83
Vulnerability of rural health exposed by indoor pollution generated from biomass and fossil fuels
Naba Kumar Mondal* and Deep Chakraborty
Environmental Chemistry Laboratory, Department of Environmental Science, The University of Burdwan.
* Corresponding author. E-mail: nkmenvbu@gmail.com
Received 09 Oct 2014, Revised 18 Oct 2014, Accepted 12 Dec 2014
Abstract: A cross-sectional study was done by considering the biomass (n = 50) and fossil fuels (n = 50) user in rural villages of West Bengal. The measured pollutants were sulphur dioxide, oxide of nitrogen and suspended particulate matter. However, level of average concentration of SO2, NO2 and suspended particulate matter showed higher in winter followed by premonsoon and least in summer, respectively. Health related information indicate that fossil fuel users suffer more than that of biofuel users. They suffer from asthma (p <
0.000), cough (p < 0.000), lung cancer (p < 0.000), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p < 0.0000).
Women who use biofuel are prone to the adverse pregnancy outcomes (low birth weights) (p < 0.001), pneumonia (p < 0.000), common cold and breathing problem (p < 0.012). Results indicate that fossil fuel users are significantly more exposed to the pollutants than that of biofuels in all respects. The fossil fuel users are exposed to the highest concentration of SO2 and SPM in winter and NO2 in summer. Moreover, it was recorded that mainly three types of stoves were used by villagers in the study area. Health status data indicate about 64 % of the villagers suffer from asthma, cough both and only 2 % and 1 % of the villagers are affected from pneumonia and respiratory problems.
Keywords: Biomass; Fossil fuel; Indoor air pollution; Suspended particulate matter; Respiratory diseases;
NO2; SO2
Introduction
Around 3 billion homes still practice cooking and heating using solid fuels (i.e. wood, crop waste, charcoal, Coal and cow dung) in an inefficient way, which affect 4.3 million people a year to die prematurely from severity of diseases (pneumonia, stroke, Ischemic heart disease, COPD, lung cancer) [1]. However it is well documented that the indoor pollutant concentrations are much higher compared to the outdoor pollutants concentration due to smoking and cooking inside the kitchen [2-5]. Cooking inside the kitchen generates different inorganic air pollutants such as CO, CO2, O3, SO2, NO2 and Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM)[6].
All these pollutants are hazardous to health and they are the cause of respiratory disease [7-9].Epidemiological
84 studies indicate that there are substantial morbidity and mortality strongly associated with elevated level of particulate matter [10]. Albalk et al., (1999) expressed in their study that women and children are adversely affected by the pollutants generated during fuel burning [11]. Although World Health Organization (WHO) has remarked that the indoor pollution generated from biomass fuel is one of the top ten global health risks and it is also responsible for about 2.7 % of the global burden of disease [12-13]. Many researchers have studied the distribution of air pollutants within the rural and urban domains [14-15]. According to Bady et al., (2008), the ventilation efficiency indices for indoor environments are widely used to evaluate the ventilation performance and air quality of indoor domains [16]. Recent studies have shown that indoor air pollution levels from combustion of biofuels can be extremely high and the measured concentration depends on where and when the monitoring takes place, given that significant temporal and spatial variation may exist within a house including room-to-room differences [17-18]. In our previous studies, we focused on perception level of indoor pollution among villagers; level of SOX, NO2 and SPM generated from different biofuels commonly used by the villagers and spreading of pollutants from kitchen to living room [19-21]. There are very limited study which mainly focused on generation of pollutants and human health. But in our present study we have tried to explore how the indoor environment is influenced by house type, family type, fuel used by the villagers, stove types and disease pattern.
Materials and methods
Study area:
A cross sectional study has been conducted by considering four villages (Figure 1) (Ramchandrapur, Sirajpur, Bhanderdihi and Kurmun) of Burdwan district, West Bengal. Initially a preliminary study has been done for selection of biomass and fossil-fuel. The entire study has been done by considering four seasons e.g., pre monsoon (May- June), post monsoon (September-December), winter (December-January) and summer (March- April) of 2012-13. There was socio-economic proximity among the inhabitants of four villages. We found that villagers use both biomass and fossil-fuel.
Figure 1.Study area map
All the four villages were densely populated and most of the houses have single room which one is used as both living room and kitchen room as well. Other information regarding educational level, monthly income, number
85 of family member, frequency of cooking, cooking hour, numbers of children < 5 years per family etc. have been collected during sampling period through a self-made questionnaire.
