| Literature DB >> 29137207 |
Yuzhou Gu1, Hualiang Lin2, Tao Liu3, Jianpeng Xiao4, Weilin Zeng5, Zhihao Li6, Xiaojuan Lv7, Wenjun Ma8.
Abstract
Air pollution is now a significant environmental issue in China. To better understand the health impacts of ambient air pollution, this study investigated the potential interaction between PM10 and NO₂ on mortality in Guangzhou, China. Time series data of daily non-accidental mortality and concentrations of PM10 and NO₂ from 2006 to 2010 were collected. Based on generalized additive model, we developed two models (bivariate model and stratified model) to explore the interaction both qualitatively and quantitatively. At lag of 0-2 days, greater interactive effects between PM10 and NO₂ were presented in the graphs. Positive modified effects were also found between the two pollutants on total non-accidental death and cardiovascular death. When the NO₂ concentration was at a high level (>76.14 μg/m³), PM10 showed the greatest excess relative risk percentage (ERR%) for total non-accidental mortality (0.46, 95% CI: 0.13-0.79) and cardiovascular disease mortality (0.61, 95% CI: 0.06-1.16) for each 10 μg/m³ increase. During the period of high PM10 concentration (>89.82 μg/m³), NO₂ demonstrated its strongest effect for total non-accidental mortality (ERR%: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.42-1.42) and cardiovascular disease mortality (ERR%: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.38-2.03). Our results suggest a positive interaction between PM10 and NO₂ on non-accidental mortality in Guangzhou.Entities:
Keywords: Guangzhou; air pollution; generalized additive model; interaction; mortality
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29137207 PMCID: PMC5708020 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14111381
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Administrative division of Guangzhou City and the locations of the monitoring stations. This figure illustrates the locations of the study area (Yuexiu District and Liwan District) and the monitoring stations which measured the data of air pollutants and meteorological factors used in the present study.
Distribution of daily mortality, air pollution concentrations and meteorological factors in Yuexiu and Liwan districts, Guangzhou, China (2006–2010).
| Variables | Mean | SD | Percentiles | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min. | Max. | ||||||
| Daily death counts | |||||||
| Total non-accidental | 32.66 | 7.88 | 11.00 | 27.00 | 32.00 | 37.00 | 81.00 |
| Cardiovascular | 10.92 | 4.24 | 1.00 | 8.00 | 10.00 | 13.00 | 36.00 |
| Cerebrovascular | 3.92 | 2.16 | 0.00 | 2.00 | 4.00 | 5.00 | 13.00 |
| Air pollution concentrations (μg/m3) | |||||||
| PM10 | 71.79 | 40.17 | 8.33 | 43.58 | 63.00 | 91.33 | 307.50 |
| NO2 | 60.31 | 29.63 | 12.96 | 38.40 | 53.87 | 76.17 | 199.40 |
| Meteorological factors | |||||||
| Mean temperature (°C) | 22.89 | 6.19 | 5.40 | 18.60 | 24.40 | 27.80 | 33.50 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 71.14 | 13.04 | 25.00 | 64.00 | 72.00 | 81.00 | 99.00 |
Pearson’s correlations between daily air pollution concentrations and meteorological factors (2006–2010).
| Variables | PM10 | NO2 | Mean Temperature | Relative Humidity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM10 | 1.00 | 0.75 | −0.16 | −0.16 |
| NO2 | 1.00 | −0.15 | −0.07 | |
| Mean temperature | 1.00 | 0.17 | ||
| Relative humidity | 1.00 |
All coefficients are statistically significant.
Figure 2Three-dimension scatter plots of daily PM10, NO2 and mortality (2006–2010). This figure displays the correlation between daily PM10 concentrations, daily NO2 concentrations and daily non-accidental death counts in a three-dimensional way. The subplots a, b and c in this figure are the scatter plots between air pollution concentrations and three subsets of mortality (non-accidental death, cardiovascular death and cerebrovascular death), respectively.
ERRs (%) with 95% confidence intervals for mortality for each 10 μg/m3 increment in PM10 and NO2 concentrations at different lag time.
| Death Causes | ERR% (95% CI) of PM10 | ERR% (95% CI) of NO2 |
|---|---|---|
| Total non-accidental | ||
| Lag 0 | ||
| Lag 1 | ||
| Lag 2 | ||
| Lag 3 | −0.03 (−0.28, 0.22) | −0.01 (−0.36, 0.35) |
| Lag 0–1 | ||
| Lag 0–2 | ||
| Lag 0–3 | ||
| Cardiovascular | ||
| Lag 0 | 0.27 (−0.16, 0.70) | |
| Lag 1 | ||
| Lag 2 | ||
| Lag 3 | 0.06 (−0.35, 0.47) | 0.06 (−0.53, 0.66) |
| Lag 0–1 | ||
| Lag 0–2 | ||
| Lag 0–3 | ||
| Cerebrovascular | ||
| Lag 0 | 0.24 (−0.42, 0.91) | 0.47 (−0.45, 1.40) |
| Lag 1 | 0.56 (−0.09, 1.22) | 0.94 (−0.01, 1.89) |
| Lag 2 | ||
| Lag 3 | 0.08 (−0.54, 0.71) | 0.02 (−0.88, 0.93) |
| Lag 0–1 | 0.54 (−0.20, 1.29) | 0.89 (−0.14, 1.93) |
| Lag 0–2 | ||
| Lag 0–3 | 1.08 (−0.12, 2.28) |
* The statistically significant effects are in bold.
Figure 3Joint effect graphs of lag 0–2 days PM10 and NO2 on mortality. This figure visualizes the strength change of excess relative risk percentage (ERR%) of PM10 and NO2 concentrations at lag of 0–2 days on mortality. Subgraphs a, b and c of the figure are joint effect graphs of the two air pollutants for three subsets of mortality (non-accidental death, cardiovascular death and cerebrovascular death), respectively.
ERRs (%) with 95% confidence intervals for mortality for each 10 μg/m3 increment of lag 0–2 days PM10 across NO2 levels.
| NO2 Level | Number of Days | ERR% (95% CI) of Lag 0−2 Days PM10 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Non-Accidental Death | Cardiovascular Death | Cerebrovascular Death | ||
| Low | 455 | −0.16 (−0.90, 0.58) | −0.32 (−1.56, 0.94) | 0.67 (−1.26, 2.63) |
| Medium | 911 | 0.02 (−0.43, 0.47) | 0.16 (−0.60, 0.92) | 0.75 (−0.40, 1.92) |
| High | 457 | |||
* The statistically significant effects are in bold. Cut-off points of NO2 level are the 25th and 75th percentiles of lag 0–2 concentration (39.90 and 76.14 μg/m3).
ERRs (%) with 95% confidence intervals for mortality for each 10 μg/m3 increment of lag 0–2 days NO2 across PM10 levels.
| PM10 Level | Number of Days | ERR% (95% CI) of Lag 0–2 Days NO2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Non-Accidental Death | Cardiovascular Death | Cerebrovascular Death | ||
| Low | 456 | 0.70 (−0.33, 1.74) | 1.20 (−0.52, 2.96) | 0.13 (−2.47, 2.80) |
| Medium | 910 | 0.98 (−0.17, 2.15) | 0.38 (−1.34, 2.13) | |
| High | 457 | 1.04 (−0.18, 2.28) | ||
* The statistically significant effects are in bold. Cut-off points of PM10 level are the 25th and 75th percentiles of lag 0–2 concentration (47.04 and 89.82 μg/m3).