Next Article in Journal
Assessing Knowledge and Use Practices of Plastic Food Packaging among Young Adults in South Africa: Concerns about Chemicals and Health
Previous Article in Journal
Risk and Resilience: How Is the Health of Older Adults and Immigrant People Living in Canada Impacted by Climate- and Air Pollution-Related Exposures?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 20
10.3390/ijerph182010571
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Environmental and Occupational Short-Term Exposure to Airborne Particles and FEV1 and FVC in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Alan da Silveira Fleck
1,2,
Margaux L. Sadoine
1,2,
Stéphane Buteau
3,
Eva Suarthana
4,5,
Maximilien Debia
1,2 and
Audrey Smargiassi
1,2,3,*
1
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Montreal, 2375 Chem. de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC H3T 1A8, Canada
2
Centre for Public Health Research (CReSP), 7101 Av du Parc, Montreal, QC H3N 1X9, Canada
3
Institut National de Sante Publique du Québec (INSPQ), 190 Boul Crémazie E, Montreal, QC H2P 1E2, Canada
4
Research Institute of the McGill University Health Center, 2155 Rue Guy, Montreal, QC H3H 2L9, Canada
5
Centre de Recherche de l’Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal (CRHSCM), 5400 Boul Gouin O, Montreal, QC H4J 1C5, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(20), 10571; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010571
Submission received: 19 August 2021 / Revised: 2 October 2021 / Accepted: 4 October 2021 / Published: 9 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic Air Pollution and Occupational Exposure)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: No study has compared the respiratory effects of environmental and occupational particulate exposure in healthy adults. Methods: We estimated, by a systematic review and meta-analysis, the associations between short term exposures to fine particles (PM2.5 and PM4) and certain parameters of lung function (FEV1 and FVC) in healthy adults. Results: In total, 33 and 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and meta-analyses, respectively. In environmental studies, a 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with an FEV1 reduction of 7.63 mL (95% CI: −10.62 to −4.63 mL). In occupational studies, an increase of 10 µg/m3 in PM4 was associated with an FEV1 reduction of 0.87 mL (95% CI: −1.36 to −0.37 mL). Similar results were observed with FVC. Conclusions: Both occupational and environmental short-term exposures to fine particles are associated with reductions in FEV1 and FVC in healthy adults.

1. Introduction

Throughout the world, air pollution is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity [1], with particulate air pollution being responsible for around three million deaths each year [2]. This public health issue has emerged from the world’s progress and has been the subject of considerable attention for effects on health of both short-term and long-term exposure to air pollution [3].
Particulate matter (PM) is characterized by multiple components and size fractions (fine and coarse), of which distribution and proportion vary substantially depending on local emissions geography and meteorology [4,5]. This regional and temporal variability influences the magnitude of the health effects [6,7], as does the difference in the chemical composition of the particles and in the penetration into the respiratory tract [4,8,9]. Exposures to particulate matter have been linked to increased mortality, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations due to the exacerbation of cardio-respiratory diseases in children, the elderly, and adults [10,11,12,13]. PM acts on the development of noncommunicable lung disease [14], and it has been suggested to influence the susceptibility to acute lower respiratory tract infection [15]. The causal or likely causal relationships between long-term exposure to PM and all-cause and cardio-respiratory mortality have been well established by several organizations [1,16], including lung cancer by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [17]. Risks of asthma development have also been demonstrated [1,18].
Research on short-term exposures has shown associations with respiratory symptoms [19] and decreased lung function in individuals with pre-existing respiratory diseases [20,21]. Reduction in different lung parameters: FEV1 (−3.38 mL, 95% CI: −6.39 to −0.37) and PEF (−0.61 L/min, 95% CI: −1.20 to −0.01) has been reported in COPD patients with 10 µg/m3 increase in PM exposure [20]. However, the relationship between daily exposures to particles and lung function reductions is not established for healthy adults of the general and worker populations. Episodes of high environmental exposures to particles during short periods are ubiquitous and strongly related to society’s current urban organization model. Such exposures can occur while commuting [22], performing physical activity near a high traffic route [23,24,25], during episodes of high daily average concentrations of fine and ultrafine particles [26,27], and in microenvironments near transport hubs, roadways, underground train stations, and industrial sites [28,29,30,31]. In addition, millions of workers worldwide are daily exposed to processes and tasks associated with the emission of particles at concentrations higher than the typical urban background, such as welding fumes, forest fires, wood dust, and diesel engine exhaust [32,33,34,35], which are known to contribute to mortality by respiratory outcomes [36,37].
To our knowledge, no study has yet systematically reviewed the short-term effects of occupational exposures to airborne particles on FEV1 and FVC. Furthermore, there has been no attempt to compare lung function effects from environmental and occupational exposures to airborne particles, even though daily (24 h) and sub-daily (<24 h) exposures in these two contexts are shared by healthy adults. Such comparison may provide valuable insights into the relationship between short-term exposures to particles and lung function across different exposure ranges. In addition, of particular interest is how different the effects can be when considering the distinct sources, concentrations, and composition of particles across environmental and occupation settings. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the associations between occupational and environmental short-term exposures to fine particles and changes in the lung function parameters most studied so far, specifically forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC), among healthy adults.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Registration

The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42017078435). Moreover, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist [38] was completed (Table S1).

2.2. Search Strategy

The literature search included studies published in English between 1964 and 2020. The following electronic bibliographic databases were searched: Web of Science (Web of Science Core Collection and MEDLINE) and PubMed. Searches were last updated on 14 May 2020. In addition, we examined the reference lists of all included studies. The search included terms for the exposure to fine particles (i.e., respirable dust and PM2.5) and the selected outcomes lung function parameters: FEV1 and FVC. FEV1 refers to the quantity of air a person can exhale during the first second of a forced breath, while the FVC refers to the total amount of air exhaled during the spirometry test. These two indices were chosen given they are the most commonly investigated in studies associating air pollution exposures and lung function effects. We also added terms related to inflammation and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (FeNO), but no results related to the latter are reported as there were not enough occupational studies measuring FeNO to perform a meta-analysis or systematic review. Other terms were included to discard studies on animal models, children, in vitro models and long-term exposure studies. The complete search strategy and the keywords are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Supplementary File 1).

