Quantifying the Contribution to Uncertainty in Mortality Attributed to Household, Ambient, and Joint Exposure to PM_2.5From Residential Solid Fuel Use

Abstract

While there have been substantial efforts to quantify the health burden of exposure to PM2.5 from solid fuel use (SFU), the sensitivity of mortality estimates to uncertainties in input parameters has not been quantified. Moreover, previous studies separate mortality from household and ambient air pollution. In this study, we develop a new estimate of mortality attributable to SFU due to the joint exposure from household and ambient PM2.5 pollution and perform a variance‐based sensitivity analysis on mortality attributable to SFU. In the joint exposure calculation, we estimate 2.81 (95% confidence interval: 2.48–3.28) million premature deaths in 2015 attributed to PM2.5 from SFU, which is 580,000 (18%) fewer deaths than would be calculated by summing separate household and ambient mortality calculations. Regarding the sources of uncertainties in these estimates, in China, India, and Latin America, we find that 53–56% of the uncertainty in mortality attributable to SFU is due to uncertainty in the percent of the population using solid fuels and 42–50% from the concentration‐response function. In sub‐Saharan Africa, baseline mortality rate (72%) and the concentration‐response function (33%) dominate the uncertainty space. Conversely, the sum of the variance contributed by ambient and household PM2.5 exposure ranges between 15 and 38% across all regions (the percentages do not sum to 100% as some uncertainty is shared between parameters). Our findings suggest that future studies should focus on more precise quantification of solid fuel use and the concentration‐response relationship to PM2.5, as well as mortality rates in Africa.

Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning – an updated assessment

“…For very rapidly reacting species, it becomes difficult to define an appropriate time after emission at which an EnR can be treated as an effective ER. A good example is the emission of primary organic aerosol mass, whereby the apparent EnR decreases substantially (by about a factor of 2) over the first few minutes to hours as a result of the evaporation of semivolatile compounds during plume dilution (May et al, 2013;Konovalov et al, 2019). Whether the ER at the moment of emission or the EnR after cooling and dilution to typical ambient conditions is the more meaningful value will depend on the intended application.…”

Comparing regional stove‐usage patterns and using those patterns to model indoor air quality impacts

“…This work was part of United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) STAR project that included complimentary laboratory, field, and modeling studies looking at the global health and climate impacts of household energy use. [23][24][25][26] Stove-use monitoring in the field was conducted in China, Honduras, Uganda, and India in conjunction with emission testing campaigns. The stove-fuel combinations were selected, in consultation with field partners, to represent typical solid-fuel cooking and heating technologies in each respective region.…”

Charcoal as an Energy Resource: Global Trade, Production and Socioeconomic Practices Observed in Uganda

“…Charcoal is not child-safe where play areas overlap with cooking spaces, and its combustion elevates dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning [54]. The use of charcoal is further linked to premature death from inhalation of particulate matter [55,56], especially when used indoors. Moreover, as charcoal production does not represent complete combustion but rather a pyrolysis, high amounts of tarry vapors occur near the earth-mound kilns.…”