U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

WHO Indoor Air Quality Guidelines: Household Fuel Combustion. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.

Cover of WHO Indoor Air Quality Guidelines

WHO Indoor Air Quality Guidelines: Household Fuel Combustion.

Show details

2Guideline development process

2.1. Scope of the guidelines

Development of these guidelines began with the WHO global update 2005: particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide, and a subsequent planning meeting on WHO guidelines for indoor air quality held in Bonn in 2006. A proposal for indoor air quality guidelines for household fuel combustion was developed based on the outline plan drawn up in Bonn in 2006, relevant existing guidelines and consultation with partners.

Following planning approval and establishment of the WHO Steering Group (SG) and Guidelines Development Group (GDG), a planning meeting was held in Geneva in January 2011 attended by members of the GDG and WHO staff. This set out the scope, topic areas and priorities, and defined the approach for conducting systematic reviews and obtaining other evidence required for the recommendations.

At this meeting, the group decided it was not necessary to review the evidence informing the published WHO guidelines for air quality(AQG) (13, 14) and that these AQGs would provide the air pollutant standards for the current guidelines. For convenience, the guidelines for particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) published in 2006, and all other combustion-derived indoor pollutants reviewed in 2010, are reproduced here (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Summary of published WHO air quality guideline values.

Table 2.1

Summary of published WHO air quality guideline values.

Evidence reviews were then commissioned, and drafts which had undergone a first round of external peer review were discussed at the main GDG and SG meeting, held in April 2012, in Delhi, in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). At this meeting the scope was finalized, recommendations were drafted and decision tables used to set the strength of the recommendations.

2.2. Evidence review

2.2.1. Evidence required to address scoping questions

The first step in the evidence search and retrieval procedure was to identify and define the evidence required to address the scoping questions. Due to the nature of the policy challenges being addressed and the scarcity of experimental studies directly assessing the impact of household energy interventions on health, several distinct areas of evidence were required for each scoping question. These areas of evidence are summarized in Table 2.2. Those amenable to PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) framing are indicated, and elaborated further below.

Table 2.2. Areas of evidence sought for each scoping question.

Table 2.2

Areas of evidence sought for each scoping question.

It was determined that a range of different types of reviews would be required to capture the varied and broad nature of the evidence required; accordingly, the following types of review have been conducted:

  • a systematic review (with meta-analysis if included);
  • a summary of a systematic review (with meta-analysis if included), where the review summarized is a recently conducted or published systematic review on a relevant topic;
  • a summary and synthesis of systematic reviews and other evidence, where the review brings together summaries of completed systematic reviews (with meta-analyses if included), and other evidence, and includes some synthesis of this evidence;
  • a model, which is used here to describe the emissions rate model in Review 3, and the IERs in Review 4;
  • a narrative review, where an overview of a set of issues that have not been the subject of asystematic, defined literature search is provided.

Details of the type of review used for each area of evidence, and the nature of evidence included, are provided in Table 2.3, Section 2.2.3.

Table 2.3. Summary of systematic and other evidence reviews, methods for individual study quality assessment, and overall evidence quality assessment.

Table 2.3

Summary of systematic and other evidence reviews, methods for individual study quality assessment, and overall evidence quality assessment. Further details of the assessment of quality, including upgrading and downgrading for specific outcomes, are available (more...)

2.2.2. Framing of questions

As noted in Table 2.2, it was possible to frame questions on two topics using the PICO format. These addressed (i) impacts of interventions on health outcomes (PICO-1, 2(a) in Table 2.2), and (ii) impacts of interventions on household levels of PM2.5 and CO (PICO-2, 2(d) in Table 2.2). These are presented below, with additional explanation of the rationale for the outcomes selected.

PICO-1. Impact of interventions reducing HAP exposure on health outcomes: outcomes identified with an asterisk (*) are those assessed by the GDG as most important.

PICO-1

Impact of interventions reducing HAP exposure on health outcomes: outcomes identified with an asterisk (*) are those assessed by the GDG as most important.

PICO-2. Impact of interventions on average levels of household air pollution.

PICO-2

Impact of interventions on average levels of household air pollution.

