Study links PM2.5 pollution to heart damage
26 May 2017
Research presented at the annual CMR (cardiovascular magnetic resonance) imaging conference of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) links PM2.5 pollution to heart damage. Among the sources of urban PM2.5 are diesel and gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines (earlier post).
There is strong evidence that particulate matter (PM) from road vehicles is associated with increased risk of heart attack, heart failure, and death, said lead author Dr. Nay Aung, a cardiologist and Wellcome Trust research fellow, William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, UK. “This appears to be driven by an inflammatory response—inhalation of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) causes localized inflammation of the lungs followed by a more systemic inflammation affecting the whole body. “
The current study examined whether PM2.5 may damage the heart directly. The study included 4,255 participants from the UK Biobank, a large community-based cohort study. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was conducted to measure left ventricular volume (structure) and left ventricular ejection fraction (function). Annual average exposure to PM2.5 was calculated based on participants’ home address.
The association between PM2.5 exposure and heart structure and function was estimated using multivariable linear regression, a form of statistical modeling which adjusts for potential factors that could influence the relationship such as age, gender, diabetes and blood pressure.
Participants were 62 years old on average and 47% were men. The annual average PM2.5 level was 10 μg/m3. The investigators found linear relationships between ambient PM2.5 level and heart structure and function. Every 5 μg/m3 increase in exposure was associated with a 4-8% increase in left ventricular volume and a 2% decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction.
We found that as PM2.5 exposure rises, the larger the heart gets and the worse it performs. Both of these measures are associated with increased morbidity and mortality from heart disease.
—Dr Aung
The researchers also looked for potential factors that could modify the relationship. They found that people with degree-level education were less prone to having a larger heart and had a smaller reduction in ejection fraction when exposed to PM2.5 than people with a lower level of education.
People who were highly educated were less likely to have harmful effects on the heart from pollution. This could be due to a number of factors including better housing and workplace conditions, which reduce pollution exposure. Educated people may also be more aware of their health, have healthier lifestyles, and have better access to healthcare.
—Dr Aung
Regarding how pollution might have these negative effects on the heart, Dr Aung said PM2.5 causes systemic inflammation, vasoconstriction and raised blood pressure. The combination of these factors can increase the pressure in the heart, which enlarges to cope with the overload. The heart chamber enlargement reduces the contractile efficiency leading to reduction in ejection fraction.
We found that the average exposure to PM2.5 in the UK is about 10 μg/m3 in our study. This is way below the European target of less than 25 μg/m3 and yet we are still seeing these harmful effects. This suggests that the current target level is not safe and should be lowered.
Our results suggest that PM2.5 is linked with negative changes in the heart structure and function that are associated with poor outcomes. Reducing PM2.5 emission should be an urgent public health priority and the worst offenders such as diesel vehicles should be addressed with policy measures.
—Dr Aung
Dr Aung presented the abstract ‘Impact of fine particulate matter air pollutant on cardiac atrial and ventricular structure and function derived from cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging – evidence from the UK Biobank’ during the BEST Oral Abstracts session on 26 May.
Resources
Bertsch, Markus. Experimental Investigations on Particle Number Emissions from GDI Engines. Berlin: Logos Berlin, 2016. Print.
Living close to highways and/or on busy streets used by ICEVs, may be as damaging for your heart as living with smokers?
People doing both will certainly be most affected?
Posted by: HarveyD | 26 May 2017 at 07:02 AM
What continuously stuns me is that we need studies to tell people that essentially breathing poison has long term health effects.
We evolved to breathe air with mostly nitrogen and oxygen, a little argon and with 0.04% carbon dioxide...and a few other trace elements. So why do we have to convince people that polluting and putting other SH*T in the air might have bad side effects??? Sigh.
Sorry, redundant question. Trump doesn't even know that Isreal is in the middle east and the average American can't tell North Korea from Vietnam/Cambodia or even Australia on a map...so why waste my time asking.
