2014) considered a relatively clean household fuel for cooking and lighting
Though the WHO discouraged kerosene use, evidence in support of this position are still scarce
We prospectively examined the effects of kerosene use on cardiorespiratory morbidity and mortality
Kerosene use for cooking was associated with higher rates of baseline respiratory morbidity
Prospectively, kerosene use was associated with increased risk of mortality and incident cardiorespiratory outcomes compared to clean fuel or solid fuel use
Replacing kerosene with cleaner-burning fuels for cooking is recommended
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Office Of The Director, National Institutes Of Health of the National Institutes of Health [Award Number DP5OD019850]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health; and CIHR [grant #136893].
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The PURE study (and this analysis) was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Hamilton Health Sciences, Oregon State University, the University of British Columbia (H14-02982), and the local ethics committees in the participating countries.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Request for data can be made to the PURE Study center at http://www.phri.ca