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they repeatedly investigated acute respiratory effects (within 24 h after exposure) of short-term exposures (i.e., duration between 1 and 24 h) to fine particles in healthy adults of working age (i.e., between 18 and 60 years old). In terms of the study population, we restricted the review to healthy adults of working age to compare associations between occupational and environmental health studies. Studies with both healthy and non-healthy subjects were included if the authors mentioned that they controlled for health status or if results were reported by health status. We also considered in this review a few studies that included a small percentage of non-healthy subjects; these studies are well identified in the paper and were considered in the sensitivity analysis.
In terms of study design, we restricted the review to studies with repeated measurements of the outcomes because such design enabled separation of the effects of daily exposures from those of cumulative (long-term) exposures; therefore, cross-sectional studies were excluded. The selected study designs included panel and crossover environmental studies, as well as cross-shift occupational studies. Panel studies involve repeated measurements on each subject at specified short time intervals (i.e., daily); thus, each subject acts as his/her own control [20]. Crossover studies also involve repeated measurements, but the exposure situations are controlled by the researchers (e.g., cycling on high- and low- traffic routes) [25]. Occupational cross-shift studies involve the measurements of the outcome before and after the work.
We restricted the scope of this review to exposure to the mass concentration of PM2.5 (i.e., particles with a median aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 μm) and of respirable dust (i.e., PM4 particles with a median aerodynamic diameter of 4 μm), which are common classifications from the environmental and occupational studies, respectively. Although the size range of PM2.5 and PM4 is not exactly the same, both particulate matter fractions have a high capacity to penetrate deep into the alveolar region [39]. Furthermore, these different size fractions may not necessarily result significantly in different mass concentrations if the mean size distribution of the airborne particles is smaller than 2.5 µm.
Studies were excluded if: (1) they were based on reviews, they were experimental studies, case reports, letters, posters, and conference abstracts; (2) the study population was formed exclusively by children, the elderly or subjects with a pre-existing chronic respiratory disease such as asthma and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); (3) the respiratory outcomes of interest were not measured within 24 hours after exposure; (4) exposure duration was not within 24 hours; (5) the studies reported only one measurement of the outcome per subject (i.e., no repeated measurements); (6) only size fractions other than PM2.5 and PM4 were measured; and (7) the exposure was focused on the measurement of environmental tobacco smoke.

2.4. Studies Selection and Data Extraction

The selection of the articles was performed in two rounds by two investigators (AF and MS). The first round consisted of a screening of all titles and abstracts. In the second round, the full texts of all potentially relevant studies were reviewed considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Potential divergences in the selection of the study were discussed and ultimately resolved by a third investigator (AS).
Data extraction was performed by one investigator (AF) and reviewed by a second one (MS). The following information was manually extracted: (1) authors and year; (2) study location; (3) study design (i.e., panel, crossover, and occupational cross-shift studies); (4) population (N, sex, % of smokers, and mean age); (5) exposure information such as type of measurement (i.e., personal/quasi-personal and central/near station), exposure duration, exposure context and type of particles; (6) physiological outcomes; (7) confounders and effect modifiers; and (8) results (mean concentration of particles and respiratory outcome results (e.g., estimate ± 95% CI or t-test result).

2.5. Quality Assessment

The assessment of the risk of bias was performed by two investigators (AF and MS) according to the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool developed by the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences-National Toxicology Program [40]. Within each study, we evaluated the risk of bias across seven parameters divided as key criteria (i.e., exposure assessment, outcome assessment, and confounding bias, which is an item of the OHAT that includes the lack of consideration of important modifiers) and other criteria (i.e., selection bias, selective reporting, incomplete outcome data, and conflict of interest). The risk of bias for each parameter was evaluated as “low”, “medium”, “high”, or “not applicable”. The OHAT guideline recommends the exclusion of studies for which all the key criteria and most of the other criteria are characterized as “high”.

2.6. Meta-Analyses

Our initial goal was to perform a meta-analysis of results, notably to investigate whether associations between short-term exposure to fine particles and FEV1 and FVC differ between environmental and occupational settings. We thus considered separately environmental and occupational studies. However, the pooling of selected studies was limited by the different metrics used for the outcomes. Specifically, lung function parameters were expressed as: (a) absolute change (mL change); (b) percent change from a baseline or mean value (% change); (c) percent change of a log-transformed outcome (log % change); (d) percent change from a predicted value (%PV); and (e) percent change from a log-transformed predicted value (log %PV). The description of these five different outcome metrics identified in the studies are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Table S2). Pooling results of studies in a meta-analysis requires the measure of association to be expressed uniformly across studies [41]; therefore, these different metrics used for the lung function parameters could not be combined into a single meta-analysis of results.
We thus pooled studies separately according to the outcome metric. We computed meta-estimates when a minimum of five independent risk estimates was available. Due to the expected heterogeneity caused by the different study designs, populations and exposure characteristics, a random-effect meta-analysis was performed, thus assuming that the true effect size varies across studies. Meta-estimates, 95% confidence intervals and 95% prediction intervals were calculated for a 10 µg/m3 of particulate concentration; we used a similar increment given that we aimed at contrasting the effect across these two different settings. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistic [42], whereas publication bias was examined using funnel plots [43]. A meta-regression of the covariables against the outcome was not performed as some parameters (such as age) were very similar between studies or even missing (smoking status), and sample size was too small.
In some occupational cross-shift studies, an estimate of association from a regression model was not reported [33,44,45,46,47,48]. Instead, the authors reported the difference between the mean outcome response postexposure and pre-exposure (with a t-test comparing both measurements). For these cases, we used the reported mean response and level of exposure to calculate the effect for a 10 µg/m3 increase in the pollutant concentration.
In some studies, measurement of the outcome was made at several time points after the exposure ended [24,25,29,30,49,50,51]. In this review, the main series of meta-analyses included estimates for the time point immediately after exposure ended, as this time point was the most frequently measured across studies. Results of other time periods, when available, are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Table S3).
In the sensitivity analyses, we performed a leave-one-out test to explore the influence of each study included on the meta-estimate, and on the I2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to explore the influence of the studies that had a small percentage of non-healthy subjects in its population. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed to explore the influence of key study criteria such as the type of measurement, duration of exposure and study design. The heterogeneity variance was assessed by the DerSimonian and Laird method. Statistical analyses were all performed using Review Manager 5.3 and the metafor package for R (version 3.4.1, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [52]. Results of studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis are described in the Supplementary Materials (Supplementary File 2).

3. Results

Figure 1 shows the flow diagram for the selection of the studies. The primary search on the databases returned 4244 studies from which 2938 abstracts were screened, and 294 full texts were assessed for eligibility. After considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 33 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis.

3.1. Characteristics of the Selected Studies

Table 1 describes the main characteristics the selected studies according to the type of exposure (i.e., environmental or occupational).

3.1.1. Environmental Studies

Twenty environmental studies evaluated the association between PM2.5 short-term exposure and changes in FEV1 and FVC. Nineteen of these studies measured FEV1 while fifteen measured FVC. Most of these studies were performed in North America (N = 10), followed by East Asia (N = 7) and Europe (N = 3). The different contexts of exposure identified were: hourly exposure to particles while commuting [50,51], performing physical exercise [23,25,55,57,58], and associated with different microenvironments [29,30]; daily average exposures varying according to different periods or areas [27,28,49,54,56,60,61,62] and workers’ exposure to ambient particles [53,59]. Although these latter studies were performed in a workers’ population, we have considered that the type of exposure—including levels, composition and sources—was similar to the exposure experienced by individuals from the general environment. Environmental studies were designed predominantly as crossover (N = 11) and panel (N = 9) studies. Eleven studies estimated exposure by personal/quasi-personal measurements while nine used near/central station measurements. The exposures considered were only related to PM2.5 and mean levels exposure ranged between 2 µg/m3 and 162 µg/m3, while exposure duration ranged between 1 h and 24 h. The mean age of the subjects was 31.2 years old and they were predominantly men (61.4%). Only two of the 20 studies included current smokers in the population.

