| Literature DB >> 29156645 |
Shaohua Gu1, Jun Yang2, Alistair Woodward3, Mengmeng Li4, Tianfeng He5, Aihong Wang6, Beibei Lu7, Xiaobo Liu8, Guozhang Xu9, Qiyong Liu10.
Abstract
Few studies have been conducted to investigate the acute health effects of visibility and haze, which may be regarded as proxy indicators of ambient air pollution. We used a distributed lag non-linear model (DLNM) combined with quasi-Poisson regression to estimate the relationship between visibility, haze and mortality in Ningbo, a coastal city of China. We found that the mortality risk of visibility was statistically significant only on the current day, while the risk of haze and PM10 peaked on the second day and could last for three days. When the visibility was less than 10 km, each 1 km decrease of visibility at lag 0 day was associated with a 0.78% (95% CI: 0.22-1.36%) increase in total mortality and a 1.61% (95% CI: 0.39-2.85%) increase in respiratory mortality. The excess risk of haze at lag 0-2 days on total mortality, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality was 7.76% (95% CI: 3.29-12.42%), 7.73% (95% CI: 0.12-15.92%) and 17.77% (95% CI: 7.64-28.86%), respectively. Greater effects of air pollution were observed during the cold season than in the warm season, and the elderly were at higher risk compared to youths. The effects of visibility and haze were attenuated by single pollutants. These findings suggest that visibility and haze could be used as surrogates of air quality where pollutant data are scarce, and strengthen the evidence to develop policy to control air pollution and protect vulnerable populations.Entities:
Keywords: ambient air pollution; haze; mortality; visibility; vulnerable populations
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29156645 PMCID: PMC5708058 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14111419
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Summary statistics for daily death counts, meteorological factors and air pollution in Ningbo city, during 2011–2013.
| Variables | Mean ± SD | Minimum | Percentiles | Maximum | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25th | 50th | 75th | ||||
| Daily death counts | ||||||
| Total | 99.6 ± 19.9 | 55 | 85 | 96 | 112 | 177 |
| Cardiovascular | 27.6 ± 8.3 | 8 | 22 | 27 | 33 | 60 |
| Respiratory | 16.0 ± 6.6 | 2 | 11 | 15 | 20 | 45 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 56.0 ± 11.4 | 27 | 48 | 55 | 63 | 96 |
| Female | 43.7 ± 11.0 | 19 | 35 | 42 | 51 | 85 |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| <65 | 24.1 ± 5.3 | 10 | 20 | 24 | 28 | 41 |
| ≥65 | 75.6 ± 18.0 | 35 | 62 | 72 | 87 | 143 |
| Meteorological variables | ||||||
| Visibility (km) | 11.9 ± 4.2 | 1.2 | 9.0 | 11.8 | 14.5 | 26.0 |
| Temperature (°C) | 17.6 ± 9.4 | −1.8 | 9.3 | 18.9 | 25.3 | 35.1 |
| Relative humidity (%) | 71.7 ± 12.7 | 30.0 | 63.0 | 71.8 | 81.0 | 97.0 |
| Atmosphere pressure (hPa) | 1015.7 ± 9.1 | 987.0 | 1007.6 | 1016.1 | 1022.7 | 1037.8 |
| Air pollution | ||||||
| PM10 (μg/m3) | 82.1 ± 53.4 | 15 | 47 | 69 | 104 | 554 |
| SO2 (μg/m3) | 22.5 ± 17.6 | 2 | 10 | 17 | 31 | 131 |
| NO2 (μg/m3) | 45.8 ± 22.7 | 1 | 29 | 44 | 61 | 154 |
Figure 1Boxplots of monthly death counts, PM10 concentration, temperature, relative humidity, air pressure and average visibility in Ningbo, China, 2011–2013.
Boxplots of monthly death counts, PM10 concentration, temperature, relative humidity, air pressure and average visibility in Ningbo, China, 2011–2013.
