Birth weight and exposure to kitchen wood smoke during pregnancy in rural Guatemala.

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to establish whether domestic use of wood fuel is associated with reduced birth weight, independent of key maternal, social, and economic confounding factors. We studied 1,717 women and newborn children in rural and urban communities in rural Guatemala. We identified subjects through home births reported by traditional birth attendants in six rural districts (n = 572) and all public hospital births in Quetzaltenango city during the study period (n = 1,145). All were seen within 72 hr of delivery, and data were collected on the type of household fuel used, fire type, and socioeconomic and other confounding factors. Smoking among women in the study community was negligible. Children born to mothers habitually cooking on open fires (n = 861) had the lowest mean birth weight of 2,819 g [95% confidence interval (CI), 2,790-2,848]; those using a chimney stove (n = 490) had an intermediate mean of 2,863 g (95% CI, 2,824-2,902); and those using the cleanest fuels (electricity or gas, n = 365) had the highest mean of 2,948 g (95% CI, 2,898-2,998) (p< 0.0001). The percentage of low birth weights (< 500 g) in these three groups was 19.9% (open fire), 16.8% (chimney stove), and 16.0% (electricity/gas), (trend (p = 0.08). Confounding factors were strongly associated with fuel type, but after adjustment wood users still had a birth weight 63 g lower (p = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.4-126). This is the first report of an association between biofuel use and reduced birth weight in a human population. Although there is potential for residual confounding despite adjustment, the better-documented evidence on passive smoking and a feasible mechanism through carbon monoxide exposure suggest this association may be real. Because two-thirds of households in developing countries still rely on biofuels and women of childbearing age perform most cooking tasks, the attributable risk arising from this association, if confirmed, could be substantial.

References 43

1. 1.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

5. 5.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

   Not in our library

10. 10.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

21. 21.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

25. 25.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

26. 26.
    The impact of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fine particles on pregnancy outcome. · 2000

    No notice
27. 27.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    This reference’s wording can’t be shown under the paper’s licence.

    Not in our library

Cited by papers we hold 8

• Health Effects of Ambient Air Pollution in Developing Countries · 2017
  No notice
• Household Air Pollution from Solid Fuel Use and Risk of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence · 2014
  No notice
• Indoor Air Pollution and Blood Pressure in Adult Women Living in Rural China · 2011
  No notice
• Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (3 of 7): evidence for effectiveness of interventions · 2010
  No notice
• Indoor air pollution from biomass fuel smoke is a major health concern in the developing world · 2008
  No notice
• Repercussões clínicas da exposição à poluição atmosférica Clinical repercussions of exposure to atmospheric pollution · 2006
  Not checked
• Assessing Household Solid Fuel Use: Multiple Implications for the Millennium Development Goals · 2006
  No notice
• Ambient Air Pollution and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Review of the Literature · 2005
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.