Impacts of interventions on health outcomes (PICO-1)

Although it was judged important to review evidence for all child and adult health outcomes linked to HAP exposure, the GDG determined that the focus should be on specific important outcomes, that is, those that have an impact on child survival and development (e.g. acute lower respiratory infections (ALRI), low birth weight, stillbirth) and those responsible for a large burden of disease in the 2010 Global burden of disease (GBD) study (i.e. Global burden of disease chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease (CVD) and lung cancer) (3). These outcomes are indicated in the PICO-1 table below with an asterisk (*).

The epidemiological studies of these important health outcomes provide the largest and most robust source of evidence on the expected impacts of interventions on the risk of disease. The lack of HAP and/or exposure measurement in most, however, means that the exposure levels associated with these impact effect findings can only be estimated.

This leaves the question of risk levels with intermediate exposure reductions essentially unanswered. This latter (and critical) area evidence is provided by the exposure-response evidence, in particular the IER functions covered by topic 2(b) in Table 2.2, although not available for all of the important disease outcomes listed in the PICO-1 table. Where such evidence is available it is indicated in the PICO-1 table below by inclusion of [IER].

Impact of interventions in everyday use on household levels of PM2.5 and CO (PICO-2)

The second area of evidence amenable to the PICO format examines the impacts of solid and clean fuel interventions on kitchen levels of PM2.5 and CO, when these devices and fuels are in everyday use. Eligible studies were not found for all of the interventions listed. The important outcomes considered were average 24- or 48-hour kitchen levels of the above pollutants. Evidence of effect on personal PM2.5 and CO exposure was also sought (and reported in the systematic review), but as this evidence was very limited and only available for some interventions, these are not included in the PICO table.

Other questions and topics

Evidence reviews were also conducted on the following three topics:

  • Safety: although not an outcome of poor air quality, the risks associated with household energy use (burns, scalds, poisoning from ingestion of liquid fuel) were identified as important because it cannot be assumed that interventions that reduce emissions of health damaging pollutants are safer. The findings of the systematic review on this topic (Review 10) have informed the general considerations for implementation presented in Section 4, which apply to all of the specific recommendations. This review also contributed to the evidence used for the recommendation on the household use of kerosene.
  • Adoption: as noted in the introduction and in scoping question 2, achieving rapid and sustained adoption of much cleaner household energy interventions poses significant policy challenges, particularly in low-income settings. The systematic review of factors influencing the adoption and sustained use of improved stoves and clean fuels (Review 7) informs plans for the development and testing of guidance and tools to support implementation, described further in Section 5.
  • Synergies between health and climate impacts: household fuel combustion can have significant impacts on climate through both efficiency of combustion and the nature of the emissions. A review of evidence on the net climate impacts (warming) from inefficient use of non-sustainable biomass and emissions from incomplete fuel combustion was carried out (Review 11). This informs a good practice recommendation on maximizing health co-benefits in climate change mitigation policy that addresses household energy, presented in Section 4.7.

2.2.3. Evidence reviews and other information supporting recommendations

Evidence reviews

A series of reviews were conducted to obtain the evidence set out in Table 2.2, with the exception of topic 1(c) which used a modelling approach (see below), and topic 2(b) for which recently developed models combining risk data for multiple combustion sources were the primary source. Table 2.3 below shows how evidence has been reviewed or generated through models and how the evidence quality was assessed. Assessment of the overall quality of evidence for each topic is provided in Annexes 47, and full details of the rationale and methods used are available in Methods used for evidence assessment available at: http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc.

As noted in Section 2.2.1, the evidence was summarized in different ways, depending on whether a new systematic review was conducted and reported in full, or whether existing (mostly published) systematic reviews were summarized.

Summaries nitrogen dioxide (of reviews were used where evidence on a range of outcomes was required and space would not have allowed full reporting of all systematic reviews, and/or high quality systematic reviews on the topic had recently been published. Where it was judged important to combine systematic review findings with other evidence, a synthesis was included. In one case (climate impacts and finance) a narrative review was judged to be the best approach, given the complex, multidisciplinary nature of this issue and the fact that this evidence served as context for implementation of the recommendations.

As noted, new systematic reviews were conducted for the purposes of these guidelines, unless a recent completed review meeting content, quality and peer-review criteria was available. In practice, this applied to recently published systematic reviews of (i) risks of asthma and wheeze in children with gas cooking and NO2 exposure (16) and (ii) health risks of kerosene use (17). In each case, the methods (key questions, search terms and strategy) for the published review were assessed, and a summary prepared (see Review 5, Section 4: Health risks of gas; Review 9: Health risks from kerosene).

