Impact of short-term exposure to air pollution on natural mortality and vulnerable populations: a multi-city case-crossover analysis

[helvella]

This post a little earlier by Charlie-Farley

change in environment change in nails

healthunlocked.com/thyroidu...

... nudged me into remembering a paper I noticed this morning.

Given the many reasons to consider clean air (the London ULEZ being one of the high profile ones but there are many more), that air pollution might be especially bad for those with pre-existing conditions - including thyroid affections - is another concern.

Maybe living in areas with less pollution, and using some form of air filtration, is desirable, and to be recommended?

Impact of short-term exposure to air pollution on natural mortality and vulnerable populations: a multi-city case-crossover analysis in Belgium

Claire Demoury, Raf Aerts, Finaba Berete, Wouter Lefebvre, Arno Pauwels, Charlotte Vanpoucke, Johan Van der Heyden & Eva M. De Clercq

Environmental Health volume 23, Article number: 11 (2024)

Abstract

Background

The adverse effect of air pollution on mortality is well documented worldwide but the identification of more vulnerable populations at higher risk of death is still limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between natural mortality (overall and cause-specific) and short-term exposure to five air pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, NO2, O3 and black carbon) and identify potential vulnerable populations in Belgium.

Methods

We used a time-stratified case-crossover design with conditional logistic regressions to assess the relationship between mortality and air pollution in the nine largest Belgian agglomerations. Then, we performed a random-effect meta-analysis of the pooled results and described the global air pollution-mortality association. We carried out stratified analyses by individual characteristics (sex, age, employment, hospitalization days and chronic preexisting health conditions), living environment (levels of population density, built-up areas) and season of death to identify effect modifiers of the association.

Results

The study included 304,754 natural deaths registered between 2010 and 2015. We found percentage increases for overall natural mortality associated with 10 μg/m3 increases of air pollution levels of 0.6% (95% CI: 0.2%, 1.0%) for PM2.5, 0.4% (0.1%, 0.8%) for PM10, 0.5% (-0.2%, 1.1%) for O3, 1.0% (0.3%, 1.7%) for NO2 and 7.1% (-0.1%, 14.8%) for black carbon. There was also evidence for increases of cardiovascular and respiratory mortality. We did not find effect modification by individual characteristics (sex, age, employment, hospitalization days). However, this study suggested differences in risk of death for people with preexisting conditions (thrombosis, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, diabetes and thyroid affections), season of death (May–September vs October–April) and levels of built-up area in the neighborhood (for NO2).

Conclusions

This work provided evidence for the adverse health effects of air pollution and contributed to the identification of specific population groups. These findings can help to better define public-health interventions and prevention strategies.

Open access here:

ehjournal.biomedcentral.com...

[Charlie-Farley]

I read so much similar stuff when I studied environmental science (with chem) back in the day. All this has been known for decades they are adding detail. Lancaster University had a study a few years ago where they tree lined a busy road into the city centre using very large planters. They found the trees did mitigate air pollution to some extent..

I think we could have intuitively predicted this but sometimes, just sometimes, intuition can be wrong. There will be other studies that will further bolster the call for greening the urban environment. If results are obtained from sound methodology (rather than expert opinion) future studies founded in this will be reliable. Unlike the assumptions and extrapolations that litter SOME (not all ) fields of medical research.

[Beefull8]

I wonder about this when traveling. Do we just avoid places with moderate air quality?

[helvella Administrator in reply to Beefull8]

I have no great desire to go to some of the most polluted places - which helps. But I don't know.

Perhaps the best thing to do is ensure that accurate measurements are made - and then published. So we have the information on which to make our decisions.

If, for example, the indoor air in some places is seen to be particularly bad, then try to get something done. I've always wondered about places like fast-food drive through sites. A queue of slow-moving vehicles, which then wait directly outside windows. Maybe the operators make sure that air always blows outwards?

And in our own houses, is it worth getting air filter devices? Obviously, that represents more "tech" stuff to buy, run, dispose and during its life, feed with filters.

[buddy99 in reply to helvella]

I have an air filter in my bedroom, that I run at night. I think it makes a difference in air quality (totally subjective ) and the white noise helps with sleeping (also totally subjective ). Feeding it with filters is not as bad as it may sound.

[helvella Administrator in reply to buddy99]

I'm really thinking about filters for millions of air filters across the country rather than for an individual bedroom!

[buddy99 in reply to helvella]

Good point! More stuff for the land fill. Sigh!

[helvella Administrator in reply to buddy99]

Ideally, they'd themselves be compostable but the trouble would then be the stuff that they have filtered - carbon, plastics, etc., etc.

[buddy99 in reply to helvella]

We just can't win