3.1.2. Occupational Studies

Thirteen occupational studies investigating associations between exposures to particles during a full work shift and FEV1 and FVC changes were included [33,44,45,46,47,48,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. All thirteen studies measured FEV1, while eight also assessed FVC. Most of these occupational studies were carried out in North America (N = 4) and the Middle East (N = 4), followed by Europe (N = 2), Oceania (N = 2), and East Asia (N = 1). In terms of study design, one was a panel study (N = 1), whereas the remaining 12 studies were cross-shift studies (i.e., the health outcome is measured before and after the working shift). Exposure contexts included diesel exhaust; different types of dust such as cotton, wood, and cement; and exposure to particles experienced by dairy workers, firefighters and dental laboratory technicians. All occupational studies assessed exposure by personal or quasi-personal measurements (i.e., measurements were performed close to the worker but not in the breathing zone). The majority of the studies focused on PM4 and mean levels of exposure to fine particles ranged between 35 µg/m3 and 6760 µg/m3, while exposure duration ranged between 6 h and 12 h. The mean age of the subjects was 34.9 years old, and male workers comprised most of the population (86%). The mean percentage of current smokers was 33.8%.

3.2. Quality Assessment

The quality assessment of the studies included in the meta-analyses is described in the Supplementary Materials (Table S4). Based on the quality assessment of exposure, outcome, and cofounding criteria, all selected studies were labeled as good quality and included in the meta-analyses. Specifically, we considered occupational studies to have a higher quality in the exposure assessment criteria because most of them used personal measurements of exposure, compared to many environmental studies that assessed exposure by central stations. On the other hand, environmental studies were qualified as higher quality in the confounding bias criteria (that includes the lack of consideration of important modifiers). The crossover and panel designs of these studies, combined with the inclusion of co-variables in the regression models, allowed the control of important confounders. In occupational studies, however, the influence of important confounders, such as co-exposures, and effect modifiers, such as smoking status, were not considered in some cross-shift studies. No clear differences between environmental and occupational studies were observed for the outcome assessment criteria in relation to the performance of the spirometry maneuvers by a trained technician and according to an official guideline.

3.3. Forest Plots and Meta-Analyses

The comparison of environmental and occupational studies was only possible for lung function parameters expressed as absolute changes (mL changes). In total, 14 studies were included in this main set of meta-analyses. Panels (a) and (b) of Figure 2 present forest plots showing separate estimates for FEV1 (mL change) of environmental and occupational studies, respectively, whereas panels (a) and (b) of Figure 3 present forest plots for FVC (mL change). Other meta-estimates of associations between FEV1-FVC and environmental exposures to PM2.5 that could not be compared with occupational studies are presented in Supplementary Materials (Figures S1 and S2).

3.3.1. FEV1 (mL Change)

  • FEV1 and PM2.5 in environmental studies
Panel (a) of Figure 2 shows the forest plot for the six environmental studies that reported associations between PM2.5 short-term exposure, with duration between 1 h and 24 h, and FEV1 in mL change. Across these studies, the exposure levels varied from 2 µg/m3 (cycling indoors; Weichenthal et al. (2011) [25]) and 146.5 µg/m3 (average of daily concentrations in 2 cities of China; Hao et al. 2017) [49]). A 10 µg/m3 increase in exposure levels was associated with a reduction of 7.63 mL (95% CI: −10.62 to −4.63 mL) in FEV1, with no heterogeneity across results given the substantial overlap of confidence intervals (I2 = 0%). The 95% prediction interval indicates that estimates of similar future studies would be expected to be between −10.62 mL and −4.63 mL. In the leave-one-out test, the exclusion of Vilcassim [60], the study carrying the higher weight (56%), did not meaningfully affect the meta-estimate: −8.43 mL (95% CI: −12.96 to −3.89; I2 = 0%). The exclusion of Hao [49], the study with the highest PM2.5 concentration, also did not affect the interpretation of the model: −7.01 mL (95% CI: −10.62 to −3.41; I2 = 0%). In addition, Weichenthal et al. (2011) [25] reported 33% of asthmatics in the studied population, and the exclusion of this study did not affect the meta-estimate: −7.61 mL (95% CI: −10.61 to −4.61; I2 = 0%). Forest plots grouped by exposure duration, study design, and type of measurement are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S3); estimates based on central sites and daily exposures (24 h) had much smaller confidence intervals.
  • FEV1 and PM4 in occupational studies
Panel (b) of Figure 2 shows the forest plot for eight occupational studies that reported associations between short-term exposure to PM4 and FEV1 in mL change. Across these studies, the exposure levels varied from 270 µg/m3 (wood dust exposure; Herbert et al. (1994) [63]) and 2390 µg/m3 (cotton dust exposure; Bakirci et al. (2007) [45]). A negative association was observed, but the meta-estimate was lower compared to environmental studies; a 10 µg/m3 increase in PM4 concentration was associated with a reduction of 0.87 mL (95% CI: −1.36 to −0.37 mL) in FEV1 after a work shift. Heterogeneity across results was moderate (I2= 54%). The 95% prediction interval indicates that the estimate of similar future studies would be expected to be between −1.85 mL and 0.11 mL. The removal of Bakirci [45], the study with the highest average dust concentration, reduced the heterogeneity of the model but did not affect the interpretation of the estimate: −1.14 mL (95% CI: −1.83 to −0.45; I2 = 45%). Barkirci et al. (2007) [45], Bakirci et al. (2006) [46] and Altin et al. (2002) [44] reported a percentage of non-healthy workers of 20%, 14%, and 11.5%, respectively. The exclusion of these studies reduced the heterogeneity of the model but did not affect the interpretation of the estimate: −0.76 mL (95% CI: −1.34 to −0.18; I2 = 18%).

3.3.2. FVC (mL Changes)

  • FVC and PM2.5 in environmental studies
Panel (a) of Figure 3 shows for FVC, expressed as mL changes, five environmental studies that could be pooled. For an increment of 10 µg/m3 in PM2.5 exposure, the random-effect meta-estimate showed a reduction of 10.0 mL (95% CI: −18.62 to −1.37 mL) in FVC. Although there were substantial differences across primary mean effect estimates, statistical heterogeneity was low (I2= 27%) given the wide confidence intervals, particularly for three studies. The 95% prediction interval indicates that the estimate of similar future studies would be expected to be between −22.9 mL and 2.9 mL. The exclusion of Weichenthal [25], which included non-healthy individuals, increased the heterogeneity and caused the confidence interval to include the zero value: −9.59 mL (95% CI: −19.81 to 0.63; I2= 45%). Forest plots grouped by exposure duration, study design, and type of measurement are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S4); no clear trend was seen from this grouping.
  • FVC and PM4 in occupational studies
Panel (b) of Figure 3 presents the forest plot of the occupational studies associating exposures to PM4 and mL changes in FVC. Since only three studies were included, pooled estimates were not calculated and only results of the individual studies are presented. All studies reported a reduction in FVC levels after a work shift. Estimates ranged from −12.3 mL to −1.37 mL for a 10 µg/m3 increase in PM4.

3.4. Publication Bias

Funnel plots are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S5). In general, there are not enough studies to comprehensively examine publication bias. Visual inspections of the funnel plots revealed no strong indication of publication bias, although it cannot be excluded.