For all new systematic reviews, search, data extraction and study quality assessment methods (described in Table 2.3 and in detail in the full texts of the systematic reviews, see: http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc) were broadly similar. The details varied according to the type of evidence incorporated, e.g. laboratory testing, epidemiological studies, policy and case studies of adoption. There are also some variations in databases searched (in part as appropriate to the topic) and in languages included. For the systematic reviews of coal use (Review 8), Chinese language studies were included because a high proportion of the world's coal using households are located in China and important research had been conducted there. For other topics, where non-English languages were included (e.g. Chinese) it was found that searching databases in other languages made little, if any, difference to the included set of studies.

The quality of individual studies contributing to these reviews was assessed using standard methods applicable to the type of study. This varied considerably, ranging from laboratory emission studies to epidemiological studies, and case studies of implementation programmes. A summary of the methods used is provided in column 3 of Table 2.3, with further details in the full texts of the reviews (available at: http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc).

Methods used for assessing the quality of the overall evidence provided by these reviews are described in section 2.3 below, and summarized in column 4 of Table 2.3.

Emissions model

In order to select a model suitable for the purposes of these guidelines, three commonly employed methods were reviewed (see full description in Review 3). Each of these combines the rate of pollutant emission (in terms of mass) within a room (e.g. kitchen) with mathematical models of pollutant transport and fate to provide estimates of indoor pollutant concentrations. These three types of model range from simple constructs to complex computer-based simulations and all have the capacity to provide indoor concentration estimates indicative of those observed in homes due to the device and fuel in question. These are:

  • The single zone model, which assumes that the pollutant emitted into room air is uniformly mixed throughout the space. Concentration is determined by emission rate and a number of other factors that can be incorporated into the model, including duration of combustion, room volume and air exchange rate.
  • The three zone model, which divides the room into three zones – a plume rising above the combustion device; warm air within a given distance from the ceiling; and the rest of the room. It is assumed that uniform mixing occurs in each zone. In other respects, this approach is similar to the single zone model.
  • The computational fluid dynamics model, which considers the forces involved in determining transport of air and pollutants within a room, by dividing the space into a large (or very large) number of small units, and developing equations incorporating momentum, thermal energy and conservation of mass for determining the resulting air pollutant concentrations.

Single zone models have been applied in work on household energy and air pollution for around 30 years, and this approach was adopted for the current purposes. The single zone model has the merit of simplicity in respect of the assumptions used. This is important when developing an approach that can be applied to populations. Such a model needs to account for a wide variation in factors (i.e. room size, air exchange rate, and duration of device use) which determine area concentration for any given emission rate. These have been incorporated by using a range of empirically-derived values for each factor combined in a Monte Carlo simulation. The input data used for the model were obtained from measurements made in India, and are summarized in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4. Input distributions for air exchange rates and kitchen volumes.

Table 2.4

Input distributions for air exchange rates and kitchen volumes.

The output of the model for any given emission rate is therefore a distribution of air pollution concentrations, which can be used to describe the percentage of homes that achieve a specific air pollution goal, such as those in the air AQG. Examples of these distributions are provided in the full description of the model (Review 3). This modelling approach can be applied to any of the pollutants for which AQGs have been determined by WHO, if emissions data are available. For practical reasons, the model has been used to provide guidance just for PM2.5 and CO, as these pollutants together serve as sufficient indicators of the health damaging potential of household fuel combustion in most situations.

Assessment of the quality of this evidence for the purpose of these guidelines (i.e. providing guidance on emission rates that will allow the AQGs to be met), is based on validation studies. The approach to this assessment is summarized in column 4 of Table 2.3, described in more detail in Annex 4 (Assessment of evidence for Recommendation 1), and in full in Review 3.

2.3. From evidence to recommendations

2.3.1. Overview

Potential interventions for addressing the health consequences of current global patterns of household fuel combustion tend to be complex. That is, they are actually a combination of interventions, not only use of effective technologies and cleaner fuels, but also action by multiple stakeholders to ensure equitable and lasting adoption.

