ArticleToxics2022
Determinants of Solid Fuel Use and Emission Risks among Households: Insights from Limpopo, South Africa.
Article in Toxics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Emissions from residential solid fuels reduce ambient air quality and cause indoor air pollution resulting in adverse human health. The traditional solid fuels used for cooking include coal, straws, dung, and wood, with the latter identified as the prevalent energy source in developing countries. Emissions from such fuel sources appear to be significant hazards and risk factors for asthma and other respiratory diseases. This study aimed at reporting factors influencing the choice of dominant solid fuel for cooking and determine the emission risk from such solid fuel in three villages of Phalaborwa, Limpopo province, South Africa. The study used descriptive analysis to show the relationship between the socio-economic variables and the choice of cooking fuel at the household level. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was used further to detect and represent underlying structures in the choice of dominant fuels. MCA shows the diversity and existing relationship of how variables are related analytically and graphically. Generalised linear logistic weight estimation procedure (WLS) was also used to investigate the factors influencing choice of fuel used and the inherent emission risks. In the three villages, wood was the prevalent cooking fuel with 76.8% of participant households using it during the summer and winter seasons. Variables such as low monthly income, level of education, and system of burning are revealed as strong predictors of wood fuel usage. Moreover, income, water heating energy, types of wood, and number of cooking hours are significant (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.