Suppr超能文献

根据交通工具划分的环境空气污染水平:系统评价。

Levels of ambient air pollution according to mode of transport: a systematic review.

机构信息

Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus Medical Center, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

出版信息

Lancet Public Health. 2017 Jan;2(1):e23-e34. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(16)30021-4. Epub 2016 Nov 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists about the differences in air pollution exposure and inhalation dose between mode of transport. We aimed to review air pollution exposure and inhaled dose according to mode of transport and pollutant and their effect in terms of years of life expectancy (YLE).

METHODS

In this systematic review, we searched ten online databases from inception to April 13, 2016, without language or temporal restrictions, for cohort, cross-sectional, and experimental studies that compared exposure to carbon monoxide, black carbon, nitrogen dioxide, and fine and coarse particles in active commuters (pedestrian or cyclist) and commuters using motorised transport (car, motorcycle, bus, or massive motorised transport [MMT-ie, train, subway, or metro]). We excluded studies that measured air pollution exposure exclusively with biomarkers or on the basis of simulated data, reviews, comments, consensuses, editorials, guidelines, in-vitro studies, meta-analyses, ecological studies, and protocols. We extracted average exposure and commuting time per mode of transport and pollutant to calculate inhaled doses. We calculated exposure and inhaled dose ratios using active commuters as the reference and summarised them with medians and IQRs. We also calculated differences in YLE due to fine particle inhaled dose and physical activity.

FINDINGS

We identified 4037 studies, of which 39 were included in the systematic review. Overall, car commuters had higher exposure to all pollutants than did active commuters in 30 (71%) of 42 comparisons (median ratio 1·22 [IQR 0·90-1·76]), followed by those who commuted by bus in 57 (52%) of 109 (1·0 [0·79-1·41]), by motorcycle in 16 (50%) of 32 (0·99 [0·86-1·38]), by a car with controlled ventilation settings in 39 (45%) of 86 (0·95 [0·66-1·54]), and by MMT in 21 (38%) of 55 (0·67 [0·49-1·13]). Overall, active commuters had higher inhalation doses than did commuters using motorised transport (median ratio car with controlled ventilation settings 0·16 [0·10-0·28]; car 0·22 [0·15-0·30]; motorcycle 0·38 [0·26-0·78]; MMT 0·49 [0·34-0·81]; bus 0·72 [IQR 0·50-0·99]). Commuters using motorised transport lost up to 1 year in YLE more than did cyclists.

INTERPRETATION

Proximity to traffic and high air interchange increased the exposure to air pollution of commuters using motorised transport. Larger inhalation rates and commuting time increased inhaled dose among active commuters. Benefits of active commuting from physical activity are larger than the risk from an increased inhaled dose of fine particles.

FUNDING

Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS), National Health and Medical Research Council, Nestlé Nutrition (Nestec), Metagenics, and AXA.

摘要

背景

关于不同交通方式的空气污染暴露和吸入剂量存在争议。我们旨在根据交通方式和污染物审查空气污染暴露和吸入剂量,并根据预期寿命(YLE)进行评估。

方法

在这项系统综述中,我们在 2016 年 4 月 13 日之前,从十个在线数据库中搜索了无语言或时间限制的队列、横断面和实验研究,比较了活跃通勤者(步行或骑自行车)和使用机动交通工具(汽车、摩托车、公共汽车或大规模机动交通工具[即火车、地铁或地铁])的通勤者的一氧化碳、黑碳、二氧化氮以及细颗粒物和粗颗粒物的暴露情况。我们排除了仅使用生物标志物或基于模拟数据、综述、评论、共识、社论、指南、体外研究、荟萃分析、生态研究和方案来测量空气污染暴露的研究。我们提取了每种交通方式和污染物的平均暴露量和通勤时间,以计算吸入剂量。我们使用活跃的通勤者作为参考来计算暴露和吸入剂量比值,并总结为中位数和 IQR。我们还计算了由于细颗粒物吸入剂量和体力活动而导致的 YLE 差异。

结果

我们确定了 4037 项研究,其中 39 项被纳入系统综述。总体而言,与活跃通勤者相比,汽车通勤者在 42 项比较中有 30 项(71%)的所有污染物暴露都更高(中位数比值为 1.22[IQR 0.90-1.76]),其次是公共汽车通勤者(52%)在 109 项中(1.0[0.79-1.41]),摩托车通勤者(50%)在 32 项中(0.99[0.86-1.38]),装有控制通风设备的汽车通勤者(45%)在 86 项中(0.95[0.66-1.54]),大规模机动交通工具通勤者(38%)在 55 项中(0.67[0.49-1.13])。总体而言,活跃通勤者的吸入剂量高于使用机动交通工具的通勤者(中位数比值:装有控制通风设备的汽车 0.16[0.10-0.28];汽车 0.22[0.15-0.30];摩托车 0.38[0.26-0.78];大规模机动交通工具 0.49[0.34-0.81];公共汽车 0.72[IQR 0.50-0.99])。使用机动交通工具的通勤者比骑自行车的人损失了多达 1 年的 YLE。

结论

接近交通和高空气交换增加了使用机动交通工具的通勤者的空气污染暴露。较大的吸入率和通勤时间增加了活跃通勤者的吸入剂量。积极通勤带来的体力活动益处大于增加细颗粒物吸入剂量的风险。

资金

哥伦比亚科学技术与创新管理局(COLCIENCIAS)、国家健康与医学研究理事会、雀巢营养(Nestec)、美吉斯、AXA。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验