SIGNIFICANCE OF STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL WORRY IN STUDIES OF HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPOSURE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ODOURS

Abstract

ISEE-172 Introduction: Evaluating public health relevance of an industrial source is complicated if the source in question leads to annoyance due to environmental odours. As worry is expected to arise with perception of environmental odours, higher rates of reported health complaints are expected in those exposed. Aim: In the process of evaluating an industrial source it would be favourable to consider effects of annoyance due to environmental factors, as well as environmental worry on reported health, separately from those attributed to actual organic impairment. Methods: Reported bodily complaints (47 single bodily complaints for which the subject’s house physicians had found no explanation, SOMS 2 questionnaire acc. to Rief et al. 1997) and environmental worry (scale acc. to Hodapp et al. 1996) were assessed in questionnaire based interviews in residents living near large scale composting sites. These sites were causing considerable odour annoyance. Microbiological measurements were performed in residential air, assuring that health relevant bioaerosol pollution (determination of viable microorganisms in residential air) did not occur in the neighborhood. With logistic regression (SPSS version 11.5) adjusted (age, gender, education) odds ratios (OR) were calculated for single bodily complaints, sum of bodily complaints (complaints index) being >4 in a basic model for residents near composting sites in association to their reported odour annoyance. In a second step, environmental worry was included in the model. Results: 130 subjects were included in the study, 67% reported being annoyed by residential odour. In odur annoyed residents, odds ratios were elevated for reporting single complaints: nausea [OR 4.07, 95% Confidence interval (CI) 1.11, 14.97], headache [OR 3.21, 95% CI 1.25, 8.25], intolerance of food [4.10, 95% CI 0.87, 19.34], dryness of mouth [OR 8.62, 95% CI 0.98, 75.92], hot or cold sweating [4.32, 95% CI 0.82, 22.86] as well as complaints index of >4: [OR 2.56, 95% CI 1,07, 6.12] in the basic model. When further adjustment was performed for individual environmental worry, OR for complaints associated with odour annoyance decreased and were considerably weaker for general unspecific complaints: headache [OR 2.38, 95% CI 0.89, 6.38], dryness of mouth [OR 5.77, 95% CI 0.61, 54.69], sweating [OR 4.32, 95% CI 0.82, 22.86] as well as complaint index being >4 [OR 2.18, 95% CI 0.87, 5.43], while OR for nausea increased, OR [4.39, 95% CI 1.10, 17.59]. Conclusion: This study was able to discriminate between environmental odour annoyance and worry, in association with reported health status in residents near an odorous industrial source. Association between individual odour annoyance and complaint rates decreased clearly once individual worry was considered. Possible health effects of microbial pollution from the composting sites did not need to be considered, on the basis of prior measurements showing no relevant bioaerosols pollution. From this it can be deduced that in situations where environmental annoyance (e.g. due to an industrial source) is inevitable, risk communication and public information leading to a decrease in environmental worry may improve individual perception (and reports) of health status in affected subjects. This in turn may lead to better acceptance of the environmental source in question.