Andreas Seidler1, Janice Hegewald2, Anna Lene Seidler3, Melanie Schubert2, Mandy Wagner2, Patrik Dröge2, Eva Haufe2, Jochen Schmitt2, Enno Swart4, Hajo Zeeb5. 1. Institute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. Electronic address: Andreas.Seidler@mailbox.tu-dresden.de. 2. Institute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany. 3. Institute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany; Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 4. Institute of Social Medicine and Health Economics, Otto-von-Guericke-University, Magdeburg, Germany. 5. Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz-Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the relationship between traffic noise and depression providing inconclusive results. This large case-control study is the first to assess and directly compare depression risks by aircraft, road traffic and railway noise. METHODS: The study population included individuals aged ≥40 years that were insured by three large statutory health insurance funds and were living in the region of Frankfurt international airport. Address-specific exposure to aircraft, road and railway traffic noise in 2005 was estimated. Based on insurance claims and prescription data, 77,295 cases with a new clinical depression diagnosis between 2006 and 2010 were compared with 578,246 control subjects. RESULTS: For road traffic noise, a linear exposure-risk relationship was found with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.17 (95% CI=1.10-1.25) for 24-h continuous sound levels ≥70dB. For aircraft noise, the risk estimates reached a maximum OR of 1.23 (95% CI=1.19-1.28) at 50-55dB and decreased at higher exposure categories. For railway noise, risk estimates peaked at 60-65dB (OR=1.15, 95% CI=1.08-1.22). The highest OR of 1.42 (95% CI=1.33-1.52) was found for a combined exposure to noise above 50dB from all three sources. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that traffic noise exposure might lead to depression. As a potential explanation for the decreasing risks at high traffic noise levels, vulnerable people might actively cope with noise (e.g. insulate or move away). Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the relationship between traffic noise and depression providing inconclusive results. This large case-control study is the first to assess and directly compare depression risks by aircraft, road traffic and railway noise. METHODS: The study population included individuals aged ≥40 years that were insured by three large statutory health insurance funds and were living in the region of Frankfurt international airport. Address-specific exposure to aircraft, road and railway traffic noise in 2005 was estimated. Based on insurance claims and prescription data, 77,295 cases with a new clinical depression diagnosis between 2006 and 2010 were compared with 578,246 control subjects. RESULTS: For road traffic noise, a linear exposure-risk relationship was found with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.17 (95% CI=1.10-1.25) for 24-h continuous sound levels ≥70dB. For aircraft noise, the risk estimates reached a maximum OR of 1.23 (95% CI=1.19-1.28) at 50-55dB and decreased at higher exposure categories. For railway noise, risk estimates peaked at 60-65dB (OR=1.15, 95% CI=1.08-1.22). The highest OR of 1.42 (95% CI=1.33-1.52) was found for a combined exposure to noise above 50dB from all three sources. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that traffic noise exposure might lead to depression. As a potential explanation for the decreasing risks at high traffic noise levels, vulnerable people might actively cope with noise (e.g. insulate or move away). Copyright Â
Authors: Thomas Münzel; Mette Sørensen; Frank Schmidt; Erwin Schmidt; Sebastian Steven; Swenja Kröller-Schön; Andreas Daiber Journal: Antioxid Redox Signal Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 8.401
Authors: Andreas Seidler; Janice Hegewald; Anna Lene Seidler; Melanie Schubert; Hajo Zeeb Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mehdi S Hazari; Kaitlyn Phillips; Kimberly M Stratford; Malek Khan; Leslie Thompson; Wendy Oshiro; George Hudson; David W Herr; Aimen K Farraj Journal: Cardiovasc Toxicol Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 3.231
Authors: Jorunn Evandt; Bente Oftedal; Norun Hjertager Krog; Svetlana Skurtveit; Per Nafstad; Per E Schwarze; Eva Skovlund; Danny Houthuijs; Gunn Marit Aasvang Journal: Environ Health Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Chloé Sieber; Martina S Ragettli; Mark Brink; Olaniyan Toyib; Roslyn Baatjies; Apolline Saucy; Nicole Probst-Hensch; Mohamed Aqiel Dalvie; Martin Röösli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-10-20 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Clémence Baudin; Marie Lefèvre; Patricia Champelovier; Jacques Lambert; Bernard Laumon; Anne-Sophie Evrard Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 3.390