Hennessee Ian, Kirby Miles A, Misago Xavier, Mupfasoni Jackie, Wang Jiantong, de Dieu Ntivuguruzwa Jean, Ndagijimana Florien, Rosa Ghislaine, Peel Jennifer L, Waller Lance A, Rosenthal Joshua P, Kitron Uriel, Hakizimana Emmanuel, Clasen Thomas F
Gangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, 1518 Clifton Rd, 30322, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Sci Rep. 2025 Jun 4;15(1):19578. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-03573-9.
Cleaner cooking fuels are increasingly promoted to reduce household air pollution-related health effects, but evidence is limited whether changes in cooking fuels could alter vector behavior and human exposure to vector-borne diseases. In the context of a randomized controlled trial in eastern Rwanda, we evaluated differences in mosquito and fly density in 109 intervention houses which received liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) stoves, a continuous fuel supply, and were encouraged to cook indoors compared to 102 control households which continued cooking with biomass fuels, primarily outdoors. Anopheles mosquito densities were similar in the intervention group compared to the control group (RR = 0.92, 95%CI: 0.33-2.55), as were culicine densities (RR = 1.17, 95%CI: 0.83-1.63). In contrast, synanthropic fly densities were 69% lower in intervention households (RR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.22-0.45). In an exploratory analysis of houses that cooked indoors, Anopheles densities were higher but not significantly different in intervention houses compared to control houses, whereas culicine and synanthropic fly densities were similar. In settings where outdoor cooking with biomass fuels is common, switching to indoor cooking with cleaner-burning fuels does not significantly increase indoor exposure to Anopheles or culicine mosquitoes, while it could significantly reduce exposure to synanthropic flies in kitchen areas.
清洁烹饪燃料越来越多地得到推广,以减少与家庭空气污染相关的健康影响,但关于烹饪燃料的变化是否会改变病媒行为以及人类接触病媒传播疾病的情况,证据有限。在卢旺达东部的一项随机对照试验中,我们评估了109户干预家庭与102户对照家庭中蚊子和苍蝇密度的差异。干预家庭配备了液化石油气(LPG)炉灶,有持续的燃料供应,并被鼓励在室内做饭;而对照家庭则继续主要在户外使用生物质燃料做饭。与对照组相比,干预组的按蚊密度相似(相对风险RR = 0.92,95%置信区间CI:0.33 - 2.55),库蚊密度也是如此(RR = 1.17,95%CI:0.83 - 1.63)。相比之下,干预家庭中的嗜人蝇密度低69%(RR = 0.31,95%CI:0.22 - 0.45)。在对室内做饭的家庭进行的探索性分析中,与对照家庭相比,干预家庭中的按蚊密度较高,但无显著差异,而库蚊和嗜人蝇密度相似。在以生物质燃料户外做饭很常见的环境中,改用燃烧更清洁的燃料进行室内做饭不会显著增加室内接触按蚊或库蚊的机会,同时却可以显著减少厨房区域接触嗜人蝇的机会。