Participant recruitment and sample size:
The villages were selected on the basis of the following criteria: 1) villagers must be 5 km away from the national highway. It has been so that vehicular pollution does not interfere our experiments. 2) no air-polluting industry like coal-based thermal power plant, sponge iron factory, rice mill and brick kiln etc do not belong within 5 km radius of our experiment site in order to control the impact of industrial pollution and, 3) both biomass and fossil fuel are used by the villagers for domestic cooking.
Health study:
A total of 100 apparently healthy, never-smoking women were enrolled through village panchayates (local administration). Among the participant 50 women (age 27-39 years, median 35 years) cooked exclusively with solid, unprocessed biomass such as crop residue, wood, dry leaves, cow dung cakes, paddy husk, jute stick and hay. For the present study the above mentioned fuels user considered as biomass user. The remaining 50 women (aged 26-33 years, median 31 years), cooked with kerosene, coal and coal cake were grouped as fossil fuel users. Informed consent of the participants was acquired prior to the study. Disease like asthma, cough, pneumonia, respiratory or breathing problem, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases was recorded by the competent pathologists from reputed pathology centre from Burdwan Sadar Hospital.
Study period:
The study was carried out during 2012-2013 in the winter, summer, pre-monsoon and post-monsoon. Biomass and fossil fuel users of a particular village were examined simultaneously in medical camp (two expert doctors from Burdwan medical college, one from cardiology and another from radiology department) organized at the villages. On the other hand air quality monitoring of biomass and fossil fuel households were done simultaneously to minimize seasonal effects. In this study, we avoided monsoon because of inaccessibility of four wheelers (vehicles) during long rainy season from middle of the June to September and relative humidity during monsoon often rises above 93%.
Inclusive and exclusive criteria:
The inclusive criteria were: 1) apparently healthy women 2) non-smokers and non-chewers of tobacco and 3) cook regularly with biomass or fossil fuel 4) exposure to pollutant least 2h/day, 6days/week for ≥7 years.
Exclusive criteria were: 1) mixed fuel users (biomass and fossil fuel user) 2) currently under medication 3) family history of chronic respiratory problem.
Kitchen structure:
The villagers of study area live in houses consisting of one or two rooms without any partition (Figure 2). In some cases the kitchen is located at the backside of the room, but in most of the cases the kitchen is located inside the house and all the houses and kitchens covered with roofed. Most of the houses are made of straw,
86 bamboo and mud and kitchen floor was made by bricks and mud without any proper ventilation. Thus fuel consumption, types of fuel, location of stove, types of stoves, location of kitchen were taken into consideration during sample collection. The data were collected from different villages to assess concentration of the pollutants released by the combustion of different bio and fossil fuels at the breathing zone of a person.
Figure 2. Pattern of house in the study area The symbol L: Living room and K: kitchen room.(K1-K3) _ _ _ _ : porous wall made by crop residue, ________: non porous wall made by bamboo and mud
Sampling inside the kitchen:
Sampling was conducted during pre- monsoon, post monsoon, winter and summer and analytical data was taken at noon. Specially three types of kitchen were chosen depending on fuel used and kitchen configurations. (Table 1) presents the characteristics of the kitchens that were selected as being representative of the variations in fuel use, cooking arrangement and structural characteristics that affect ventilation.
Table 1.Description of different types of kitchen investigated
Kitchen Fuel type Kitchen
configuration
Position of instrument and
duration
Ventilation
K1 Coal, Kerosene Inside house 1 m from the oven (50-60 min)
Window 01 Door 01
K2 Wood Attached 1 m from the oven
(50-60 min)
No window Door 01 K3 Agricultural residue,
cow dung
Separate enclosure 1 m from the oven (50-60 min)
No window Door 01
87 Before choosing these households, a survey was undertaken in which 100 individual households were surveyed to understand the lifestyle, household configurations, fuel use, etc. within the area of investigation. The information was then used to select these three different types of houses as representative of the households in the locality. The sampling was carried out during cooking time (50-60 minutes per day for 35 days) in four different seasons (pre-monsoon, post monsoon, winter and summer) by following the standard method [22]
Analytical methods:
Air pollutants have been monitored during all experimental seasons. About 100 separate families were randomly selected from the four villages. Indoor SO2, NO2 and SPM levels were measured simultaneously using handy High Volume Sampler (Model Envirotech-APM-821, India) without size-restrictive inlet with a flow rate of 1 l/min in the kitchen during cooking hour [23-24]. The instrument was placed in the center or corner of the room, with the inlet approximately 1 m above ground level to correspond with the breathing height of the children. Collection of samples for SPM from ambient air was used in High Volume Sampler at. SPM was analyzed as the standard method. Indoor SPM was collected on 25 mm GF/A Whatmann glass microfiber filters. At the end of the sampling period, the filter paper was removed and desiccated for 24 hours and re- weighted to determine the mass of the particles collected. The particle concentration was measured by the weight gain of the filter divided by the volume of air samples. The filter paper was weighed before and after sampling.