4. Discussion

This review is the first to consider associations from occupational and environmental health studies investigating short-term exposure to fine particles on FEV1 and FVC in healthy adults. Our analysis shows that exposure to fine particles is associated with reductions in FEV1 and FVC among healthy adults in both occupational and environmental exposure settings. For a similar exposure increment (10 µg/m3), the associations with fine particles in healthy adults are an order of magnitude greater in environmental studies as compared to occupational studies. Even if PM exposure in occupational settings were from very diverse settings, the estimate for FEV1 was relatively consistent considering the varied exposure contexts.
Two hypotheses may explain the 10-fold difference in the magnitude of the occupational and environmental meta-estimates of FEV1 for the same exposure increment. Firstly, this difference may reflect the distinct characteristics between occupational and environmental studies, notably in the composition of particles due to the varied sources of ambient versus workplace exposures, size fraction (i.e., PM2.5 versus PM4), sampling strategy (i.e., personal monitoring versus central station), study design (i.e., cross-shift versus panel studies), exposure duration (i.e., daily versus hourly), study population (i.e., sex and smoking status), and the healthy worker effect [70]. In this regard, almost all environmental studies excluded smokers from the population, while occupational studies included smokers. Given that the association between PM and lung function can differ according to smoking status [71], this factor may also partially explain the difference observed between environmental and occupational studies. In addition, the assessment of co-exposures that are also relevant to lung function effects was not explored by many occupational studies. Another possible explanation is that the variation in the acute response of the airways depends on the condition of the lungs that could be damaged by chronic exposures.
However, although these factors may explain a portion of the observed difference, they may not fully explain the almost 10-fold difference between both meta-estimates. In this regard, another hypothesis may be related to differences in effects according to the range of PM concentrations in occupational (i.e., between 270 µg/m3 and 2390 µg/m3) and environmental (i.e., between 2 µg/m3 and 146.5 µg/m3) studies. Indeed, there may be a nonlinear relationship linking PM exposure to lung function, with a steeper slope at lower concentrations (i.e., environmental exposure) that may flatten in the higher ranges, as observed in some mortality studies with ambient fine particles [72,73]. Biologically, this could indicate that high short-term exposure levels—such as observed in occupational studies—could lead to the saturation of cellular and biochemical mechanisms involved in acute lung inflammation and oxidative stress, resulting in a plateau in the exposure-response relationship at these concentrations [11,72].
Despite the low number of studies included in this review, which might limit the external validity, this study is the first to review the effect of short-term exposure to fine particles on FEV1 and FVC from occupational studies. Findings from our meta-analysis of environmental studies are in accordance with a recent meta-analysis published that showed a reduction of 7.02 mL (95% CI: −11.75 mL to −2.29 mL) in FEV1 after short-term environmental exposures to PM2.5 in healthy adults [74]; while we observed a reduction in FEV1 of 7.62 mL (95% CI: −10.62 to −4.73 mL) in environmental studies. In contrast to this review of environmental studies, our analysis benefits, in terms of causal inference, of being restricted to studies involving repeated measurements (i.e., panel, crossover and occupational cross-shift but excluding cross-sectional). Studies with repeated measurements enable adequate assessment of the variation in lung function that is attributed to short-term variations in air pollution by accounting for the baseline lung function and controlling for the possible long-term effect of air pollution on lung function. We further improved over this previous review by including studies on FVC, by considering all outcome units (e.g., % change) and reviewing occupational studies, which reinforce the findings that short-term exposure to fine particles leads to decrement in lung function in healthy adults.
Future studies are needed to improve our understanding of the impacts of daily particulate exposure in both occupational and general environments. Notably, the clinical relevance of small daily changes in FEV1 in healthy adults remains unclear, although reductions in lung function parameters are suggested as a predictor for cardiopulmonary mortality and morbidity [75]. Furthermore, the minimal clinical important difference (MCID) for clinical trials in patients with COPD is 5% or 100 ml [76], which is a decrease observed in some occupational studies reported here [44,45,46,48]. Other research questions that need to be addressed include how high daily exposure levels may influence the duration and transience of respiratory effects and whether the short-term effects from repeated daily exposures are also linked to the longitudinal decline in lung function and the development of cardiopulmonary morbidities. In this regard, it is suggested that short-term PM exposure may lead to an increased tonus of airway smooth muscles that is typically rapidly antagonized by an increased cellular level of nitric oxide (NO), resulting in transitory airway resistance [77]. This may explain why, for some studies, short-term exposures to particles did not result in significant reductions in lung function.
The impact of PM composition from different sources on lung function may be addressed in future studies by oxidative potential assays and compared across occupational and environmental contexts. Furthermore, panel studies with repeated measurements across different days could also be developed for occupational settings. This type of study design would be fundamental to understand how occupational exposures across different days (i.e., with different lags for effects) affects the duration and transience of lung function reductions in workers.
Routine and harmonized measurements of occupational exposures to UFPs are necessary to compensate for the general lack of data that prevents establishing exposure matrix and acceptable levels of exposure [35]. To date, occupational exposures to fine particles are not specifically targeted by occupational health regulation [35,78] and our findings strongly suggest that daily levels of exposure in workplaces should be controlled. Practitioners should consider exposure to fine particles as a potential hazard related to respiratory symptoms in their patients.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis show that environmental and occupational short-term exposures to fine particles are associated with reduced FEV1 and FVC in healthy adults. A lower meta-estimate was found in occupational studies than environmental studies for a similar exposure increment; however, exposure levels were substantially greater in occupational studies. This may reflect a potentially nonlinear relationship linking PM exposure to certain lung functions parameters, with a steeper slope at lower concentrations. Differences in meta-estimates may also be, in part, due to differences across occupational and environmental study design and methods. Future meta-analyses would benefit from greater standardization of study design and methods, notably in terms of the metric used to express the lung function parameters and the fraction of particles measured.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph182010571/s1, Table S1: Table of PRISMA checklist; Supplementary File 1: Search strategy and keywords; Table S2: Table of the metrics of respiratory outcomes used across the studies; Supplementary File 2: Additional FEV1 and FVC results; Table S3: Table of the descriptive results of the studies selected in the systematic review; Figure S1: Figure of the meta-analyses of the association between environmental PM2.5 and FEV1; Figure S2: Figure of the meta-analyses of the association between environmental PM2.5 and FVC; Table S4: Table of the quality assessment of the studies included in the meta-analysis; Figure S3: Figure of the forest plot of the association between environmental PM2.5 and FEV1; Figure S4: Figure of the forest plot of the association between environmental PM2.5 and FVC; Figure S5: Figures of funnel plots of FEV1 and FVC (mL change) meta-analyses for environmental and occupational studies.