The development of recommendations to address these issues therefore needs to draw on a wide range of evidence. This includes population studies of fuel use and exposure, laboratory emission data, epidemiological studies of exposure and health outcomes risk, intervention impact studies, qualitative evidence on user perceptions about change, and policy analysis. These sources of evidence use very disparate methods and research paradigms. In this field, randomized controlled trials – the gold standard of evidence of effectiveness – are rare. This is partly due to the practical difficulties of conducting these, but also because their relevance for evaluating the effect of complex interventions can be limited.

Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE), the standard WHO method for assessing certainty of effect (‘quality of evidence’) and setting the strength of a recommendation, provides a valuable framework for moving from evidence to recommendations. However, this system does not allow for comprehensive assessment of all evidence sources relevant to this topic. It also categorizes much of the evidence available as low or very low quality, an assessment that may undervalue the contribution such evidence can make.

In order to apply GRADE principles to the development of recommendations in this field, modifications have been made to the standard method. This revised approach, termed grading of evidence for public health interventions (GEPHI), is outlined in Section 2.3.2 below. A more detailed explanation of how each stage in the process has been applied for all types of evidence contributing to the guidelines is described in ‘Methods used for evidence assessment’, available at: http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc. This includes an explanation of how results from this revised approach can be compared with standard GRADE methods.

The final stage of the process, that is, using GRADE decision tables to determine the strength of each recommendation, is relevant and applicable to this topic and was carried out in the standard manner. Since one component of the table (quality of evidence) has been derived from the modified GEPHI approach, for the purposes of clarity these tables have been renamed ‘decision tables for strength of recommendations.

2.3.2. The causal chain

A causal chain approach has been adopted to provide a framework for assessing the relationships between the varied types of evidence and complex interventions, (Figure 2.1). Using this approach, evidence that informs sequential and multiple links in the chain can be evaluated, and the overall coherence of evidence relating interventions to health outcomes can be assessed. For further explanation of the causal chain diagram and its application to the process of evaluating evidence, please refer to Methods used for evidence assessment, available at: http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc.

Figure 2.1. Causal chain relating household energy technology, fuel and other interventions to health and safety outcomes via intermediate links.

Figure 2.1

Causal chain relating household energy technology, fuel and other interventions to health and safety outcomes via intermediate links.

The focus of this causal pathway is the source of the combustion emissions (for cooking, heating, lighting and other purposes in the home), since reduction of emissions is the most critical underlying factor for measures aimed at achieving the AQGs.

It is recognized, however, that other aspects of the home environment (for example, ventilation through chimneys, windows and eaves) and behaviour (how the stove is used, time spent by individuals in various micro-environments in and around the home) also play a part in the total dose of air pollutants and hence health effects. These have an impact on the causal chain at varying points, and insofar as available evidence allows, these other aspects are considered. Examples of the factors that can be assessed at each stage of the causal chain are shown in Table 2.5. The ways in which the different types of evidence described above provide information on different components of the causal chain are illustrated by the ‘pathways’ shown in Figure 2.1, and elaborated in Table 2.6.

Table 2.5. Examples of factors that may be assessed at each link.

Table 2.5

Examples of factors that may be assessed at each link.

Table 2.6. Examples of the types of evidence providing information on pathways in the causal chain.

Table 2.6

Examples of the types of evidence providing information on pathways in the causal chain.

Not included in the illustration of pathways in Figure 2.1 is evidence on factors influencing effective and equitable adoption of improved technologies, cleaner fuels and other interventions, as well as maintenance and replacement. These are indicated in the box in Figure 2.1, and reported in full in Review 7, Factors influencing adoption, available at: http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc.

2.3.3. Assessment of the quality of the evidence

Assessing the strength of evidence for causal inference

When assessing the strength of evidence, a distinction was drawn between:

  1. assessment of strength of evidence for causal inference, and
  2. assessment of confidence in effect sizes.

The reason for taking this approach was that evidence may support causation and therefore removal of HAP exposure would result in a health benefit. The same evidence may not, however, support a high level of confidence in the estimate of health impact (i.e. risk reduction). The Hill viewpoints were used (as relevant) for the former, and GEPHI, the revised version of GRADE (described below) was used for the latter, recognizing that some aspects of the evidence could be assessed by both methods. This approach of distinguishing causal inference from confidence in effect size was used mainly for estimating the impacts of interventions on specific health outcomes.

