| Literature DB >> 28820452 |
Hiromitsu Kobayashi1, Chorong Song2, Harumi Ikei3,4, Bum-Jin Park5, Juyoung Lee6, Takahide Kagawa7, Yoshifumi Miyazaki8.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of a forest environment on salivary cortisol concentration, particularly on the characteristics of its distribution. The participants were 348 young male subjects. The experimental sites were 34 forests and 34 urban areas across Japan. The subjects viewed the landscape (forest or urban environment) for a period of 15 min while sitting in a chair. Saliva was sampled from the participants at the end of this 15-min period and then analyzed for cortisol concentration. Differences in the skewness and kurtosis of the distributions between the two environments were tested by performing a permutation test. The cortisol concentrations exhibited larger skewness (0.76) and kurtosis (3.23) in a forest environment than in an urban environment (skewness = 0.49; kurtosis = 2.47), and these differences were statistically significant. The cortisol distribution exhibited a more peaked and longer right-tailed curve in a forest environment than in an urban environment.Entities:
Keywords: distribution; forest environment; population approach; salivary cortisol
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28820452 PMCID: PMC5580633 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14080931
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Demographics of the participants (n = 348).
| Variable | Age (Year) | Height (m) | Body Mass (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | 28 | 1.87 | 104 |
| min | 20 | 1.58 | 42 |
| mean | 21.7 | 1.72 | 64.2 |
| SD | 1.6 | 0.05 | 9.7 |
SD: standard deviation.
Figure 1Histogram showing the salivary cortisol concentrations in urban and forest environments. The frequency of subjects with a higher cortisol concentration was lower in a forest environment compared to that in an urban environment.
Distribution characteristics of salivary cortisol measurements in urban and forest environments.
| Variable | Urban Environment | Forest Environment | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| mean (nmol/L) | 7.98 | 6.88 | |
| median (nmol/L) | 7.45 | 6.35 | |
| SD (nmol/L) | 3.33 | 2.75 | |
| CV (%) | 40.8 | 38.5 | |
| Q1 | 5.79 | 4.97 | |
| Q3 | 9.93 | 8.55 | |
| IQR (nmol/L) | 4.14 | 3.59 | |
| skewness | 0.49 | 0.76 | |
| kurtosis | 2.47 | 3.23 |
SD: standard deviation; CV: coefficient of variation; Q1: quartile 1 (25th percentile); Q3: quartile 3 (75th percentile); IQR: interquartile range; Skewness: a measure of symmetry of distribution; Kurtosis: a measure of whether the distribution curve is peaked (positive) or flat (negative) relative to the normal distribution. Differences between urban and forest environments were tested by a permutation test.
Figure 2Histogram showing the differences in cortisol concentrations between urban and forest environments. Approximately 60% (n = 209) of the participants exhibited decreased cortisol concentrations in a forest environment, and the remaining 40% (n = 139) exhibited increased (n = 118) or unchanged (n = 21) cortisol concentrations.