Dataset Information

Industrial odour pollution and human health: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the association between residential or occupational short- and long-term exposure to odour pollution from industrial sources and the health status of the exposed population.

Methods

The searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE and Scopus in April 2021. Exposure to an environmental odour from industrial sources in population resident near the source or in workers was considered. We considered outcomes for which there was a biological plausibility, such as wheezing and asthma, cough, headache, nausea and vomiting (primary outcomes). We also included stress-related symptoms and novel outcomes (e.g. mood states). Risk of bias was evaluated using the OHAT tool. For primary outcomes, when at least 3 studies provided effect estimates by comparing exposed subjects versus not exposed, we pooled the study-specific estimates of odour-related effect using random effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with Higgins I².

Results

Thirty studies were eligible for this review, mainly cross-sectional (n = 23). Only one study involved school-age children and two studies involved workers. Only five studies reported odour effects on objective laboratory or clinical outcomes. Animal Feeding Operations and waste were the most common industrial sources. The overall odds ratios in exposed versus not exposed population were 1.15 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.29) for headache (7 studies), 1.09 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.30) for nausea/vomiting (7 studies), and 1.27 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.44) for cough/phlegm (5 studies). Heterogeneity was a moderate concern. Overall, the body of evidence was affected by a definitely high risk of bias in exposure and outcome assessment since most studies used self-reported information.

Conclusions

Findings underline the public health importance of odour pollution for population living nearby industrial odour sources. The limited evidence for most outcomes supports the need for high quality epidemiological studies on the association between odour pollution and its effects on human health.

SUBMITTER: Guadalupe-Fernandez V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8459501 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background3 billion people worldwide rely on polluting fuels and technologies for domestic cooking and heating. We estimate the global, regional, and national health burden associated with exposure to household air pollution.MethodsFor the systematic review and meta-analysis, we systematically searched four databases for studies published from database inception to April 2, 2020, that evaluated the risk of adverse cardiorespiratory, paediatric, and maternal outcomes from exposure to household air pollution, compared with no exposure. We used a random-effects model to calculate disease-specific relative risk (RR) meta-estimates. Household air pollution exposure was defined as use of polluting fuels (coal, wood, charcoal, agricultural wastes, animal dung, or kerosene) for household cooking or heating. Temporal trends in mortality and disease burden associated with household air pollution, as measured by disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), were estimated from 2000 to 2017 using exposure prevalence data from 183 of 193 UN member states. 95% CIs were estimated by propagating uncertainty from the RR meta-estimates, prevalence of household air pollution exposure, and disease-specific mortality and burden estimates using a simulation-based approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019125060.Findings476 studies (15·5 million participants) from 123 nations (99 [80%] of which were classified as low-income and middle-income) met the inclusion criteria. Household air pollution was positively associated with asthma (RR 1·23, 95% CI 1·11-1·36), acute respiratory infection in both adults (1·53, 1·22-1·93) and children (1·39, 1·29-1·49), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1·70, 1·47-1·97), lung cancer (1·69, 1·44-1·98), and tuberculosis (1·26, 1·08-1·48); cerebrovascular disease (1·09, 1·04-1·14) and ischaemic heart disease (1·10, 1·09-1·11); and low birthweight (1·36, 1·19-1·55) and stillbirth (1·22, 1·06-1·41); as well as with under-5 (1·25, 1·18-1·33), respiratory (1·19, 1·18-1·20), and cardiovascular (1·07, 1·04-1·11) mortality. Household air pollution was associated with 1·8 million (95% CI 1·1-2·7) deaths and 60·9 million (34·6-93·3) DALYs in 2017, with the burden overwhelmingly experienced in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs; 60·8 million [34·6-92·9] DALYs) compared with high-income countries (0·09 million [0·01-0·40] DALYs). From 2000, mortality associated with household air pollution had reduced by 36% (95% CI 29-43) and disease burden by 30% (25-36), with the greatest reductions observed in higher-income nations.InterpretationThe burden of cardiorespiratory, paediatric, and maternal diseases associated with household air pollution has declined worldwide but remains high in the world's poorest regions. Urgent integrated health and energy strategies are needed to reduce the adverse health impact of household air pollution, especially in LMICs.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Wellcome Trust.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the role of air pollutants in risk of dementia, considering differences by study factors that could influence findings.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Psycinfo, and OVID Medline from database inception through July 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies that included adults (≥18 years), a longitudinal follow-up, considered US Environmental Protection Agency criteria air pollutants and proxies of traffic pollution, averaged exposure over a year or more, and reported associations between ambient pollutants and clinical dementia. Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E) tool. A meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung standard errors was done when at least three studies for a given pollutant used comparable approaches.Results2080 records identified 51 studies for inclusion. Most studies were at high risk of bias, although in many cases bias was towards the null. 14 studies could be meta-analysed for particulate matter <2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5). The overall hazard ratio per 2 μg/m3 PM2.5 was 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.09). The hazard ratio among seven studies that used active case ascertainment was 1.42 (1.00 to 2.02) and among seven studies that used passive case ascertainment was 1.03 (0.98 to 1.07). The overall hazard ratio per 10 μg/m3 nitrogen dioxide was 1.02 ((0.98 to 1.06); nine studies) and per 10 μg/m3 nitrogen oxide was 1.05 ((0.98 to 1.13); five studies). Ozone had no clear association with dementia (hazard ratio per 5 μg/m3 was 1.00 (0.98 to 1.05); four studies).ConclusionPM2.5 might be a risk factor for dementia, as well as nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen oxide, although with more limited data. The meta-analysed hazard ratios are subject to limitations that require interpretation with caution. Outcome ascertainment approaches differ across studies and each exposure assessment approach likely is only a proxy for causally relevant exposure in relation to clinical dementia outcomes. Studies that evaluate critical periods of exposure and pollutants other than PM2.5, and studies that actively assess all participants for outcomes are needed. Nonetheless, our results can provide current best estimates for use in burden of disease and regulatory setting efforts.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021277083.

Project description:BackgroundThe adverse effects of air pollution on human health include many diseases and health conditions associated with mortality, morbidity and disability. One example of these outcomes that can be translated into economic costs is the number of days of restricted activity. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of outdoor exposure to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 and 2.5 μm (PM10, PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3), on restricted activity days.MethodsObservational epidemiological studies with different study designs were included, and pooled relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated for an increase of 10 μg/m3 of the pollutant of interest. Random-effects models were chosen because of the environmental differences between the studies. Heterogeneity was estimated using prediction intervals (PI) and I-Squared (I2) values, while risk of bias was assessed using a tool developed by the World Health Organization specifically designed for air pollution studies, and based on different domains. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed where possible. The protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022339607).ResultsWe included 18 articles in the quantitative analysis. Associations between pollutants and restricted activity days in time-series studies of short-term exposures, measured as work-loss days, school-loss days, or both were significant for PM10 (RR: 1.0191; 95%CI: 1.0058-1.0326; 80%PI: 0.9979-1.0408; I2: 71%) and PM2.5 (RR: 1.0166; 95%CI: 1.0050-1.0283; 80%PI: 0.9944-1.0397; I2: 99%), but not for NO2 or O3. Some degree of heterogeneity between studies was observed, but sensitivity analysis showed no differences in the direction of the pooled relative risks when studies with a high risk of bias were excluded. Cross-sectional studies also showed significant associations for PM2.5 and restricted activity days. We could not perform the analysis for long-term exposures because only two studies analysed this type of association.ConclusionRestricted activity days and related outcomes were associated with some of the pollutants under evaluation, as shown in studies with different designs. In some cases, we were able to calculate pooled relative risks that can be used for quantitative modelling.