Types of stoves:
Deposition of biomass and fossil fuel burning is extremely dependent on types of biomass and fossil fuel, cooking stoves configuration and also on the ventilation of the kitchen [25]. The entire population of Ramchandrapur, Sirajpur, Bhanderdihi and Kurmun of Burdwan district were using three different types of cooking stoves (Figure 5). Most of the permanent cooking stoves are made of bricks and mud and biomass fuels are used. However, other type of stove is mobile and both biomass and fossil fuels are used. These cooking stoves have one, two or multi-channels for putting biomass inside the stoves. In this study, we have using single channel cooking stoves for both biomass and fossil fuel feeding with poor ventilation at the kitchen having various sizes (4´ × 3.5´ - 8´ × 8´) with or without door and window.
Statistical methods:
Results are presented in the form of mean ± SE by using statistical software (SPSS 20). When comparing between pollutants and seasons a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to calculate the significance. Mann-Whitney U test was performed for calculating the significance of monthly income. A two- tailed P value < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
Results
(Table 2) describes the socio demographic condition of respondents of both biomass and fossil fuel users.
Biomass users are having age group of 33 ± 6.7 and fossil fuel users are of nearly 30 ± 5.2 years. About 72 % biomass fuel users and 69 % fossil fuel users of the respondents have no formal education. It has been found
88 that about 24 % of the biomass fuel users and 26.5 % of the fossil fuel users have primary education. Only 4 % of biomass users and 4.5 % of fossil fuel users have the secondary education.
Table 2. Socio-demographic conditions of respondents
Factor Biomass (n=50) Fossil (n=50) P value
Age (years, mean ± SD ) 33.0 ± 6.7 29.76±3.4 P < 0.013
Education n(%)
No education 36 (72%) 69% P < 0.188
Primary 12 (24%) 26.5% P < 0.227
Secondary 2 (4%) 4.5% P < 0.028
Monthly income USD, median (min/
max)
68.0 (13.5/103.3) 84.0(40.0/822) P < 0.011 Number of family members (mean ±
SD)
5.8±3.3 6.7±3.1 P < 0.122
Number of room n (%)
One room 78% 88% P < 0.596
Two or more rooms 22% 12% P < 0.001
Number of family members per room (mean ± SD)
4.2±1.7 3.1±2.1 P < 0.309
Separate kitchen n (%)
Yes 22% 30% P < 0.023
No 78% 70% P < 0.000
Frequency of cooking n (%)
Once 25% 11% P < 0.001
Twice 65% 67% P < 0.208
Three times 10% 22% P < 0.009
Cooking hours/day, ( mean ± SD) 2.1±1.2 3.3±2.1 P < 0.195
Sleeping in cooking room n(%)
yes 63% 58% P < 0.011
No 37% 42% P < 0.008
No. of children <5 years old per family (mean ± SD)
2.0±0.6 3.1±0.1 P < 0.347
Age of observed children (years, mean ± SD)
2.8±1.5 2.7±1.3 P < 0.580
Sex of observed children Male 42.2% 33.7% P < 0.011
Female 57.8% 66.3% P < 0.001
89 The monthly income of 68.0 % of biomass users and 84.0 % of fossil fuel users are little bit more than four thousand and five thousand respectively. The results also reveal that on an average there are six family members in each household of biomass users and seven in fossil fuel users. About 78 % of biomass users utilize single room for both living and kitchen purpose where as 88 % fossil fuel users utilize their single room for both living and kitchen purposes. But only 22 % of biomass users and 12 % of fossil fuel users have two or more separate rooms along with separate kitchen rooms for their uses. The numbers of family members per room is nearly 4 and 3 for biomass and fossil fuel users respectively. The result reveals that only 25 %, 65 % and 10 % respondents cook their food using biomass fuel for one time, two times and three times, respectively. But only 11 % respondents cook one time per day. Biomass users show less cooking hours compared to the fossil fuel users. About 63 % biomass users and 58 % fossil fuel users sleep in their kitchen room.
