Short-term Effects of Fine Particulate Matter and its Constituents on Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis: A Time-stratified Case-crossover Study

Jingwei Zhang Jian Zhang Pengfei Li Yandan Xu Xuesong Zhou Xiuli Tang Jia Qiu Zhongao Ding Mingjia Xu Chongjian Wang

Jingwei Zhang, Jian Zhang, Pengfei Li, Yandan Xu, Xuesong Zhou, Xiuli Tang, Jia Qiu, Zhongao Ding, Mingjia Xu, Chongjian Wang. Short-term Effects of Fine Particulate Matter and its Constituents on Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis: A Time-stratified Case-crossover Study[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2025, 38(3): 389-393. doi: 10.3967/bes2025.026
Citation: Jingwei Zhang, Jian Zhang, Pengfei Li, Yandan Xu, Xuesong Zhou, Xiuli Tang, Jia Qiu, Zhongao Ding, Mingjia Xu, Chongjian Wang. Short-term Effects of Fine Particulate Matter and its Constituents on Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis: A Time-stratified Case-crossover Study[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2025, 38(3): 389-393. doi: 10.3967/bes2025.026

doi: 10.3967/bes2025.026

Short-term Effects of Fine Particulate Matter and its Constituents on Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis: A Time-stratified Case-crossover Study

More Information
    Author Bio:

    Jingwei Zhang, Postgraduate, majoring in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, E-mail: jingweizhang123@sina.com

    Jian Zhang, Postgraduate, majoring in Epidemiology and Biostatistics, E-mail: 18827849780@163.com

    Corresponding author: Mingjia Xu, E-mail: mingjiaxu@126.comChongjian Wang, E-mail: tjwcj2008@zzu.edu.cn
  • Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing-original draft: Jingwei Zhang & Jian Zhang. Data curation, Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing: Pengfei Li. Data curation, Methodology: Yandan Xu. Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing: Xuesong Zhou. Investigation, Writing- review & Editing: Xiuli Tang. Investigation, Writing - review & Editing: Jia Qiu. Investigation, Writing - review & Editing: Zhongao Ding. Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Writing - review & editing: Mingjia Xu. Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration: Chongjian Wang. All authors have approved the final manuscript.
  • The authors declare that no potential conflicts of interest exist.
  • &These authors contributed equally to this work.
  • Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Methodology, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing-original draft: Jingwei Zhang & Jian Zhang. Data curation, Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing: Pengfei Li. Data curation, Methodology: Yandan Xu. Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing: Xuesong Zhou. Investigation, Writing- review & Editing: Xiuli Tang. Investigation, Writing - review & Editing: Jia Qiu. Investigation, Writing - review & Editing: Zhongao Ding. Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Writing - review & editing: Mingjia Xu. Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Supervision, Writing - Review & Editing, Funding acquisition, Project administration: Chongjian Wang. All authors have approved the final manuscript.
    The authors declare that no potential conflicts of interest exist.
    &These authors contributed equally to this work.
    注释:
    1) Authors’ Contributions: 2) Competing Interests:
  • S1.  Map distribution of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Map approval number: SH(2020)037.

    S2.  The pairwise coefficients of Spearman correlation between PM2.5 and its constituents.

    Figure  1.  Odds ratios (with 95% CIs) for the increased incidence of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis associated with a 10 µg/m³ increment increase in PM2.5 and its constituents at various lag days.

    Figure  2.  Concentration-response curves PM2.5 and its constituents associated with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. P nonlinear: Likelihood ratio tests for non-linearity with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between the linear assumption and NSC smoothing function. NSC: natural spline cubic.

    S3.  The association between PM2.5 and its constituents and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis in the CHAP data set.

    S4.  Concentration-response curves PM2.5 and its constituents associated with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis in the CHAP data set.

