Environmental pollutants particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), Sulfur dioxide (SO2), and Ozone (O3) impact on lung functions

Abstract

ObjectivesEnvironmental pollution has been an emerging global public health problem worldwide. This study aimed to investigate the impact of air pollutants particulate matter PM2.5, PM10, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and Ozone (O3) on lung functions. MethodsIn this matched case-control, cross-sectional study, two schools were selected located in two different areas, school # 1 was located near a traffic-polluted area, and school # 2 was in an area away from the traffic-polluted area. Of a total of 300 students, 150 (75 boys and 75 girls) students from school # 1 and 150 students (75 boys and 75 girls) were from school # 2 located away from a traffic-polluted area. The mean age of students was 13.53 ± 1.20 years. The students in both schools were enrolled in the study on their voluntary involvement, and health status, matched by age, height, weight, gender, nationality, regional, socioeconomic, and cultural background, and the admission criteria of their schools. The environmental pollutants particulate matter “PM2.5, PM10, CO, NO2, SO2, and O3” were recorded. The level of air pollutants in school # 1 was 35.00 ± 0.65, significantly higher compared to school # 2 (29.95 ± 0.32). The pulmonary function test (PFT) parameters were performed on an electronic Spirometer. The parameters included “Forced Vital Capacity (FVC); Forced Expiratory Volume in the first second (FEV1); Forced Expiratory Ratio (FEV1/FVC %); Forced Expiratory Flow 25 % (FEF 25 %); Forced Expiratory Flow 50 % (FEF 50 %); Forced Expiratory Flow 75 % (FEF 75 %) and Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PEFR) were recorded”. ResultsThe results revealed that the mean values for FEF-50 % (3.31 ± 1.18); FEF-75 % (1.66 ± 0.80) and PEFR (5.02 ± 1.79) were significantly decreased among students studying in school situated in a motor vehicle polluted area compared to those studying in school positioned away from the motor vehicle polluted area FEF-50 % (5.85 ± 6.21) (p = 0.001); and FEF-75 % (4.49 ± 6.87) (p = 0.001), and PEFR (8.14 ± 15.08) (p = 0.012). However, the groups had no significant difference between FVC, FEV1, FEV1/FVC Ratio (%), and FEF-25 %. The findings further demonstrated that the pattern of lung function impairment was peripheral airway lung involvement amongst the students in schools placed in environmentally contaminated areas. ConclusionsEnvironmental pollution significantly impaired lung function parameters FEF-50%, FEF-75% and PEFR, with peripheral airway lung involvement among students who studied in a school situated in motor vehicle-polluted areas. The results highlight the importance of the implementation of effective mitigation strategies and promoting sustainable and environmentally friendly transportation options to combat environmental pollution.