Author Contributions

A.d.S.F. contributed to the project design, literature search, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. M.L.S. participated in the literature search, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript review. S.B. and A.S. contributed to the project design, manuscript preparation and review. E.S. and M.D. contributed to manuscript preparation and review. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project was partly funded by the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travail (Project number: 2017–0007). AF received a scholarship from the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies (FRQNT). ES is a recipient of the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé and the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et sécurité du travail (FRQS-IRSST) Career Award Program (Research Scholars – Junior 1). MD is a recipient of the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS) Career Award Program (Research Scholars – Junior 2).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. US Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter (Final Report, 2019); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2019.
  2. GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020, 396, 1223–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. Cardiovascular Disease and Air Pollution; United Kingdom Department of Health: London, UK, 2006.
  4. Ming, L.; Jin, L.; Li, J.; Fu, P.; Yang, W.; Liu, D.; Zhang, G.; Wang, Z.; Li, X. PM2.5 in the Yangtze River Delta, China: Chemical compositions, seasonal variations, and regional pollution events. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 223, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. World Health Organization. Air Quality Guidelines: Global Update 2005, Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Sulfur Dioxide; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. Beelen, R.; Hoek, G.; Raaschou-Nielsen, O.; Stafoggia, M.; Andersen, Z.J.; Weinmayr, G.; Hoffmann, B.; Wolf, K.; Samoli, E.; Fischer, P.H.; et al. Natural-Cause Mortality and Long-Term Exposure to Particle Components: An Analysis of 19 European Cohorts within the Multi-Center ESCAPE Project. Environ. Health Perspect. 2015, 123, 525–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lin, H.; Liu, T.; Xiao, J.; Zeng, W.; Li, X.; Guo, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Tao, J.; Xian, H.; et al. Mortality burden of ambient fine particulate air pollution in six Chinese cities: Results from the Pearl River Delta study. Environ. Int. 2016, 96, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tao, J.; Zhang, L.; Cao, J.; Zhang, R. A review of current knowledge concerning PM2. 5 chemical composition, aerosol optical properties and their relationships across China. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2017, 17, 9485–9518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Yang, Y.; Ruan, Z.; Wang, X.; Yang, Y.; Mason, T.G.; Lin, H.; Tian, L. Short-term and long-term exposures to fine particulate matter constituents and health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 247, 874–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Di, Q.; Dai, L.; Wang, Y.; Zanobetti, A.; Choirat, C.; Schwartz, J.D.; Dominici, F. Association of Short-term Exposure to Air Pollution with Mortality in Older Adults. JAMA 2017, 318, 2446–2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Liu, C.; Chen, R.; Sera, F.; Vicedo-Cabrera, A.M.; Guo, Y.; Tong, S.; Coelho, M.S.Z.S.; Saldiva, P.H.N.; Lavigne, E.; Matus, P.; et al. Ambient Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in 652 Cities. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 705–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Newell, K.; Kartsonaki, C.; Lam, K.B.H.; Kurmi, O.P. Cardiorespiratory health effects of particulate ambient air pollution exposure in low-income and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2017, 1, e368–e380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Zheng, X.-Y.; Ding, H.; Jiang, L.-N.; Chen, S.-W.; Zheng, J.-P.; Qiu, M.; Zhou, Y.-X.; Chen, Q.; Guan, W.-J. Association between air pollutants and asthma emergency room visits and hospital admissions in time series studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Schraufnagel, D.E.; Balmes, J.R.; Cowl, C.T.; De Matteis, S.; Jung, S.-H.; Mortimer, K.; Perez-Padilla, R.; Rice, M.B.; Riojas-Rodriguez, H.; Sood, A.; et al. Air pollution and noncommunicable diseases: A review by the Forum of International Respiratory Societies’ Environmental Committee, Part 2: Air pollution and organ systems. Chest 2019, 155, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sonego, M.; Pellegrin, M.C.; Becker, G.; Lazzerini, M. Risk Factors for Mortality from Acute Lower Respiratory Infections (ALRI) in Children under Five Years of Age in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0116380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hoffmann, B.; Boogaard, H.; de Nazelle, A.; Andersen, Z.J.; Abramson, M.; Brauer, M.; Brunekreef, B.; Forastiere, F.; Huang, W.; Kan, H.; et al. WHO Air Quality Guidelines 2021–Aiming for Healthier Air for all: A Joint Statement by Medical, Public Health, Scientific Societies and Patient Representative Organisations. Int. J. Public Health 2021, 66, 1604465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Air Pollution and Cancer; International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC): Lyon, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  18. Khreis, H.; Kelly, C.; Tate, J.; Parslow, R.; Lucas, K.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. Exposure to traffic-related air pollution and risk of development of childhood asthma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 2017, 100, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Wu, S.; Ni, Y.; Li, H.; Pan, L.; Yang, D.; Baccarelli, A.A.; Deng, F.; Chen, Y.; Shima, M.; Guo, X. Short-term exposure to high ambient air pollution increases airway inflammation and respiratory symptoms in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in Beijing, China. Environ. Int. 2016, 94, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bloemsma, L.D.; Hoek, G.; Smit, L.A. Panel studies of air pollution in patients with COPD: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Res. 2016, 151, 458–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. McCreanor, J.; Cullinan, P.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Stewart-Evans, J.; Malliarou, E.; Jarup, L.; Harrington, R.; Svartengren, M.; Han, I.-K.; Ohman-Strickland, P.; et al. Respiratory Effects of Exposure to Diesel Traffic in Persons with Asthma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 357, 2348–2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Golan, R.; Ladva, C.; Greenwald, R.; Krall, J.; Raysoni, A.U.; Kewada, P.; Winquist, A.; Flanders, W.D.; Liang, D.; Sarnat, J.A. Acute pulmonary and inflammatory response in young adults following a scripted car commute. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2017, 11, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cole, C.A.; Carlsten, C.; Koehle, M.; Brauer, M. Particulate matter exposure and health impacts of urban cyclists: A randomized crossover study. Environ. Health 2018, 17, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Matt, F.; Cole-Hunter, T.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Kubesch, N.; Martínez, D.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. Acute respiratory response to traffic-related air pollution during physical activity performance. Environ. Int. 2016, 97, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Weichenthal, S.; Kulka, R.; Dubeau, A.; Martin, C.; Wang, D.; Dales, R. Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Acute Changes in Heart Rate Variability and Respiratory Function in Urban Cyclists. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011, 119, 1373–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gong, J.; Zhu, T.; Kipen, H.; Wang, G.; Hu, M.; Guo, Q.; Ohman-Strickland, P.; Lu, S.-E.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, P.; et al. Comparisons of Ultrafine and Fine Particles in Their Associations with Biomarkers Reflecting Physiological Pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 5264–5273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, J.-Y.; Hsiao, T.-C.; Lee, K.-Y.; Chuang, H.-C.; Cheng, T.-J.; Chuang, K.-J. Association of ultrafine particles with cardiopulmonary health among adult subjects in the urban areas of northern Taiwan. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 627, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Dales, R.; Kauri, L.M.; Cakmak, S.; Mahmud, M.; Weichenthal, S.A.; Van Ryswyk, K.; Kumarathasan, P.; Thomson, E.; Vincent, R.; Broad, G.; et al. Acute changes in lung function associated with proximity to a steel plant: A randomized study. Environ. Int. 2013, 55, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, J.; Deng, F.; Wu, S.; Zhao, Y.; Shima, M.; Guo, B.; Liu, Q.; Guo, X. Acute effects on pulmonary function in young healthy adults exposed to traffic-related air pollution in semi-closed transport hub in Beijing. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2016, 21, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Mirowsky, J.E.; Peltier, R.E.; Lippmann, M.; Thurston, G.; Chen, L.-C.; Neas, L.; Diaz-Sanchez, D.; Laumbach, R.; Carter, J.D.; Gordon, T. Repeated measures of inflammation, blood pressure, and heart rate variability associated with traffic exposures in healthy adults. Environ. Health 2015, 14, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Strak, M.; Janssen, N.A.; Godri, K.J.; Gosens, I.; Mudway, I.S.; Cassee, F.R.; Lebret, E.; Kelly, F.J.; Harrison, R.M.; Brunekreef, B.; et al. Respiratory Health Effects of Airborne Particulate Matter: The Role of Particle Size, Composition, and Oxidative Potential—The RAPTES Project. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, 1183–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Da Silveira Fleck, A.; Catto, C.; L’Espérance, G.; Masse, J.-P.; Roberge, B.; Debia, M. Characterization and Quantification of Ultrafine Particles and Carbonaceous Components from Occupational Exposures to Diesel Particulate Matter in Selected Workplaces. Ann. Work. Expo. Health 2020, 64, 490–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gaughan, D.M.; Piacitelli, C.A.; Chen, B.T.; Law, B.F.; Virji, M.A.; Edwards, N.T.; Enright, P.L.; Schwegler-Berry, D.E.; Leonard, S.S.; Wagner, G.R.; et al. Exposures and Cross-shift Lung Function Declines in Wildland Firefighters. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2014, 11, 591–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gu, J.; Kirsch, I.; Schripp, T.; Froning-Ponndorf, F.; Berthold, D.; Salthammer, T. Human exposure to airborne particles during wood processing. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 193, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Viitanen, A.-K.; Uuksulainen, S.; Koivisto, A.J.; Hämeri, K.; Kauppinen, T. Workplace Measurements of Ultrafine Particles-A Literature Review. Ann. Work. Expo. Health 2017, 61, 749–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cullinan, P.; Muñoz, X.; Suojalehto, H.; Agius, R.; Jindal, S.; Sigsgaard, T.; Blomberg, A.; Charpin, D.; Annesi-Maesano, I.; Gulati, M.; et al. Occupational lung diseases: From old and novel exposures to effective preventive strategies. Lancet Respir. Med. 2017, 5, 445–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lim, S.S.; Vos, T.; Flaxman, A.D.; Danaei, G.; Shibuya, K.; Adair-Rohani, H.; AlMazroa, M.A.; Amann, M.; Anderson, H.R.; Andrews, K.G.; et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. ACGIH®. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: TLVs and BEIs Based on the Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  40. National Toxicology Program. Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration; Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences: Durham, NC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  41. Buteau, S.; Goldberg, M.S. Methodological issues related to pooling results from panel studies of heart rate variability and its association with ambient air pollution. Environ. Res. 2015, 140, 462–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br. Med. J. 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Sterne, J.A.; Egger, M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2001, 54, 1046–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Altin, R.; Ozkurt, S.; Fisekçi, F.; Cimrin, A.; Zencir, M.; Sevinc, C. Prevalence of byssinosis and respiratory symptoms among cotton mill workers. Respiration 2002, 69, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bakirci, N.; Kalaca, S.; Francis, H.; Fletcher, A.M.; Pickering, C.A.C.; Tumerdem, N.; Cali, S.; Oldham, L.; Niven, R. Natural History and Risk Factors of Early Respiratory Responses to Exposure to Cotton Dust in Newly Exposed Workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2007, 49, 853–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bakirci, N.; Sayiner, A.; Sacaklioglu, F.; Bayindir, U. Across-shift lung function variation in cottonseed oil workers. Occup. Med. 2006, 56, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Fell, A.K.M.; Notø, H.; Skogstad, M.; Nordby, K.-C.; Eduard, W.; Svendsen, M.V.; Øvstebø, R.; Trøseid, A.M.S.; Kongerud, J. A cross-shift study of lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and inflammatory markers in blood in Norwegian cement production workers. Occup. Environ. Med. 2011, 68, 799–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ulfvarson, U.; Alexandersson, R. Reduction in adverse effect on pulmonary function after exposure to filtered diesel exhaust. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1990, 17, 341–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hao, Y.; Zhang, G.; Han, B.; Xu, X.; Feng, N.; Li, Y.; Wang, W.; Kan, H.; Bai, Z.; Zhu, Y.; et al. Prospective evaluation of respiratory health benefits from reduced exposure to airborne particulate matter. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2017, 27, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mirabelli, M.C.; Golan, R.; Greenwald, R.; Raysoni, A.U.; Holguin, F.; Kewada, P.; Winquist, A.; Flanders, W.D.; Sarnat, J.A. Modification of Traffic-related Respiratory Response by Asthma Control in a Population of Car Commuters. Epidemiology 2015, 26, 546–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Zuurbier, M.; Hoek, G.; Oldenwening, M.; Meliefste, K.; Hazel, P.V.D.; Brunekreef, B. Respiratory Effects of Commuters’ Exposure to Air Pollution in Traffic. Epidemiology 2011, 22, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Viechtbauer, W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J. Stat. Softw. 2010, 36, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Baccarelli, A.A.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, X.; Chang, D.; Liu, L.; Wolf, K.R.; Zhang, Z.; McCracken, J.P.; Díaz, A.; Bertazzi, P.A.; et al. Air pollution exposure and lung function in highly exposed subjects in Beijing, China: A repeated-measure study. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 2014, 11, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Cakmak, S.; Dales, R.; Kauri, L.; Mahmud, M.; Van Ryswyk, K.; Vanos, J.; Liu, L.; Kumarathasan, P.; Thomson, E.; Vincent, R.; et al. Metal composition of fine particulate air pollution and acute changes in cardiorespiratory physiology. Environ. Pollut. 2014, 189, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Girardot, S.P.; Ryan, P.B.; Smith, S.M.; Davis, W.T.; Hamilton, C.B.; Obenour, R.A.; Renfro, J.R.; Tromatore, K.A.; Reed, G.D. Ozone and PM 2.5 Exposure and Acute Pulmonary Health Effects: A Study of Hikers in theGreat Smoky Mountains National Park. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 114, 1044–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Hu, L.-W.; Qian, Z.; Bloom, M.S.; Nelson, E.J.; Liu, E.; Han, B.; Zhang, N.; Liu, Y.; Ma, H.; Chen, D.-H.; et al. A panel study of airborne particulate matter concentration and impaired cardiopulmonary function in young adults by two different exposure measurement. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 180, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Jarjour, S.; Jerrett, M.; Westerdahl, D.; De Nazelle, A.; Hanning, C.; Daly, L.; Lipsitt, J.; Balmes, J. Cyclist route choice, traffic-related air pollution, and lung function: A scripted exposure study. Environ. Health 2013, 12, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Kubesch, N.J.; de Nazelle, A.; Westerdahl, D.; Martinez, D.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Bouso, L.; Guerra, S.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Respiratory and inflammatory responses to short-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution with and without moderate physical activity. Occup. Environ. Med. 2015, 72, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Thaller, E.I.; Petronella, S.A.; Hochman, D.; Howard, S.; Chhikara, R.S.; Brooks, E.G. Moderate Increases in Ambient PM2.5 and Ozone Are Associated with Lung Function Decreases in Beach Lifeguards. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2008, 50, 202–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Vilcassim, M.J.R.; Thurston, G.D.; Chen, L.-C.; Lim, C.C.; Saunders, E.; Yao, Y.; Gordon, T. Exposure to air pollution is associated with adverse cardiopulmonary health effects in international travellers. J. Travel Med. 2019, 26, taz032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wu, S.; Deng, F.; Wang, X.; Wei, H.; Shima, M.; Huang, J.; Lv, H.; Hao, Y.; Zheng, C.; Qin, Y.; et al. Association of lung function in a panel of young healthy adults with various chemical components of ambient fine particulate air pollution in Beijing, China. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 77, 873–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wu, S.; Deng, F.; Hao, Y.; Shima, M.; Wang, X.; Zheng, C.; Wei, H.; Lv, H.; Lu, X.; Huang, J.; et al. Chemical constituents of fine particulate air pollution and pulmonary function in healthy adults: The Healthy Volunteer Natural Relocation study. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 260, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Herbert, F.A.; Hessel, P.A.; Melenka, L.S.; Yoshida, K.; Nakaza, M. Respiratory Consequences of Exposure to Wood Dust and Formaldehyde of Workers Manufacturing Oriented Strand Board. Arch. Environ. Health Int. J. 1994, 49, 465–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Hu, S.-W.; Lin, Y.-Y.; Wu, T.-C.; Hong, C.-C.; Chan, C.-C.; Lung, S.-C.C. Workplace air quality and lung function among dental laboratory technicians. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2006, 49, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mandryk, J.; Alwis, K.U.; Hocking, A.D. Work-related symptoms and dose-response relationships for personal exposures and pulmonary function among woodworkers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1999, 35, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mandryk, J.; Alwis, K.U.; Hocking, A.D. Effects of personal exposures on pulmonary function and work-related symptoms among sawmill workers. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2000, 44, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mitchell, D.C.; Armitage, T.L.; Schenker, M.B.; Bennett, D.H.; Tancredi, D.J.; Langer, C.E.; Reynolds, S.J.; Dooley, G.; Mehaffy, J.; Mitloehner, F.M. Particulate Matter, Endotoxin, and Worker Respiratory Health on Large Californian Dairies. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2015, 57, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Neghab, M.; Jabari, Z.; Shouroki, F.K. Functional disorders of the lung and symptoms of respiratory disease associated with occupational inhalation exposure to wood dust in Iran. Epidemiol. Health 2018, 40, e2018031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Slaughter, J.; Koenig, J.Q.; Reinhardt, T.E. Association Between Lung Function and Exposure to Smoke Among Firefighters at Prescribed Burns. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2004, 1, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Shah, D. Healthy worker effect phenomenon. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2009, 13, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Anthonisen, N.R.; Connett, J.E.; Murray, R.P. Smoking and Lung Function of Lung Health Study Participants after 11 Years. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002, 166, 675–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Liu, L.; Yu, L.-Y.; Mu, H.-J.; Xing, L.-Y.; Li, Y.-X.; Pan, G.-W. Shape of concentration-response curves between long-term particulate matter exposure and morbidities of chronic bronchitis: A review of epidemiological evidence. J. Thorac. Dis. 2014, 6, S720–S727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pope, C.A., III; Burnett, R.T.; Krewski, D.; Jerrett, M.; Shi, Y.; Calle, E.E.; Thun, M.J. Cardiovascular mortality and exposure to airborne fine particulate matter and cigarette smoke: Shape of the exposure-response relationship. Circulation 2009, 120, 941–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Edginton, S.; O’Sullivan, D.E.; King, W.; Lougheed, M.D. Effect of outdoor particulate air pollution on FEV1 in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2019, 76, 583–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Sin, D.D.; Wu, L.; Man, S.P. The relationship between reduced lung function and cardiovascular mortality: A population-based study and a systematic review of the literature. Chest 2005, 127, 1952–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Jones, P.W.; Beeh, K.M.; Chapman, K.R.; Decramer, M.; Mahler, D.A.; Wedzicha, J.A. Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Pharmacological Trials. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 189, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Moshammer, H.; Panholzer, J.; Ulbing, L.; Udvarhelyi, E.; Ebenbauer, B.; Peter, S. Acute Effects of Air Pollution and Noise from Road Traffic in a Panel of Young Healthy Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Debia, M.; Beaudry, C.; Weichenthal, S.; Tardif, R.; Dufresne, A. Characterization and control of occupational exposure to nanoparticles and ultrafine particles. In André Studies and Research Projects/Report R-777, Montréal, IRSST; IRSST: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 18 10571 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow diagram for the selection of studies.
Figure 1. Flow diagram for the selection of studies.
Ijerph 18 10571 g001
Ijerph 18 10571 g002a 550Ijerph 18 10571 g002b 550
Figure 2. Forest plots of the association between (a) environmental PM2.5 and FEV1 (mL change); (b) occupational PM4 and FEV1 (mL changes). Random-effect meta-estimate of association is indicated by vertical point of diamond and 95% CI is represented by horizontal point. Squares represent individual effect size of primary studies and the bars the 95% CI; size of squares is proportional to weight in calculating random-effect summary estimates. Pooled effect sizes were estimated per 10 µg/m3 increase in exposure level. Daily exposure is defined as a 24 h exposure duration, while sub-daily is defined as an exposure duration <24 h.
Figure 2. Forest plots of the association between (a) environmental PM2.5 and FEV1 (mL change); (b) occupational PM4 and FEV1 (mL changes). Random-effect meta-estimate of association is indicated by vertical point of diamond and 95% CI is represented by horizontal point. Squares represent individual effect size of primary studies and the bars the 95% CI; size of squares is proportional to weight in calculating random-effect summary estimates. Pooled effect sizes were estimated per 10 µg/m3 increase in exposure level. Daily exposure is defined as a 24 h exposure duration, while sub-daily is defined as an exposure duration <24 h.