Table 3. Characteristics of Kitchen rooms
Factor Biomass (n=50) Fossil (n=50) p value
House Main roof material n (%)
Tin 24% 33% p<0.018
Straw with wrapping
76% 67% p<0.015
Main wall material n (%)
Brick and Mud 30% 28% p<0.006
Bamboo stick 46% 53% p<0.037
Tin 12% 14% p<0.245
Sack 12% 5% p<0.027
Floor material n (%)
Concrete 4% 8% p<0.01
Chips/Bricks 13% 15% p<0.003
Mud 83% 77% p<0.001
Kitchen main roof n (%)
Concrete 04% 7% p<0.000
Tin 23% 25% p<0.090
Polyethylene 08% 6% p<0.260
No roof 13% 15% p<0.020
straw shade 52% 47% P<0.001
The more vulnerable picture has been noted where on an average three and five children per family below the five years of age spend inside the kitchen room during cooking in the house hold of biomass users and fossil fuel users respectively. On the other hand 24 % of biomass users and 33 % of fossil fuel users use tin (p <
0.018) as the roof of their houses and kitchens. Although the main wall materials of the biomass users are bricks (30 %) and mud (30 %), they also use bamboo stick (46 %), tin (12 %) and sacks (12 %). Fossil fuel users use brick and mud (28 %), bamboo stick (53 %) and tin (14 %) (Table 3). The use of the wall materials by both biomass and fossil fuel users varies significantly (p < 0.006).
90 The main kitchen roof material of biomass user (0.4 %) were concrete whereas only 7 % fossil fuel user use same material as kitchen roof materials like tin, polyethylene, straw shade etc. Again 13 % and 15 % of the biomass and fossil fuel users had no roof in their kitchen respectively (Table 3).
Kitchen Structure:
The villagers live in houses consisting of one room without any partition in most cases (Figure 2). But some of the family has open kitchen room and it is in open area outside the house. But in other cases kitchen are located inside the house. Almost all the roof of the houses is pyramidal in shape and the height of the wall is designed up to 1.57 m and the height of the pyramidal portion of the roof is 1.50 m. The uppermost portion of the pyramidal roof is having 1.43 x 1.43 m. Moreover most of the houses are small in size and ill ventilated.
Concentration of SO2, NO2 and SPM:
The concentrations of SO2, NO2 and SPM have been evaluated for burning of fossil fuel and it is presented in the (Table 4). The range of SO2 varies from one season to another. The maximum and minimum SO2 has been recorded in post monsoon season. The average SO2 varies between 33.668 ± 5.139 µg/m3 to 41.175 ± 3.945 µg/m3. Again from the Figure 3 it is clear that the average concentration of SO2 due to fossil fuel burning varies in different seasons as winter > Summer > Post monsoon > Pre-monsoon; Similarly, for NO2 Summer > Post monsoon > winter > Pre monsoon and for SPM winter > summer post monsoon > pre monsoon. But for biofuel the gaseous pollutant vary little with seasons and it follows as winter > post monsoon summer > pre monsoon for SO2 and for NO2 and SPM are post monsoon > summer > pre-monsoon winter and pre monsoon
> winter > post monsoon > summer respectively (Figure 4). Many other researchers have measured indoor pollutants (SO2, NO2 and SPM) associated with biomass burning. Again the maximum annual SPM level recorded 140.411 ± 10.72 µg/m3 for bio-fuels and 177.421 ± 34.42 µg/m3 for fossil fuels (Table 4 and 5) and it is much less than 1400 µg/m3 which is 14 times higher than the maximum recommended for the general 24 h average standard of central pollution control board (Table 6). Again from the Table 7 it is clear that villagers mainly use three types of stoves in the study area (Figure 2). Among the three types of stoves, it was found that the three bricks stove and the fixed stove made by earth materials cause more pollutants than the moveable stove (Figure 5). Two way ANOVA study (Table 8 and 9) reveals that there is significant difference (p < 0.05) between seasonal differences and fuel types.
91 Figure 3. Average concentration of SO2, NO2 and SPM released from fossil fuels. Each box includes the central half of measurements (25th and75th percentiles). The horizontal line within each box represents the
median
Figure 4. Average conc. of SO2, NO2 and SPM released from solid bio-fuels. Each box includes the central half of measurements (25th and75th percentiles). The horizontal line within each box represents the median
Figure 5. Various type of stove used by the villagers
92 Table 4. Ambient air quality work place environment of four villages those are using solid biofuels
Sl.
No.
