| Literature DB >> 35180870 |
Huagui Guo1, Xin Li2, Jing Wei3, Weifeng Li4,5, Jiansheng Wu6,7, Yanji Zhang8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have reported the effects of PM2.5 and PM10 on human health, however, it remains unclear whether particular matter with finer particle size has a greater effect.Entities:
Keywords: China; Lung cancer; PM1; PM10; PM2.5
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35180870 PMCID: PMC8855598 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-12622-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Spatial distributions of 436 Chinese cancer registries between 2014 and 2016
Fig. 2The spatial distributions of PM1, PM2.5, PM10 concentrations as well as the incidence rate of female lung cancer in 2016
Fig. 3The spatial distributions of educational attainment, urban-rural division, financial level and proportion of manufacturing workers
Descriptive statistics of lung cancer disease, PM1, PM2.5, PM10 and some socioeconomic covariates
| Variables | Mean | SD | Min | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence rate of female lung cancer (per 105 people) | 22.42 | 8.85 | 0.00 | 81.84 |
| PM1 (μg/m3) | 34.67 | 11.14 | 8.56 | 71.67 |
| PM2.5 (μg/m3) | 45.80 | 18.95 | 2.40 | 94.64 |
| PM10 (μg/m3) | 90.26 | 30.70 | 34.29 | 207.84 |
| Finance per capita (109 RMB) | 2.33 | 3.11 | 0.08 | 31.89 |
| Average education years (10 years) | 0.84 | 0.12 | 0.48 | 1.26 |
| Construction workers% (10−1) | 0.32% | 2.18% | 0.43% | 31.45% |
| Manufacturing workers% (10−1) | 7.98% | 7.82% | 0.25% | 42.10% |
| Population (105 people) | 6.43 | 3.53 | 0.40 | 18.62 |
Fig. 4Effects of PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 in Model 1 and Model 2
Effects of PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 on the incidence rate of female lung cancer
| Variables | PM1 | PM2.5 | PM10 |
|---|---|---|---|
| β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | β (95% CI) | |
| PMs | 5.98% *** | 3.75% *** | 1.57% *** |
| (3.40, 8.56%) | (2.33, 5.17%) | (0.73, 2.41%) | |
| Log | 0.43 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.47 *** |
| (0.34, 0.52) | (0.36, 0.54) | (0.38, 0.55) | |
| Year2015 | −0.22 | −1.42 ** | −1.09 |
| (−1.69, 1.26) | (−2.75, −0.09) | (− 2.46, 0.28) | |
| Year2016 | 1.32 ** | 0.34 | 0.49 |
| (−0.15, 2.80) | (−0.97, 1.65) | (− 0.88, 1.85) | |
| Finance | 0.04 *** | 0.05 *** | 0.05 *** |
| (0.02, 0.07) | (0.03, 0.08) | (0.02, 0.07) | |
| Education | −0.66 ** | −0.60 ** | − 0.54 ** |
| (−1.23, − 0.08) | (− 1.17, − 0.04) | (− 1.11, 0.03) | |
| Construction | −0.03 ** | − 0.03 ** | −0.03 ** |
| (−0.06, 0.00) | (−0.06, − 0.01) | (−0.06, 0.00) | |
| Manufacture | −0.02 *** | −0.03 *** | − 0.02 *** |
| (−0.03, − 0.01) | (−0.04, − 0.02) | (−0.03, − 0.01) | |
| Population | − 0.01 | −0.03 *** | − 0.01 |
| (−0.03, 0.01) | (− 0.05, − 0.01) | (−0.03, 0.00) | |
| Urban-rural | 1.92 ** | 1.69 ** | 1.90 ** |
| (0.29, 3.55) | (0.07, 3.30) | (0.27, 3.54) |
* for p < 0.1, ** for p < 0.05 and *** for p < 0.01. When PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 changed by 10 μg/m3, the change in the incidence rate relative to its mean = (10 × coefficient for PM1, PM2.5 and PM10)/mean incidence rate
Fig. 5Modifying role of urban-rural division on the effects of PM1, PM2.5 and PM10