4.7 Review

Exposures to airborne particulate matter and adverse perinatal outcomes: A biologically plausible mechanistic framework for exploring potential effect modification by nutrition

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 114, 期 11, 页码 1636-1642

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9081

关键词

air pollution; biomarkers; birth outcomes; cardiovascular disease; nutrition; particulate matter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: The specific objectives are threefold: to describe the biologically plausible mechanistic pathways by which exposure to particulate matter (PM) may lead to the adverse perinatal outcomes of low birth weight (LBW), intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR), and preterm, delivery (PTD); review the evidence showing that nutrition affects the biologic pathways; and explain the mechanisms by which nutrition may modify the impact of PM exposure on perinatal outcomes. METHODS: We propose an interdisciplinary conceptual framework that brings together maternal and infant nutrition, air pollution exposure assessment, and cardiopulmonary and perinatal epidemiology. Five possible albeit not exclusive biologic mechanisms have been put forth in the emerging environmental sciences literature and provide corollaries for the proposed framework. CONCLUSIONS: Protecting the environmental health of mothers and infants remains a top global priority. The existing literature indicates that the effects of PM on LBW, PTD, and IUGR may manifest through the cardiovascular mechanisms of oxidative stress, inflammation, coagulation, endothelial function, and hemodynamic responses. PM exposure studies relating mechanistic pathways to perinatal outcomes should consider the likelihood that biologic responses and adverse birth outcomes may be derived from both PM and non-PM sources (e.g., nutrition). In the concluding section, we present strategies for empirically testing the proposed model and developing future research efforts.

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

4.7
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