4.7 Article

Exposure to ambient air pollution and blood lipids in children and adolescents: A national population based study in China

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 266, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115422

Keywords

Air pollution; Particle matter; Blood lipids; Dyslipidemias; Children; Adolescents

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health of China [201202010]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81673139]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few studies have explored the links of air pollution and childhood lipid profiles and dyslipidemias. We aimed to explore this topic in Chinese children and adolescents. This study included 12,814 children aged 7-18 years who participated in a national survey in 2013. Satellite-based spatial-temporal model was used to predict 3-y (2011-2013) average particles with diameters <= 1.0 mu m (PM1), <= 2.5 mu m (PM2.5), <10 mu m (PM10), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations. Generalized linear mixed models were employed to evaluate the relationships of air pollution and total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and dyslipidemias. Every 10 mu g/m(3) increase in PM1, PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 was related to increases of 6.20% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.44, 10.10], 5.31% (95%CI: 0.41, 10.44), 3.49% (95%CI: 0.97, 6.08), and 5.25% (95%CI: 1.56, 9.07) in TC, respectively. The odds ratio of hypercholesterolemia associated with a 10 mu g/m(3) increase in PM1, PM2.5, and NO2 was 2.15 (95%CI: 1.27, 3.65), 1.70 (95%CI: 1.12, 2.60), and 1.43 (95%CI: 1.05, 1.93), respectively. No associations were found for air pollution and other blood lipids. Long-term PM1, PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 exposures were positively associated with TC levels and risk of hypercholesterolemia in children and adolescents. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available