2.3.4. Adaptation of the GRADE methodology

Modifications of the GRADE method for evidence evaluation, called in this guidelines project GEPHI include:

  • Entering non-randomized experimental evidence as ‘moderate quality’ (but with non-controlled before and after studies more likely to be downgraded), see rationale below;
  • Allowing upgrading by one level for each of the following where present:
    1. If studies carried out using different designs and in widely different settings reported a similar direction of effects (note: statistical heterogeneity led to downgrading), see rationale below.
    2. If there was supportive analogous evidence from other combustion sources, namely AAP, second-hand and active smoking.
  • Assessing the coherence of evidence contributing to different parts of the causal chain.

Details of the methods used for each review are provided in column 4 of Table 2.3, and in the Assessments of quality of evidence for each recommendation (Annexes 47). The GEPHI assessment tables for the two evidence reviews using the PICO format (impacts of intervention on health outcomes; impacts of interventions on kitchen HAP) are presented in tabular format in Annex 5. In the interests of transparency, an explanation is provided in Methods used for evidence assessment available at http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc of how comparison between the standard GRADE and the GEPHI assessments can be made.

Rationale for assessment of strength of non-randomized experimental studies

Experimental studies, even if non-randomized, were judged to provide stronger evidence for these guidelines, for the following reasons.

Their main application was provision of evidence on the impact of improved stoves and cleaner fuels on household air pollution and personal exposure levels. The available studies fall into two main groups:

  • Those using cross-sectional or other designs in which comparison is made between homes that have started using the intervention fuel/technology mostly of their own volition and at their own expense with those continuing to use traditional methods.
  • Those using experimental designs where the new fuel/technology has been introduced into the home as part of a project or study, and comparison can be made using the home as its own control, and/or with parallel groups of control homes, where available.

The GDG judged that the first approach provides weaker evidence because the decision to adopt improved fuels/technologies is very strongly associated with socioeconomic and other development-related factors. These, in turn, may influence the way the new technology is used. These factors may differ markedly between groups of homes in the first study design and can (at best) be only partly controlled for. In the second study design these factors are controlled for by virtue of the house being its own control.

Nonetheless, factors such as seasonal practices and numbers of family members being cooked for will change over time. In the better quality experimental studies, these factors have been recorded and controlled for. Non-randomized experimental studies that had not examined or addressed these issues and were therefore subject to bias were downgraded in the GEPHI assessment.

Rationale for upgrading with consistency of effect across differing settings and study designs

This draws on the Hill viewpoint which refers to the importance of broadly the same answer being found in quite a wide variety of situations and techniques (20). For the diverse sets of epidemiological studies reviewed for the current guidelines, techniques has been interpreted as study designs (21).

2.3.5. Determining the strength of recommendations

The GDG used the decision tables for strength of recommendations to agree on the quality of evidence and certainty about harms and benefits, values and preferences, feasibility and resource implications and drew on these domains to set the strength of the recommendations.

These tables are further described in Methods used for evidence assessment available at: http://www.who.int/indoorair/guidelines/hhfc, and the complete versions are presented in Annexes 47.

The strength of the recommendation was set as either:

  • strong: the guideline development group agrees that the quality of the evidence combined with certainty about the values, preferences, benefits and feasibility of this recommendation means it should be implemented in most circumstances; or
  • conditional: there was less certainty about the combined quality of evidence and values, preferences, benefits and feasibility of this type of recommendation meaning there may be circumstances or settings in which it will not apply.

2.3.6. Procedure for group decisions

All decisions were reached by consensus, either at the GDG meetings or through the WHO-hosted EZCollab web facility which was used for finalizing wording of the recommendations, and responding to the external peer review comments on the recommendations. It was agreed at the beginning of the GDG meeting that, should there be disagreement a vote would be taken and a two thirds majority would be required for a decision to be carried.

Copyright © World Health Organization 2014.

All rights reserved. Publications of the World Health Organization are available on the WHO website (www.who.int) or can be purchased from WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel.: +41 22 791 3264; fax: +41 22 791 4857; e-mail: tni.ohw@sredrokoob).

Requests for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications –whether for sale or for non-commercial distribution– should be addressed to WHO Press through the WHO website (www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/index.html).

Bookshelf ID: NBK264281

Views

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...