Season Ramchandrapur Sirajpur Bhanderdihi Kurmun
SO2 (µg/m3)
NO2 (µg/m3)
SPM (µg/m3)
SO2 (µg/m3)
NO2 (µg/m3)
SPM (µg/m3)
SO2 (µg/m3)
NO2 (µg/m3)
SPM (µg/m3)
SO2 (µg/m3)
NO2 (µg/m3)
SPM (µg/m3) 1 Pre-
monsoon
28.07
± 7.09
24.77
± 2.6
122.25
± 10.96
16.13
± 3.01
22.11
± 2.11
130.6
± 11.01
32.33
± 3.11
25.23
± 2.6
144.4
± 10.6
32.67
± 7.1
28.89
± 4.3
140.4
± 10.72 2 Post-
monsoon
24.06
± 1.63
30.08
± 4.9
86.67
± 22.29
22.01
± 1.7
35.66
± 3.34
93.99
± 9.2
28.93
± 13.2
39.33
± 4.5
100.2
± 9.89
24.42
± 2.01
33.33
± 3.73
100.4
± 10.11 3 Winter 32.08
± 7.78
3.93
± 4.2
128.22
± 33.86
28.62
± 6.32
24.84
± 2.76
130.32
± 11.21
30.62
± 6.7
22.82
± 3.8
130.3
± 10.11
30.11
± 3.01
25.42
± 4.25
122.5
± 13.13 4 Summer 36.09
± 6.42
25.05
± 5.46
77.89
± 8.66
35.77
± 5.46
24.92
± 3.34
76.52
± 8.72
35.41
± 8.01
30.17
± 6.3
110.1
± 13.11
26.63
± 5.58
24.45
± 4.46
88.99
± 8.32
5 Annual Average
30.07
± 12.83
25.97
± 11.38
100.34
± 20.21
16.66
± 7.76
23.66
± 4.1
111.2
± 11.10
28.76
± 11.22
26.42
± 10.14
99.87
± 19.22
27.48
± 14.11
26.41
± 16.02
121.4
± 21.21
93 Table 5. Ambient air quality work place environment of four villages those are using fossil fuels
Sl.
No..
Season Ramchandrapur Sirajpur Bhanderdihi Kurmun
SO2
(µg/m3)
NO2
(µg/m3)
SPM (µg/m3)
SO2
(µg/m3)
NO2
(µg/m3)
SPM (µg/m3)
SO2
(µg/m3)
NO2
(µg/m3)
SPM (µg/m3)
SO2
(µg/m3)
NO2
(µg/m3)
SPM (µg/m3) 1 Pre-
monsoon
36.11
± 1.07
27.27
± 3.11
144.04
± 16.32
30.32
± 3.21
26.13
± 1.49
102.6
± 19.32
44.43
± 3.41
20.42
± 1.01
170.42
± 3.21
36.63
± 2.13
14.21
± 0.02
120.3
± 14.32 2 Post-
monsoon
28.01
± 2.06
31.33
± 4.42
156.91
± 13.00
32.46
± 9.32
28.88
± 3.42
137.4
± 20.22
40.11
± 6.21
22.46
± 2.07
165.8
± 42.32
47.34
± 5.88
23.04
± 1.22
146.4
± 23.211 3 Winter 47.07
± 3.41
33.46
± 6.77
170.62
± 23.01
30.46
± 3.33
24.32
± 1.23
155.4
± 33.46
45.33
± 5.42
25.41
± 3.21
177.4
± 33.42
39.32
± 3.99
16.42
± 1.66
147.3
±3 2.12 4 Summer 39.21
± 6.31
29.33
± 6.31
166.46
± 23.66
41.44
± 4.69
37.77
± 4.45
146.32
± 30.56
33.94
± 21.11
27.41
± 3.42
156.4
± 41.21
41.41
± 3.77
40.42
± 1.34
146.3
± 23.21 5 Annual
Average
37.60
± 3.21
30.35
± 5.15
159.51
± 18.99
33.67
± 5.14
29.28
± 2.65
135.46
± 25.89
35.95
± 9.04
26.42
± 10.14
167.5
± 30.04
41.18
± 3.95
23.53
± 1.06
140.1
± 23.22
94 Table 6. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sensitive area on 24 h average basis-CPCB, India (CPCB, 2009)
Parameters Standard value
SO2 80 µg/m3
NO2 80 µg/m3
SPM 150 µg/m3
Table 7. Types of oven used in the study area
Type Stove material Condition of stoves No. of person affected
due to indoor pollution
Type-1 Three bricks made Movable 40%
Type-2 Made by tin Movable 20%
Type-3 Earthen stove Fixed 40%
Table 8. A Summary table of Analysis of Variance of Biomass fuel
Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Variance F-ratio Significance level
Between group 19610.054 2 9805.027
11.195
P <0.05
Within group 7882.766 9 875.862
Total 27492.82 11
Table 9. A Summary table of Analysis of Variance of Fossil fuel
Source Sum of squares Degrees of freedom Variance F-ratio Significance level
Between group 38276.639 2 19138.319
309.616
P<0.05
Within group 556.323 9 61.813
Total 38832.962 11
Health Risk:
Study results indicate the significant difference (P < 0.000) between 64 % fossil fuel user and 30 % of biomass user regarding the disease like asthma and cough. However 20 % biomass user and only 02 % fossil fuel user are affected by Pneumonia. On the other hand only 1 % fossil fuel user and 8% biomass user are affected with respiratory or breathing problem. Results also reveal that 33% of the fossil fuel user specially women are affected by lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (Table 10). But none of the respondent reported adverse pregnancy outcomes. A comprehensive summary of previous work is presented in (Table 11).