    Table  1.   Summary statistics and characteristics of AECB cases

    Characteristic Number Percentage (%)
    AECB (ICD-10 code: J44.1) 2,202 100
    Case days 2,202
    Control days 7,381
    Sex
    Men 1,348 61.22
    Women 854 38.78
    Age of onset (years, mean ± SD) 78.47 ± 8.53
    < 80 years 1,057 48.00
    ≥ 80 years 1,145 52.00
    Season at happen
    Cold (January to March, October to December) 1,384 62.85
    Warm (April to September) 818 37.15
      Note. Number is frequency, or mean ± SD, or n (%). ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases–Tenth Revision; AECB, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S1.   Summary distributions of total PM2.5, PM2.5 constituents on case days and control days, 2018–2022

    Variables Min Q1 (25%) Median Q3 (75%) Max Mean SD IQR % of PM2.5 mass
    On case days (n = 2,202)
    PM2.5 (µg/m³) 1.00 18.00 27.00 47.00 132.00 34.52 22.85 29.00 100
    BC (µg/m³) 0.03 0.79 1.21 1.84 5.26 1.42 0.84 1.05 4.11
    NO3- (µg/m³) 0.11 3.09 5.73 11.88 40.59 8.20 6.94 8.79 23.75
    SO42- (µg/m³) 0.18 3.76 5.55 8.46 31.05 6.65 4.13 4.70 19.26
    NH4+ (µg/m³) 0.09 2.35 4.04 7.66 21.36 5.34 4.03 5.31 15.47
    OM (µg/m³) 0.20 3.72 5.83 9.74 32.59 7.47 5.32 6.02 21.64
    On control days (n = 7,381)
    PM2.5 (µg/m³) 1.00 18.00 27.00 47.00 135.00 34.53 22.73 29.00 100
    BC (µg/m³) 0.03 0.80 1.23 1.84 4.95 1.41 0.80 1.04 4.08
    NO3- (µg/m³) 0.10 3.03 5.80 12.13 42.28 8.17 6.75 9.10 23.66
    SO42- (µg/m³) 0.17 3.73 5.60 8.70 31.20 6.66 4.12 4.97 19.29
    NH4+ (µg/m³) 0.08 2.32 4.09 7.73 22.12 5.33 3.95 5.41 15.44
    OM (µg/m³) 0.17 3.75 5.88 9.75 34.21 7.46 5.22 6.00 21.60
      Note. PM2.5, fine particulate matter; BC, black carbon; NO3- , nitrate; SO42- , sulfate; NH4+ , ammonium; OM, organic matter. Min, minimum; Max, maximum; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S2.   Summary distribution of average levels of PM2.5 its constituents for the study period 2018–2020

    Variable Min Q1 (25%) Median Q3 (75%) Max Mean SD IQR
    PM2.5 (µg/m³) 1.00 18.00 27.00 47.00 135.00 34.52 22.48 29.00
    BC (µg/m³) 0.03 0.8 1.22 1.84 5.26 1.41 0.81 1.04
    NO3- (µg/m³) 0.10 3.04 5.79 12.09 42.28 8.18 6.79 9.05
    SO42- (µg/m³) 0.17 3.74 5.59 8.61 31.20 6.66 4.12 4.87
    NH4- (µg/m³) 0.08 2.33 4.07 7.72 22.12 5.33 3.97 5.38
    OM (µg/m³) 0.17 3.74 5.86 9.75 34.21 7.46 5.24 6.01
      Note. PM2.5, fine particulate matter; BC, black carbon; NO3- , nitrate; SO42- , sulfate; NH4+ , ammonium; OM, organic matter. Min, minimum; Max, maximum; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S5.   In subgroup analyses, the odds ratio (95% CI) for AECB was associated with each 10µg/m³ increase in exposure to PM2.5 and its constituents

