Epidemiological evidence of the effects of ultrafine particle exposure
Epidemiological evidence of the effects of ultrafine particle exposure
复制标题
DOI：
10.1098/rsta.2000.0682
复制
发表时间：
2000-10-15
期刊：
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Peters, A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wichmann, HE;Peters, A
在流行病学研究中，人们一致一致地观察到环境颗粒物浓度与发病率和死亡率之间的联系。随着测量技术的改进，当考虑较小的颗粒尺寸时，影响变得更加明显。因此，看一看当今可用的最小粒度比例，即超细颗粒(UPS，直径小于0.1微米)，并将其对健康的影响与细颗粒(FPS，直径小于2.5微米)进行比较，似乎是值得的。然而，可以进行这种比较的研究很少。德国和芬兰已经对哮喘患者进行了四项小组研究。研究发现，每日颗粒物浓度升高导致最大呼气流量降低，每日症状和用药增加，其中三项研究对UPS的影响最大。德国提供了一项关于每日死亡率的大型研究。在所考虑的所有种级中，它显示出与细颗粒和超细颗粒相当的效果。然而，FPS表现出更多的即时效应，而UPS表现出更多的延迟效应，颗粒物浓度和死亡率之间存在四天的滞后。此外，直接效应在呼吸系统病例中更明显，而延迟效应在心血管病例中更明显。总体而言，有限的研究表明，由于UPS和FPS两种可能相互独立的因素，存在健康影响。如果这一点在进一步的调查中得到证实，它可能会对UPS的监测和监管产生重要影响，而UPS目前还不存在这一点。来自德国的数据显示，FPS不能作为UPS的指标：FPS的时间趋势是下降的，而UPS是稳定的，UPS的最小粒度比例自1991/92年以来一直在不断增加。
In epidemiological studies associations have been observed consistently and coherently between ambient concentrations of particulate matter and morbidity and mortality. With improvement of measurement techniques, the effects became clearer when smaller particle sizes were considered. Therefore, it seems worthwhile to look at the smallest size fraction available today, namely ultrafine particles (UPs, diameter below 0.1 mum) and to compare their health effects with those of fine particles (FPs, diameter below 2.5 mum) However, there are only few studies available which allow such a comparison.Four panel studies with asthma patients have been performed in Germany and Finland. A decrease of peak expiratory flow and an increase of daily symptoms and medication use was found for elevated daily particle concentrations, and in three of these studies it was strongest for UPs. One large study on daily mortality is available from Germany. It showed comparable effects of fine and ultrafine particles in all sire classes considered. However, FPs showed more immediate effects while UPs showed more delayed effects with a lag of four days between particulate concentrations and mortality. Furthermore, immediate effects were clearer in respiratory cases, whereas delayed effects were clearer in cardiovascular cases.In total, the limited body of studies suggests that there are health effects, due to both UPs and FPs, which might be independent from each other. If this is confirmed in further investigations, it might have important implications for monitoring and regulation, which until now does not exist for UPs. Data from Germany show that FPs cannot be used as indicator for UPs: the time trends for FPs decreased, while UPs was stable and the smallest size fraction of UPs has continually increased since 1991/92.