From the (Table 11) it is clear that the different diseases like Pneumonia in infants and young children, Weight loss of newborn babies and acute respiratory infection etc. solely depends on different types of fuels and varieties of gaseous and particulate pollutants.
95 Table 10. Internal size of the kitchen and specific disease
Sl. No. Internal size of the
kitchen
Biomass (n=50)
Fossil (n=50) P value Nature of Disease
1 4´ × 4´ 30% 64% P<0.000 Suffering from asthma, frequently
suffering from cough.
2 6´ × 5´ 20% 02% P<0.000 Pneumonia
3 5´ × 5´ 08% 01% P<0.012 Common cold, breathing problem
among men.
4 8´ × 8´ 2% 33% P<0.000 Women lung cancer, chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease
5 4´ × 3.5´ 40% 0% P<0.001 Adverse pregnancy outcomes (low
birth weights)
Table 11. Summary of the publications used for estimating indoor air pollution levels
Reference Fuel Pollutant Season Sampling
location
Disease reported
Lee et al., (2002) G PM10 S K,L,O Not reported
Jin et al., (2005) C,B PM4 W K,B,L Not reported
Mestl et al., (2007) B,C PM10 S,W K,B,L,O Not reported
Saha et al., (2012) G CO, CO2 S,W K Not reported
Thompson et al., 2011
Cook stove and open fire
CO Winter kitchen Weight loss of
newborn babies.
Johnson et al., 2011
Wood and LPG PM 2.5 & CO kitchen Pneumonia in
infants and young children Mahalanobish et
al., 2002
Coal, wood, dung
Kitchen and living room
Pneumonia under 5 year age Dherani et al.,
2008
Unprocessed solid fuel
K Not reported
Akunne et al., 2006 B K ARI
Kilabuko et al., (2007)
Biomass, wood PM10, CO, NO2 K ARI
Discussions
The smoke released during cooking time can cause airway inflammation, reduce lung function, exacerbate asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and adversely affect cardiovascular morbidity [26]. Children,
96 elder one and especially pregnant women are badly affected by the air pollution [27]. Estimations made from India show that about 500,000 annual premature deaths, mostly children under five years, are affected by Indoor Air Pollution (IAP) [28-29]. Now-a-days, the strong associations between biomass fuel exposure and increased incidence of chronic bronchitis have already been established and acute respiratory infection [18, 30-32]. In another study, the national burden of disease (5–6%) has been estimated due to use of biomass fuel [18]. India has the largest number of indoor air pollution-related health problems in the world, with approximately three- quarters of its households using wood and cow dung as traditional biomass fuel for cooking [33].
About 90 % of the rural habitants cook in a smoky, soot-filled and often dark kitchen using unprocessed solid fuels (wood, dung, etc.) in simple stoves which produce a lot of smoke that spread into the overall kitchen and living room [34-35]. This biomass-origin smoke causes various diseases and many health problems due to presence of 100 of chemicals compounds [31]. The adverse health effects of indoor air pollution are emerging due to poor ventilation in home for using such biomass and improper design of stove, oxygenated organics, free radicals, chlorinated organic that do not have fuels or hoods to take smoke out of the living area [36]. Due to low combustion efficiency of biomass fuel it produces dangerous gaseous pollutants like particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon and chlorinated organic [37].
The average maximum SO2 level results indicate the crossing of maximum permissible limit. Whereas the average NO2 level remains within the permissible limit adopted by NAAQS [38]. Such higher level of SPM is also reported by [39] who measured domestic air pollution from biomass burning in Kenya.