Ijerph 18 10571 g002aIjerph 18 10571 g002b
Ijerph 18 10571 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) Environmental PM2.5 and FVC (mL changes); (b) occupational PM4 and FVC (mL changes). Random-effect meta-estimate of association is indicated by vertical point of diamond and 95% CI is represented by horizontal point. Squares represent individual effect size of primary studies and the bars the 95% CI; size of squares is proportional to weight in calculating random-effect summary estimates. Pooled effect sizes were estimated per 10 µg/m3 increase in exposure level. Daily exposure is defined as a 24 h exposure duration, while sub-daily is defined as an exposure duration <24 h.
Figure 3. (a) Environmental PM2.5 and FVC (mL changes); (b) occupational PM4 and FVC (mL changes). Random-effect meta-estimate of association is indicated by vertical point of diamond and 95% CI is represented by horizontal point. Squares represent individual effect size of primary studies and the bars the 95% CI; size of squares is proportional to weight in calculating random-effect summary estimates. Pooled effect sizes were estimated per 10 µg/m3 increase in exposure level. Daily exposure is defined as a 24 h exposure duration, while sub-daily is defined as an exposure duration <24 h.
Ijerph 18 10571 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analyses.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review and meta-analyses.
Author and YearLocationDesignNMen, %Age, yearsSmokers, %Exposure ContextMeasurement and Exposure DurationPollutants and Mean Concentration
Environmental Studies
Baccarelli et al. (2014) [53]ChinaPanel12066%3339.1Traffic-related PM2.5 exposure in truck drivers and office workersPersonal: 8 hPM2.5: 127 µg/m3 (drivers) and 94 µg/m3 (office workers)
Cakmak et al. (2014) [54]CanadaCrossover6146%240Near steel plant and college campusNear Station: 24 hPM2.5: 12.8 µg/m3 (plant) and 11.5 µg/m3 (campus)
* Cole et al. (2018) [23]CanadaCrossover3874%290Cycling in downtown (D) and residential (R) areasQuasi-personal: 1 hPM2.5: 6 µg/m3 (D) and 4.7 µg/m3 (R)
Dales et al. (2013) [28]CanadaCrossover6175%240Exposure near steel plant and college campusNear Station: 24 hPM2.5: 12.8 µg/m3 (plant) and 11.5 µg/m3 (campus)
† Girardot et al. (2006) [55]USAPanel35443%430Exposure while hiking in a mountainNear Station: 5 hPM2.5: 15 µg/m3
* Hao et al. (2017) [49]ChinaPanel4262%550Daily exposures to particlesPersonal: 24 hPM2.5: 146.5 µg/m3
* Hu et al. (2018) [56]ChinaPanel2843%20.60Same day exposure to particlesPersonal: 8 hPM2.5: 65.1 µg/m3
† Huang et al. (2016) [29]ChinaCrossover4042%240Exposure in a transport hub and parkPersonal: 2 hPM2.5: 162 µg/m3 (transport hub) and 53 µg/m3 (park)
Jarjour et al. (2013) [57]USACrossover7373%320Cycling on low traffic (LT) and high traffic (HT) routesPersonal: 2 hPM2.5: 45 µg/m3 (LT) and 44 µg/m3 (HT)
Kubesch et al. (2015) [58]SpainCrossover2846%340Exposure to high and low TRAP in combination with physical exerciseQuasi-Personal: 2 hPM2.5: 30 µg/m3 (LT) and 80.1 µg/m3 (HT)
Liu et al. (2018) [27]TaiwanPanel10050%460Daily exposure to particlesCentral Station: 24 hPM2.5: 25.6 µg/m3
* Matt et al. (2016) [24]SpainCrossover3050%360Exposure in high traffic (HT) and low traffic (LT) roads while performing physical activityNear Station: 2 hPM2.5: 39 µg/m3 (LT) and 82 µg/m3 (HT)
Mirabelli et al. (2015) [50]USACrossover2162%350Exposure while commutingQuasi-Personal: 2 hPM2.5: 28.8 µg/m3
† Mirowsky et al. (2015) [30]USACrossover2348%250Walking near traffic routesQuasi-Personal: 2 hPM2.5: 20 µg/m3; PM10: 26 µg/m3
† Thaller et al. (2008) [59]USAPanel14279%1927Beach guards exposed to ambient PM2.5Central Station: 8 hPM2.5: 10.7 µg/m3
* Vilcassim et al. (2019) [60]USAPanel3432%270Exposure in different cities while travelling by planeCentral Station: 24 hPM2.5: From 8.7 µg/m3 (New York) to 105 µg/m3 (East Asia)
* Weichenthal et al. (2011) [25]CanadaCrossover4267%350Cycling indoors, low traffic (LT) and high traffic routes (HT)Quasi-Personal: 1 hPM2.5: 2 µg/m3 (Indoor), 8.1 µg/m3 (LT) and 44 µg/m3 (HT)
† Wu et al. (2013 a) [61]ChinaPanel40100%200Exposure in suburban and urban areasCentral Station: 24 hPM2.5: 75.2 µg/m3 (Suburban), 56.6 µg/m3 (Urban 1) and 48.8 µg/m3 (Urban 2)
† Wu et al. (2013 b) [62]ChinaPanel21100%200Exposure in suburban and urban areasCentral Station: 24 hPM2.5: 75.2 µg/m3 (Suburban), 56.6 µg/m3 (Urban 1) and 48.8 µg/m3 (Urban 2)
† Zuurbier et al. (2011) [51]NetherlandsCrossover3470%420Commuting by bus, car, and by bikeQuasi-Personal: 2 hPM2.5: 58 µg/m3 (vehicles) and 65.2 µg/m3 (bike)
Occupational Studies
* Altin et al. (2002) [44]TurkeyCross-shift22378%2767Occupational exposure to cotton dustPersonal: 8 hPM4: 413 µg/m3
* Bakirci et al. (2006) [46]TurkeyCross-shift66100%NA79Occupational exposure to cotton dustQuasi-Personal: 8 hPM4: 1050 µg/m3 (delinting), 1870 µg/m3 (hulling) and 610 µg/m3 (baling)
* Bakirci et al. (2007) [45]TurkeyCross-shift15720%5231.2Occupational exposure to cotton dustPersonal: 8 hPM4: 2390 µg/m3
* Fell et al. (2011) [47]NorwayCross-shift7092%4141Occupational exposure to cement dustPersonal: 8 hPM4: 300 µg/m3
* Gaughan et al. (2014) [33]USACross-shift1794%260Firefighters exposed to particlesPersonal: 12 hPM4: 490 µg/m3
* Herbert et al. (1994) [63]CanadaCross-shift99NA3527.9Occupational exposure to wood dustQuasi-Personal: 6 hPM4: 270 µg/m3
Hu et al. (2006) [64]TaiwanPanel4566%3031.3Exposure in dental laboratoriesPersonal: 8 hPM2.5: 107 µg/m3
Mandryk et al. (1999) [65]AustraliaCross-shift198100%3733Occupational exposure to wood dustPersonal: 8 hPM4: 2170 µg/m3 (sawmill) and 1700 µg/m3 (joinery)
Mandryk et al. (2000) [66]AustraliaCross-shift127100%3647.1Occupational exposure to wood dustPersonal: 8 hPM4: 2260 µg/m3 (green mill) and 1460 µg/m3 (dry mill)
Mitchell et al. (2015) [67]USACross-shift205100%3424.4Dairy workers exposed to particlesPersonal: 9.2 hPM2.5: 35 µg/m3 (Workers) and 19.6 µg/m3 (Controls)
Neghab et al. (2018) [68]IranCross-shift200100%3741Occupational exposure to wood dustPersonal: 8 hPM4: 6760 µg/m3
* Slaughter et al. (2004) [69]USACross-shift6580%2916.9Firefighters exposed to particlesPersonal: 8 hPM4: 880 µg/m3
* Ulfvarson and Alexandersson (1990) [48]SwedenCross-shift24100%350Exposure to diesel exhaustQuasi-Personal: 8 hPM4: 240 µg/m3
Abbreviations: N: number of subjects; h: hours; NA: Not available; PM2.5: Particulate matter with median diameter of less than 2.5 µm; PM4: Particulate matter with median diameter of 4 µm. * Studies included in the main set of meta-analyses. † Studies included in the meta-analyses of the Supplementary Materials. Results of the studies with no symbols are presented in Table S2.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

da Silveira Fleck, A.; Sadoine, M.L.; Buteau, S.; Suarthana, E.; Debia, M.; Smargiassi, A. Environmental and Occupational Short-Term Exposure to Airborne Particles and FEV1 and FVC in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10571. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010571

AMA Style

da Silveira Fleck A, Sadoine ML, Buteau S, Suarthana E, Debia M, Smargiassi A. Environmental and Occupational Short-Term Exposure to Airborne Particles and FEV1 and FVC in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(20):10571. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010571

Chicago/Turabian Style

da Silveira Fleck, Alan, Margaux L. Sadoine, Stéphane Buteau, Eva Suarthana, Maximilien Debia, and Audrey Smargiassi. 2021. "Environmental and Occupational Short-Term Exposure to Airborne Particles and FEV1 and FVC in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 20: 10571. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010571

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop