Cargando…

Influence of PM(1) and PM(2.5) on lung function parameters in healthy schoolchildren—a panel study

To evaluate lung function responses to short-term indoor PM(1) and PM(2.5) concentrations, we conducted a panel study of healthy schoolchildren aged 13–14 years. The following lung function parameters FVC, FEV(1), PEF, and mid expiratory flows MEF(25), MEF(50), and MEF(75) were measured in 141 schoo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zwozdziak, A., Sówka, I., Willak-Janc, E., Zwozdziak, J., Kwiecińska, K., Balińska-Miśkiewicz, W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110587/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27628915
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7605-1
Descripción
Sumario:To evaluate lung function responses to short-term indoor PM(1) and PM(2.5) concentrations, we conducted a panel study of healthy schoolchildren aged 13–14 years. The following lung function parameters FVC, FEV(1), PEF, and mid expiratory flows MEF(25), MEF(50), and MEF(75) were measured in 141 schoolchildren of the secondary school in Wroclaw, Poland in years 2009–2010. On days when spirometry tests were conducted, simultaneously, PM(1) and PM(2.5) samples were collected inside the school premises. Information about differentiating factors for children including smoking parents, sex, living close to busy streets, dust, mold, and pollen allergies were collected by means of questionnaires. To account for repeated measurements, the method of generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used. The GEE models for the entire group of children revealed the adverse effects (p < 0.05) of PM(1) and PM(2.5). Small differences in effects estimates per interquartile range (IQR) of PM(1) and PM(2.5) on MEF(25) (5.1 and 4.8 %), MEF(50) (3.7 and 3.9 %), MEF(75) (3.5 and 3.6 %) and FEV(1) (1.3 and 1.0 %) imply that PM(1) was likely the component of PM(2.5) that might have a principal health effect on these lung function parameters. However, the reduction of FVC and PEF per IQR for PM(2.5) (2.1 and 5.2 %, respectively) was higher than for PM(1) (1.0 and 4.4 %, respectively). Adjustment for potential confounders did not change the unadjusted analysis.