4.6 Article

Acute health effects from exposure to indoor ultrafine particles-A randomized controlled crossover study among young mild asthmatics

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 1993-2007

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12902

关键词

candles; cooking; human exposure; indoor air; inflammation; particles

资金

  1. Realdania Forskning [PRJ-2017-00024]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research showed that short-term exposure to emissions from cooking and candles may affect the health of asthmatics, particularly in males, by causing mild inflammation and discomfort.
Particulate matter is linked to adverse health effects, however, little is known about health effects of particles emitted from typical indoor sources. We examined acute health effects of short-term exposure to emissions from cooking and candles among asthmatics. In a randomized controlled double-blinded crossover study, 36 young non-smoking asthmatics attended three exposure sessions lasting 5 h: (a) air mixed with emissions from cooking (fine particle mass concentration): (PM2.5: 96.1 mu g/m(3)), (b) air mixed with emissions from candles (PM2.5: 89.8 mu g/m(3)), and c) clean filtered air (PM2.5: 5.8 mu g/m(3)). Health effects (spirometry, fractional exhaled Nitric Oxide [FeNO], nasal volume and self-reported symptoms) were evaluated before exposure start, then 5 and 24 h after. During exposures volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particle size distributions, number concentrations and optical properties were measured. Generally, no statistically significant changes were observed in spirometry, FeNO, or nasal volume comparing cooking and candle exposures to clean air. In males, nasal volume and FeNO decreased after exposure to cooking and candles, respectively. Participants reported additional and more pronounced symptoms during exposure to cooking and candles compared to clean air. The results indicate that emissions from cooking and candles exert mild inflammation in asthmatic males and decrease comfort among asthmatic males and females.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据