Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Nov 23.
Published in final edited form as: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2018 May 23;28(4):400–410. doi: 10.1038/s41370-018-0024-2

Table 5.

Logistic regression for odds of being in the top quartile for average PM2.5 (µg/m3) controlling for kerosene and wood, cooking fuel behaviors, and other sources of HAP among households in low-income urban homes in Pune, India (n = 163).

   Univariate
OR (95% CI)		 p-value1 Adjusted
OR (95% CI)		 p-value1
Kerosene Use
  No REF REF
  Yes 1.1 (0.9 – 1.3) 0.42 1.1 (0.9 – 2.0) 0.48
Wood Use
  No REF REF
  Yes 1.3 (1.1 – 1.5) 0.0002 1.3 (1.1 – 1.5) 0.005
Log volume of cooking area 0.95 (0.92 – 0.99) 0.01 0.97 (0.94 – 1.0) 0.16
Window always open while cooking
  No REF REF
  Yes 0.9 (0.7 – 0.97) 0.02 0.9 (0.8 – 1.0) 0.054
Door always open while cooking
  No REF REF
  Yes 1.0 (0.9 – 1.1) 0.95 0.9 (0.8 – 1.0) 0.16
Construction material of the kitchen
  All corrugated metal REF REF
  Roof or walls corrugated metal 0.9 (0.7 – 1.8) 0.21 1.0 (0.8 – 1.3) 0.79
  All concrete or brick 0.7 (0.6 – 0.9) 0.0002 0.9 (0.7 – 1.1) 0.14
Burning incense
  No REF REF
  Yes 1.2 (1.02 – 1.4) 0.03 1.1 (1.0 – 1.3) 0.03
Use mosquito coils
  No REF REF
  Yes 1.2 (1.1 – 1.4) 0.01 1.3 (1.1 – 1.6) 0.003
Winter
  No REF REF
  Yes 1.2 (1.1 – 1.4) 0.002 1.2 (1.1 – 1.4) 0.004
1

Bolded values are statistically significant at p < 0.05