Impact of randomly assigned "pay-as-you-go" liquefied petroleum gas prices on energy use for cooking: Experimental pilot evidence from rural Rwanda.

The disease burden related to air pollution from traditional solid-fuel cooking practices in low- and middle-income countries impacts millions of people globally. Although the use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) fuel for cooking can meaningfully reduce household air pollution concentrations, major barriers, including affordability and accessibility, have limited widespread adoption. Using a randomized controlled trial, our objective was to evaluate the association between the cost and use of LPG among 23 rural Rwandan households. We provided a 2-burner LPG stove with accessories and incorporated a "pay-as-you-go" (PAYG) LPG service model that included fuel delivery. PAYG services remove the large up-front cost of cylinder refills by integrating "smart meter" technology that allows participants to pay in incremental amounts, as needed. We assigned three randomized discounted prices for LPG to each household at ~4-week intervals over a 12-week period. We modeled the relationship between randomized PAYG LPG price and use (standardized to monthly periods), analyzing effect modification by relative household wealth. A 1000 Rwandan Franc (about 1 USD at the time of the study) increase in LPG price/kg was associated with a 4.1 kg/month decrease in use (95% confidence interval [CI]: -6.7, -1.6; n=69 observations). Wealth modified this association; we observed a 9.7 kg/month reduction (95% CI: -14.8, -4.5) among wealthier households and a 2.5 kg/month reduction (95% CI: -5.3, 0.3) among lower-wealth households (p-interaction=0.01). The difference in price sensitivity was driven by higher LPG use among wealthier households at more heavily discounted prices; from an 80% to 10% discount, wealthy households used 17.5 to 5.3 kg/month and less wealthy households used 6.2 to 3.1 kg/month. Our pilot-level experimental evidence of PAYG LPG in a rural low-resource setting suggests that further exploration of subsidized pricing varied by household wealth is needed to ensure future policy initiatives can achieve targets without exacerbating inequities.

Factors affecting urinary organophosphate pesticide metabolite levels among Californian agricultural community members.

Organophosphate (OP) pesticides are widely used in California for agricultural pest and weed control despite their well-documented adverse health effects among infants, children, and adults. We sought to identify factors affecting urinary OP metabolites among families living in high-exposure communities. Our study included 80 children and adults who lived within 61 m (200 ft) of agricultural fields in the Central Valley of California in January and June 2019, which are pesticide non-spraying and spraying seasons, respectively. We collected one urine sample per participant during each visit to measure dialkyl phosphate (DAP) metabolites; these were coupled with in-person surveys to identify health, household, sociodemographic, pesticide exposure, and occupational risk factors. We used a data-driven, best subsets regression approach to identify key factors that influenced urinary DAPs. Participants were mostly Hispanic/Latino(a) (97.5 %), over half were female (57.5 %), and most households reported having a member who worked in agriculture (70.6 %). Among the 149 urine samples suitable for analysis, DAP metabolites were detected in 48.0 % and 40.5 % of samples during January and June, respectively. Total diethyl alkylphosphates (EDE) were only detected in 4.7 % (n = 7) of samples, but total dimethyl alkylphosphates (EDM) were detected in 41.6 % (n = 62) of samples. No differences were observed in urinary DAP levels by visit month or by occupational exposure to pesticides. Best subsets regression identified several individual- and household-level variables that influenced both urinary EDM and total DAPs: the number of years spent living at the current address, household use of chemical products to control mice/rodents, and seasonal employment status. Among adults only, we identified educational attainment (for total DAPs) and age category (for EDM) as significant factors. Our study found consistent urinary DAP metabolites among participants, regardless of spraying season, and identified potential mitigating factors that members of vulnerable populations can implement to protect their health against OP exposure.

A risk assessment tool for resumption of research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic for field trials in low resource settings.

RATIONALE: The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 has suspended many non-COVID-19 related research activities. Where restarting research activities is permitted, investigators need to evaluate the risks and benefits of resuming data collection and adapt procedures to minimize risk. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the multicountry Household Air Pollution Intervention (HAPIN) trial conducted in rural, low-resource settings, we developed a framework to assess the risk of each trial activity and to guide protective measures. Our goal is to maximize the integrity of reseach aims while minimizing infection risk based on the latest scientific understanding of the virus. METHODS: We drew on a combination of expert consultations, risk assessment frameworks, institutional guidance and literature to develop our framework. We then systematically graded clinical, behavioral, laboratory and field environmental health research activities in four countries for both adult and child subjects using this framework. National and local government recommendations provided the minimum safety guidelines for our work. RESULTS: Our framework assesses risk based on staff proximity to the participant, exposure time between staff and participants, and potential viral aerosolization while performing the activity. For each activity, one of four risk levels, from minimal to unacceptable, is assigned and guidance on protective measures is provided. Those activities that can potentially aerosolize the virus are deemed the highest risk. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a systematic, procedure-specific approach to risk assessment for each trial activity, we were able to protect our participants and research team and to uphold our ability to deliver on the research commitments we have made to our staff, participants, local communities, and funders. This framework can be tailored to other research studies conducted in similar settings during the current pandemic, as well as potential future outbreaks with similar transmission dynamics. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov NCT02944682 on October 26. 2016 .