Posted by: DaveD | 26 May 2017 at 11:04 AM
There must be some seriously ambiguous interpretation of data by Dr. Aung here. Particles in engine exhaust are way smaller than 2.5 micrometer and contribute very little to PM2.5 (total mass up to 2.5 micrometer). Instead, PM2.5, and PM10 for that matter, is dominated by road/tire contact and other sources than exhaust. This has been shown by many researches in the past. For PM2.5, and PM10, it does not help to introduce EVs. On contrary, the EV is heavier than a conventional ICE vehicle and thus, the EVs will create more PM2.5, and PM10. Moreover, the thesis referenced to at the end of the article talks about particle number, not PM2.5. I have not read the thesis but I read the abstract. Nowhere in the abstract PM2.5 is mentioned. I have no problem to comprehend that there are (severe) health effects of “large” particles, such as PM2.5 and PM10, as well as from nanoparticles (perhaps even worse), but one should not blame vehicle exhaust when other sources dominate.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 26 May 2017 at 11:13 AM
Most people don't want to know if they think there is nothing they can do about it. There are lots of steps they can take, they just don't want to. Politicians know this.
Posted by: SJC | 26 May 2017 at 11:14 AM
Burning fossil fuels should be progressively restricted and/or banned. Much lighter electrified vehicles together with improved tires could reduce harmful emissions.
Near future (positive) actions will probably come from China, Japan, So-Korea and Europe.
Posted by: HarveyD | 26 May 2017 at 01:14 PM
I saw a graphic that portrayed our geographical area on the globe has the least production of PMs. The emissions are generated from numerous natural sources and these sources account for 70%. Sources include dusty roads, campfires, forest fires, volcano eruptions, cooking food, blowing leaves, and dusty soil tillage.
Transportation generates 30%. Tires, brakes, exhaust. So, hybrids and BEV that utilize deacceleration for battery recharge a good thing as it will avoid brake dust. Decreasing use of electric power a good thing since most of the power is coal. Decreasing power consumption will also allow the hydro and wind a larger percentage of production. Don't use your car brakes as hard and use hybrid vehicles. Support forestry practices to minimize forest fire danger. Transition from combustion of cellulosic fuel to ethanol production. Plant more trees as they are very potent air cleaners. Utilize indoor plants for the same. Align tires per neutral toe and chamber for greatly improving tire mileage and quite hard corning practices. Avoid diesel engines and use mid grade ethanol fuel. Use mid grade ethanol fuel in all small engines as well except two cycle engines, unless you have adjusted fuel settings for ethanol and utilize the same fuel consistently. Avoid wide open throttle operation of ICE. Urge farmers to utilize low till practices.
Posted by: Trees | 29 May 2017 at 03:53 AM
Include nuclear power with wind and hydro for minimizing PM 2.5. Also, a good practice to put the exhaust fan on when cooking. The cooking process generates PMs especially frying. Better to use low temperature methods. Same for outdoor grilling. The lower temperature "ceramic" grills would think would do a fine job. Mine does, with little smoke.
Sad to say wood burning produces either large or PM2.5 and smaller particles. Even the high efficient low smoke pellet stove. The wood combustion process is is huge PM emission. Anything we do to prevent or lessen wood fire is good. I guess my beloved days of wood stove and campfire is limited. Our household is going to gas even before this info. Currently, Western states often have limitations on campfires. They make some wonderful artificial log propane outdoor campfire rings that do the job and much more convenient. Much smaller, but easy to manage and look real. That is an o.k. trade off for me.
It looks like the anaerobic cellulosic process for fuel supply may be the gold ring for environment. First the pure CO2 emission is easily captured and utilized in other processes. Eliminating the natural CO2 and methane decomposition process is a home run per GW concerns. Feed stocks are GMO and can be engineered to maximize to sequester carbon within soil another huge benefit. Current plants do this now, but it can be maximized. The market probably will incentify maximum plant growth and land utilization. That's great for food production practices and GW CO2 conversion.
Posted by: Trees | 29 May 2017 at 05:44 AM
Looks like an education will be the MOST IMPORTANT factor
So lets keep the helping others esp the tin eared conspiracy theorist promoters reading invented unfathomably deep you know what I mean (shhpoliticianssh)
Posted by: Arnold | 30 May 2017 at 02:25 AM
Unfortunately, to replace/rehab existing NPPs in USA, France, Europe, Ontario, Russia, Japan, So-Korea etc is too costly and not profitable. They will be shut down instead and replaced with lower cost, not so clean, NGPP and so called clean coal units.
Solar and Wind units may eventually become as cheap and could be the ideal replacements when and if storage units are improved.
Posted by: HarveyD | 31 May 2017 at 08:33 AM