Assessing exposure to household air pollution: A systematic review and pooled analysis of carbon monoxide as a surrogate measure of particulate matter

Ellison Carter, Christina Norris, Kathie L. Dionisio, Kalpana Balakrishnan, William Checkley, Maggie L. Clark, Santu Ghosh, Darby W. Jack, Patrick L. Kinney, Julian D. Marshall, Luke P. Naeher, Jennifer L. Peel, Sankar Sambandam, James J. Schauer, Kirk R. Smith, Blair J. Wylie, Jill Baumgartner

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Household air pollution from solid fuel burning is a leading contributor to disease burden globally. Fine particulate matter (PM) is thought to be responsible for many of these health impacts. A co-pollutant, carbon monoxide (CO) has been widely used as a surrogate measure of PM2.5 in studies of household air pollution. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to evaluate the validity of exposure to CO as a surrogate of exposure to PM2.5 in studies of household air pollution and the consistency of the PM2.5 –CO relationship across different study settings and conditions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies with exposure and/or cooking area PM2.5 and CO measurements and assembled 2,048 PM2.5 and CO measurements from a subset of studies (18 cooking area studies and 9 personal exposure studies) retained in the systematic review. We conducted pooled multivariate analyses of PM2.5 –CO associations, evaluating fuels, urbanicity, season, study, and CO methods as covariates and effect modifiers. RESULTS: We retained 61 of 70 studies for review, representing 27 countries. Reported PM2.5 –CO correlations (r) were lower for personal exposure (range: 0.22–0.97; median = 0:57) than for cooking areas (range: 0.10–0.96; median = 0:71). In the pooled analyses of personal exposure and cooking area concentrations, the variation in ln(CO) explained 13% and 48% of the variation in ln(PM2.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that exposure to CO is not a consistently valid surrogate measure of exposure to PM2.5. Studies measuring CO exposure as a surrogate measure of PM exposure should conduct local validation studies for different stove/fuel types and seasons.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number076002
JournalEnvironmental Health Perspectives
Volume125
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2017

Fingerprint

Particulate Matter
Air Pollution
Carbon Monoxide
Cooking
Validation Studies
Multivariate Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Cite this

Assessing exposure to household air pollution : A systematic review and pooled analysis of carbon monoxide as a surrogate measure of particulate matter. / Carter, Ellison; Norris, Christina; Dionisio, Kathie L.; Balakrishnan, Kalpana; Checkley, William; Clark, Maggie L.; Ghosh, Santu; Jack, Darby W.; Kinney, Patrick L.; Marshall, Julian D.; Naeher, Luke P.; Peel, Jennifer L.; Sambandam, Sankar; Schauer, James J.; Smith, Kirk R.; Wylie, Blair J.; Baumgartner, Jill.

In: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 125, No. 7, 076002, 01.07.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Carter, E, Norris, C, Dionisio, KL, Balakrishnan, K, Checkley, W, Clark, ML, Ghosh, S, Jack, DW, Kinney, PL, Marshall, JD, Naeher, LP, Peel, JL, Sambandam, S, Schauer, JJ, Smith, KR, Wylie, BJ & Baumgartner, J 2017, 'Assessing exposure to household air pollution: A systematic review and pooled analysis of carbon monoxide as a surrogate measure of particulate matter', Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 125, no. 7, 076002. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP767
Carter, Ellison ; Norris, Christina ; Dionisio, Kathie L. ; Balakrishnan, Kalpana ; Checkley, William ; Clark, Maggie L. ; Ghosh, Santu ; Jack, Darby W. ; Kinney, Patrick L. ; Marshall, Julian D. ; Naeher, Luke P. ; Peel, Jennifer L. ; Sambandam, Sankar ; Schauer, James J. ; Smith, Kirk R. ; Wylie, Blair J. ; Baumgartner, Jill. / Assessing exposure to household air pollution : A systematic review and pooled analysis of carbon monoxide as a surrogate measure of particulate matter. In: Environmental Health Perspectives. 2017 ; Vol. 125, No. 7.
@article{7043815e92e64fdeaa9b0fdd3be547ed,
title = "Assessing exposure to household air pollution: A systematic review and pooled analysis of carbon monoxide as a surrogate measure of particulate matter",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Household air pollution from solid fuel burning is a leading contributor to disease burden globally. Fine particulate matter (PM) is thought to be responsible for many of these health impacts. A co-pollutant, carbon monoxide (CO) has been widely used as a surrogate measure of PM2.5 in studies of household air pollution. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to evaluate the validity of exposure to CO as a surrogate of exposure to PM2.5 in studies of household air pollution and the consistency of the PM2.5 –CO relationship across different study settings and conditions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies with exposure and/or cooking area PM2.5 and CO measurements and assembled 2,048 PM2.5 and CO measurements from a subset of studies (18 cooking area studies and 9 personal exposure studies) retained in the systematic review. We conducted pooled multivariate analyses of PM2.5 –CO associations, evaluating fuels, urbanicity, season, study, and CO methods as covariates and effect modifiers. RESULTS: We retained 61 of 70 studies for review, representing 27 countries. Reported PM2.5 –CO correlations (r) were lower for personal exposure (range: 0.22–0.97; median = 0:57) than for cooking areas (range: 0.10–0.96; median = 0:71). In the pooled analyses of personal exposure and cooking area concentrations, the variation in ln(CO) explained 13{\%} and 48{\%} of the variation in ln(PM2.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that exposure to CO is not a consistently valid surrogate measure of exposure to PM2.5. Studies measuring CO exposure as a surrogate measure of PM exposure should conduct local validation studies for different stove/fuel types and seasons.",
author = "Ellison Carter and Christina Norris and Dionisio, {Kathie L.} and Kalpana Balakrishnan and William Checkley and Clark, {Maggie L.} and Santu Ghosh and Jack, {Darby W.} and Kinney, {Patrick L.} and Marshall, {Julian D.} and Naeher, {Luke P.} and Peel, {Jennifer L.} and Sankar Sambandam and Schauer, {James J.} and Smith, {Kirk R.} and Wylie, {Blair J.} and Jill Baumgartner",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1289/EHP767",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "125",
journal = "Environmental Health Perspectives",
issn = "0091-6765",
publisher = "Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing exposure to household air pollution