Figure 2Relative risk (RR, 95% CI) for mortality with per 1 km decrease of visibility (A), in haze days (B) and per 10 µg/m3 increase of PM10 concentration (C) at various lag days. The threshold of visibility was 10 km.
The excess risk (ER%, 95% CI) for daily mortality with per 1 km decrease of visibility at lag day 0, per 10 µg/m3 increase of PM10 concentration and in haze days during 0–2 lag days, stratified by season and individual groups.
| Variables | Visibility | Haze | PM10 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warm Season | Cold Season | Full Year | Warm Season | Cold Season | Full Year | Warm Season | Cold Season | Full Year | |
| Mortality | |||||||||
| Total | −0.59 |
|
| 6.41 (−3.61–17.47) |
|
| 0.47 |
|
|
| Cardiovascular | −1.91 (−3.97–0.20) |
| 0.71 (−0.27–1.70) | 6.11 (−10.70–26.08) |
|
| 0.25 (−0.72–1.23) |
|
|
| Respiratory | 1.63 (−1.24–4.58) |
|
| 12.40 |
|
| 0.67 |
|
|
| Gender | |||||||||
| Male | 0.12 |
|
| 4.73 |
|
| 0.58 | 0.29 |
|
| Female | −1.52 |
| 0.50 | 8.64 |
|
| 0.32 |
|
|
| Age (years) | |||||||||
| <65 | −0.90 | 1.00 | 0.60 | −3.07 | 1.84 | 0.24 | 0.34 | 0.03 | 0.11 |
| ≥65 | −0.48 |
|
| 10.09 |
|
| 0.51 |
|
|
Note: Statistically significant (p < 0.05) were labeled in bold font. The threshold of visibility was 10 km.
Excess risk (ER%) for mortality with per 1 km decrease of visibility at lag day 0 and in haze days at 0–2 lag days, after adjustment for different pollutants.
| Air Pollution and Model | Total | Cardiovascular | Respiratory | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER (%) | 95% CI | ER (%) | 95% CI | ER (%) | 95% CI | |
| Visibility | ||||||
| Single model |
|
| 0.71 | −0.27–1.70 |
|
|
| +PM10 |
|
| 0.83 | −0.29–1.97 |
|
|
| +SO2 |
|
| 0.59 | −0.45–1.63 | 1.22 | −0.09–2.54 |
| +NO2 |
|
| 0.61 | −0.42–1.66 |
|
|
| +PM10 + SO2 + NO2 |
|
| 0.90 | −0.26–2.06 | 0.87 | −0.57–2.33 |
| Haze | ||||||
| Single model |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| +PM10 |
|
| 6.04 | −2.67–15.53 |
|
|
| +SO2 |
|
| 3.16 | −4.39–11.31 |
|
|
| +NO2 |
|
| 4.96 | −2.76–13.31 |
|
|
| +PM10 + SO2 + NO2 |
|
| 5.61 | −3.27–15.31 |
|
|
Note: Statistically significant (p < 0.05) were labeled in bold font. The threshold of visibility was 10 km.
Sensitivity analyses of the excess risk (ER%) for total mortality with per 1 km decrease of visibility at lag day 0 and in haze days at 0–2 lag days, by changing maximum lag days, degree of freedom (df) and definition of haze.
| Variables | Visibility | Haze | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER (%) | 95% CI | ER (%) | 95% CI | |
| 1. Maximum lag days | ||||
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
|
|
| 2. df for time | ||||
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
|
|
| 3. df for temperature | ||||
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 4. df for air pressure and relative humidity | ||||
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
| 5. Definition of haze day | ||||
| Humidity < 80% * | - | - |
|
|
| Humidity <90%# | - | - |
|
|
Note: Statistically significant (p < 0.05) were labeled in bold font. The threshold of visibility was 10 km. Haze was defined as daily average visibility <10 km and relative humidity <80% on a non-precipitation day; Haze was defined as daily average visibility <10 km and relative humidity <90% on a non-precipitation day.