High correlation between solid cooking fuel (coal or biomass) and various diseases (bronchitis, asthma and chronic cough) has been reported by several authors [40-42]. Extensive study of indoor pollution due to combustion of solid biomass reveals that the poor people living in both rural and urban regions are the worst sufferer in a developing country like India [43]. Another study conducted by Musthapa et al. indicates that the frequency of cytogenetic alterations in blood lymphocytes increases due to various noxious gases and toxic substances released during burning of fossil fuels [33]. A comparative study conducted by Pandey et al showed that biomass smoke can cause DNA damage than that of the use of LPG combustion [44]. The extensive statistical evidences support that biomass smoke increases the risk of common and serious diseases (acute lung respiratory infection, chronic pulmonary disease and lung cancer) among children and adults, especially women. Again [45] reported that ocular morbidity occur due to exposure to biomass smoke. Pandey [46]
reported in their study that female wood users have a high risk of suffering from cataract and eye irritation and females were at higher risk than male wood users. It also reported that the use of wood fuel adversely affects the health of the children which make them suffer from cardiovascular diseases and other disorders [47-50].
Conclusion
The study shows that most of the villagers involved with daily cooking in kitchens using different types of fuels are exposed to SO2, NO2 and SPM. Although in-house concentration of these pollutants mainly depends on kitchen types and fuel types. The interesting observation of this study is that burring of solid biofuels and fossil fuels produce different concentration of the pollutants and consequently it affects to the cooks and the people living in the house resulting in health problems. Further, it also reveals that the data generated in the present study shall add to the existing knowledge of index of air pollutants due to burning of solid biomass and fossil
97 fuel. Also this study would help in understanding of pollution intensity of bio and fossil fuels for large-scale health studies on indoor air pollution and subsequently it can be helpful for making policy for prevention of such types of pollutants.
Conflict of interest: Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by University Grants Commission (UGC) under UGC major research project having basic research grant (F. No. 42-434/2013 (SR) dt. 12.03.2013). The author thanks to all interviewers who took part in this study. Author is also grateful to all faculty members of the Department of Environmental Science, Burdwan University, Burdwan, India.
References
[1] World Health Organization (WHO), Household Air Pollution and Health, Fact sheet, 2014.
[2] M. Zheng, T. S. M. Wan,M. Fang, F. Wang, Atoms.Environ., 31(1997) 227-237.
[3] S .C. Lee, M. Chan, K. Y. Chan,Environ. Inter., 25 (1999) 489-496.
[4] C.Y.H. Chao,C.W. Tung, J. Burnett,Indoor Built.Environ.,7(1998) 110-121.
[5] N.C. Jones, C.A. Thornton, D. Mark, R. M. Harrison,Atoms Environ.,34 (2000) 2603-2612.
[6] D. Chakraborty, N.K. Mondal, ,Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ., (2014) DOI:10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.11.002.
[7] A. P. Jones,Atomos.Environ., 33 (1999) 4535-4564.
[8] J. Lewtas,Mutation Research.,636 (2007) 95-133.
[9] Y. Zhangh, B. Zhao,Building and Environ., 42 (2007) 614-622.
[10] C.A. Pope, D.W. Dockery, J. Air Waste Manage.Asso., 56 (2006) 709-742.
[11] R. Albalak, A.R. Frisancho, G.J. Keeler,Thorax.,54 (1999) 1004-1008.
[12] World Health Report 2002. Geneva, World Health Organization.
[13] W. Anees, V.C. Moore, P.S. Burge, Thorax., 61(2006) 751-755.
[14] M.Y. Tsai, K.S. Chen,Atmos. Environ., 38 (2004) 5911–5924.
[15] A. Mfula, V. Kukadia, R. Griffiths, D. Hall, Atmos. Environ., 39 (2005) 2737–2745.
[16] M. Bady, S. Kato, H. Huang,Building and Environ.,43 (2008)1991-2004.
[17] S. Dasgupta, M. Huq, M. Khaliquzzaman, K. Pandey, D. Wheeler, Indoor Air.,16 (2006) 424-444.
[18] K.R. Smith, J.M. Samet, I. Romien, N. Bruce,Thorax., 55 (2000) 518-532.
[19] N.K. Mondal, S.K. Saha, J.K. Datta, A. Banerjee. World J. Environ.Poll., 1 (2011a) 05-07.
[20] N.K. Mondal, S. Konar, A. Banerjee, J.K. Datta. Inter. J. Environ. Sci., 1 (2011b) 736-743.
