Evidence Hub

Long-Term Exposure to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and Lung Function in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

Cui Guo, G. Hoek, Ly-yun Chang, Ya-Cong Bo, Changqing Lin, Bo Huang, T. Chan, Tony Tam et al.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 2019

24,544 participants · 66 citations

Abstract

Background: The association between long-term exposure to ambient fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5μm (PM2.5) and lung function in young people remains uncertain, particularly in Asia, where air pollution is generally a serious problem. Objectives: This study investigated the association between long-term exposure to ambient PM2.5 and lung function in Taiwanese children, adolescents, and young adults. Methods: This study comprised 24,544 participants 6–24 years of age, with 33,506 medical observations made between 2000 and 2014. We used a spatiotemporal model to estimate PM2.5 concentrations at participants’ addresses. Spirometry parameters, i.e., forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and maximum midexpiratory flow (MMEF), were determined. A generalized linear mixed model was used to examine the associations between long-term exposure to ambient PM2.5 and lung function. The odds ratios (ORs) of poor lung function were also calculated after adjusting for a range of covariates. Results: Every 10-μg/m3 increase in the 2-y average PM2.5 concentration was associated with decreases of 2.22% [95% confidence interval (CI): −2.60, −1.85], 2.94 (95% CI: −3.36, −2.51), and 2.79% (95% CI: −3.15, −2.41) in the FVC, FEV1, and MMEF, respectively. Furthermore, it was associated with a 20% increase in the prevalence of poor lung function (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.29). Conclusions: Two-year ambient PM2.5 concentrations were inversely…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 24,544 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free