T2 - A systematic review and pooled analysis of carbon monoxide as a surrogate measure of particulate matter

AU - Carter, Ellison

AU - Norris, Christina

AU - Dionisio, Kathie L.

AU - Balakrishnan, Kalpana

AU - Checkley, William

AU - Clark, Maggie L.

AU - Ghosh, Santu

AU - Jack, Darby W.

AU - Kinney, Patrick L.

AU - Marshall, Julian D.

AU - Naeher, Luke P.

AU - Peel, Jennifer L.

AU - Sambandam, Sankar

AU - Schauer, James J.

AU - Smith, Kirk R.

AU - Wylie, Blair J.

AU - Baumgartner, Jill

PY - 2017/7/1

Y1 - 2017/7/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Household air pollution from solid fuel burning is a leading contributor to disease burden globally. Fine particulate matter (PM) is thought to be responsible for many of these health impacts. A co-pollutant, carbon monoxide (CO) has been widely used as a surrogate measure of PM2.5 in studies of household air pollution. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to evaluate the validity of exposure to CO as a surrogate of exposure to PM2.5 in studies of household air pollution and the consistency of the PM2.5 –CO relationship across different study settings and conditions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies with exposure and/or cooking area PM2.5 and CO measurements and assembled 2,048 PM2.5 and CO measurements from a subset of studies (18 cooking area studies and 9 personal exposure studies) retained in the systematic review. We conducted pooled multivariate analyses of PM2.5 –CO associations, evaluating fuels, urbanicity, season, study, and CO methods as covariates and effect modifiers. RESULTS: We retained 61 of 70 studies for review, representing 27 countries. Reported PM2.5 –CO correlations (r) were lower for personal exposure (range: 0.22–0.97; median = 0:57) than for cooking areas (range: 0.10–0.96; median = 0:71). In the pooled analyses of personal exposure and cooking area concentrations, the variation in ln(CO) explained 13% and 48% of the variation in ln(PM2.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that exposure to CO is not a consistently valid surrogate measure of exposure to PM2.5. Studies measuring CO exposure as a surrogate measure of PM exposure should conduct local validation studies for different stove/fuel types and seasons.

AB - BACKGROUND: Household air pollution from solid fuel burning is a leading contributor to disease burden globally. Fine particulate matter (PM) is thought to be responsible for many of these health impacts. A co-pollutant, carbon monoxide (CO) has been widely used as a surrogate measure of PM2.5 in studies of household air pollution. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to evaluate the validity of exposure to CO as a surrogate of exposure to PM2.5 in studies of household air pollution and the consistency of the PM2.5 –CO relationship across different study settings and conditions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies with exposure and/or cooking area PM2.5 and CO measurements and assembled 2,048 PM2.5 and CO measurements from a subset of studies (18 cooking area studies and 9 personal exposure studies) retained in the systematic review. We conducted pooled multivariate analyses of PM2.5 –CO associations, evaluating fuels, urbanicity, season, study, and CO methods as covariates and effect modifiers. RESULTS: We retained 61 of 70 studies for review, representing 27 countries. Reported PM2.5 –CO correlations (r) were lower for personal exposure (range: 0.22–0.97; median = 0:57) than for cooking areas (range: 0.10–0.96; median = 0:71). In the pooled analyses of personal exposure and cooking area concentrations, the variation in ln(CO) explained 13% and 48% of the variation in ln(PM2.5), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that exposure to CO is not a consistently valid surrogate measure of exposure to PM2.5. Studies measuring CO exposure as a surrogate measure of PM exposure should conduct local validation studies for different stove/fuel types and seasons.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032820172&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032820172&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1289/EHP767

DO - 10.1289/EHP767

M3 - Review article

C2 - 28886596

AN - SCOPUS:85032820172

VL - 125

JO - Environmental Health Perspectives

JF - Environmental Health Perspectives

SN - 0091-6765

IS - 7

M1 - 076002

ER -