[21] N.K. Mondal, R. Bhaumik, C.R. Das, P. Aditya, A. Banerjee, J.K. Datta, K. Das. J. Environ.Bio., 34 (2013) 963-966.
[22] Guidelines for the Measurement of Ambient Air Pollutants, NAAQS Monitoring & Analysis Guidelines Volume-I, CPCB, 2011.
[23] P.W. West, G.C. Gaeke,Anal. Chem., 28 (1956) 1916-1819.
98 [24 M.B. Jacobs, S. Hochheiser,Chem. 30 (1958) 426-428.
[25] B.A. Begum, S.K. Paul, M.D. Hossain, S.K. Biswas,Building.Environ., 44(5) (2009) 898-903.
[26] P.S. Shah, T. Balkhair,Environ. Inter., 37(2011) 498-516.
[27]R.J. Laumbach,Am. Fam. Physician., 81 (2010) 175-180.
[28] M. Islam,(2000). USEPA. 1200, Sixth, Avenue, Seattle, WA.
[29] S.C. Bhattacharya, A.P. Salam,Biomass Energy. 22(2002) 305– 317.
[30] M.R. Pandey, J.S. Boleij, K.R. Smith, E.M. Wafula,Lancet. 1(1989) 427-429.
[31] K.R. Smith, Y. Liu, Indoor air pollution in developing countries. In: Samet J. M, et al, editor. The Epidemiology of lung cancer. New York7 Marcel Dekker; 1994; 151– 83.
[32] M. Ezzati, H. Salish, D.M. Kammen,Environ. Heal.Persp.,109(2002) 481-483.
[33] M.S. Musthapa, M. Lohani, S. Tiwari, N. Mathur, R. Prasad, Q. Rahman,Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 43 (2004)243–249.
[34] S.S. Lokras,J. Indian Institute of Sci., 92 (2012) 101-110.
[35] S. Palanivelraja, K.I. Mauirathinem. African J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 3 (2009) 120-130.
[36] D.G.Fullerton, N.Bruce, S.B.Gordon,Transc. Royal Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 102 (2008) 843-851, doi 10.1016/I.trstmh..05.028.
[37] L.Naeher, M.Braucer, M.Lipsett, J.Zelikoff, C.Simpson, J.Koenig, K. Smith,Inhal.Toxicol.,19 (2007) 67- 106.
[38] National Ambient Air Quality Standard, CPCB (1994).
[39] J.S.M.Boleij, P.Ruigewaard, F.Hoek, H.Thairu, E.Wafula, F. Onyango, H. De Koning,Atmos. Environ.,23 (1989) 1677–1681.
[40] A. F.Akunne, V.R.Louis, M.Sanon, R.Sauerborn,Inter. J. Hyg. Environ. Heal., 209(2006)445–450.
[41] J. T.Ayodele, F.Abubakar. J. Environ. Chem.Ecotoxicol., 2 (2010) 9-13.
[42] M. A.Desai, S.Mehta, K. R.Smith, WHO Environmental. Burden of Disease series, No.4 (2004), Geneva.
[43]S. N.Sinha, P. K.Kulkarni, S. H.Shah, N. M.Desai, G. M.Patel, M. M.Mansuri, H. N.Saiyed,Sci. Total Environ., 357(2006)280-287.
[44] A. K.Pandey, B.Bajpayee, D.Parmar, S. K.Rastogi, N. Mathur, P. K.Seth, A.Dhawan,Environ Mol.
Mutagen., 45(2005) 435-441.
[45] A.Saha, P. K.Kulkarni, A.Shah, M.Pate, H. N.Saiyed,Occu. Environ.Med. 62 (2005) 66 -69.
[46] T.J. Woodruff, D. A.Axelrad, A. D.Kyle, O.Nweke, G. G.Miller, B. J. Hurley,Pediatrics., 113 (2004) 1133-1140.
[47] M. D. M.Mascarenhas, L. C.Vieira, T. M.Lanzieri, A. P. P. R.Leal, A. F.Duarte, D. L.Hatch,J.
Bras.Pneumology., 34(2008)42-46.
[48] PAHO, 2005. Assessment of health effects of ambient air pollution in Latin America and the Caribbean Washington DC: Pan American Health Organization.
[49] T. F. Bateson, J. Schwartz,J.Toxicol. Environ.Heal., A, 71(2008)238-243.
[50] P.T. Nastos, A. G.Paliatsos, M. B Anthracopoulos, E. S.Roma, K. N. Priftis, Environ.Health., 9 (2010) 45.
