Abstract
Background Household air pollution (HAP) kills 4 million annually, with access to clean cooking being a challenge for 37% of the world’s population. Whilst there have been advancements in improved biomass cookstove (ICS) technologies, reviews on the impact of these ICS on HAP are now more than three years old.
Objectives This review and meta-analysis examines the most recent evidence on the impact of ICS on HAP and blood pressure (BP).
Methods A literature search was conducted using scientific literature databases and grey literature. Studies were included if they were published between January 2012 and June 2020, reported impact of ICS interventions in non-pregnant adults in low/middle-income countries, and reported post-intervention results along with baseline of traditional cookstoves. Outcomes included 24- or 48-hour averages of kitchen area fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), mean systolic BP (SBP) and mean diastolic BP (DBP). Meta-analyses estimated weighted mean differences between baseline and post-intervention values for all outcome measures.
Results Nine studies were included; eight contributed estimates for HAP and three for BP. Interventions lead to significant reductions in PM2.5 (−0.28 mg/m3, 95% CI: -0.46, -0.10), CO (−6.59ppm, 95%CI: - 10.73, -2.46) and SBP (−2.82mmHg, 95% CI: -5.53, -0.11); and a non-significant reduction in DBP (−0.80 mmHg, 95%CI: -2.33, 0.73), when compared to baseline of traditional cookstoves. Except for DBP, greatest reductions in all outcomes came from standard combustion ICS with a chimney, compared to ICS without a chimney and advanced combustion ICS. WHO air quality targets were met by post-intervention values for CO but not for PM2.5.
Conclusion Our review suggests that ICS with a chimney results in the greatest reductions in HAP and BP. Further research on qualitative impact of such ICS on end-users is required to understand feasibility of adoption at scale.
Competing Interest Statement
This review is part of The Smokeless Village Project funded by the Irish Research Council, project number: COALESCE/2020/13. Financial assistance was not sought for this review from the project funding.
Funding Statement
This review is part of The Smokeless Village Project funded by the Irish Research Council, project number: COALESCE/2020/13. Financial assistance was not sought for this meta-analysis from the project funding.
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:
This meta-analysis did not enroll participants and does not have individual level information and as such is exempt from IRB approvals.
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
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.