    Subgroup PM2.5 BC NO3-
    OR (95% CI) P-values P.int OR (95% CI) P-values P.int OR (95% CI) P-values P.int
    Sex
    Men 1.046 (1.017, 1.076) 0.002 0.165 2.352 (1.104, 5.009) 0.027 0.341 1.168 (1.062, 1.285) 0.001 0.271
    Women 1.013 (0.979, 1.049) 0.455 1.317 (0.522, 3.32) 0.559 1.074 (0.956, 1.207) 0.231
    Age
    < 80 years 1.034 (1.002, 1.067) 0.035 0.888 1.549 (0.669, 3.586) 0.307 0.548 1.132 (1.019, 1.258) 0.021 0.951
    80+ years 1.031 (1.000, 1.063) 0.048 2.218 (0.981, 5.013) 0.056 1.127 (1.017, 1.249) 0.023
    Season at happen
    Cold 1.034 (1.009, 1.059) 0.008 0.882 2.391 (1.223, 4.674) 0.011 0.138 1.125 (1.037, 1.221) 0.005 0.835
    Warm 1.029 (0.980, 1.081) 0.252 0.840 (0.251, 2.813) 0.778 1.148 (0.969, 1.36) 0.110
    Subgroup SO42- NH4+ OM
    OR (95% CI) P-values P.int OR (95% CI) P-values P.int OR (95% CI) P-values P.int
    Sex
    Men 1.235 (1.065, 1.432) 0.005 0.119 1.265 (1.077, 1.485) 0.004 0.24 1.145 (1.018, 1.287) 0.023 0.394
    Women 1.025 (0.855, 1.229) 0.789 1.087 (0.894, 1.321) 0.404 1.048 (0.909, 1.209) 0.515
    Age
    < 80 years 1.172 (0.996, 1.38) 0.056 0.391 1.207 (1.011, 1.441) 0.037 0.818 1.116 (0.982, 1.269) 0.094 0.826
    80+ years 1.119 (0.953, 1.315) 0.170 1.173 (0.986, 1.395) 0.072 1.094 (0.963, 1.242) 0.166
    Season
    Cold 1.171 (1.020, 1.344) 0.025 0.569 1.191 (1.035, 1.37) 0.015 0.972 1.111 (1.005, 1.228) 0.039 0.793
    Warm 1.089 (0.884, 1.341) 0.423 1.184 (0.909, 1.544) 0.210 1.077 (0.876, 1.325) 0.480
      Note. *P < 0.05; P.int: P-value of regression coefficient hypothesis test. P-values of regression coefficient hypothesis test.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S6.   Sensitivity analysis of odds ratios (95% CI) for each 10 µg/m³-associated increase in exposure to air pollutants in AECB

    Exposure Model adjustments OR (95% CI) P-values a P.int
    PM2.5 Main model 1.033 (1.01, 1.055) 0.004
    and O3 1.029 (1.005, 1.052) 0.016 0.656
    BC Main model 1.862 (1.038, 3.342) 0.037
    and O3 1.642 (0.890, 3.027) 0.112 0.209
    NO3- Main model 1.129 (1.049, 1.216) 0.001
    and O3 1.116 (1.033, 1.206) 0.005 0.754
    SO42- Main model 1.145 (1.021, 1.284) 0.02
    and O3 1.122 (0.997, 1.262) 0.056 0.769
    NH4+ Main model 1.190 (1.051, 1.346) 0.006
    and O3 1.162 (1.020, 1.324) 0.024 0.657
    OM Main model 1.105 (1.009, 1.209) 0.031
    and O3 1.082 (0.984, 1.191) 0.105 0.595
      Note. df: degrees of freedom; P.int: P-value of regression coefficient hypothesis test. P-values of regression coefficient hypothesis test.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S3.   The estimated odds ratios (95% CI) for PM2.5 and its constituents for each 10 (µg/m³) increase in AECB risk on different lag days

    Exposure Lag structures OR (95% CI) P-values
    PM2.5 (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.002 (0.979, 1.025) 0.869
    Lag 1-day 1.006 (0.984, 1.029) 0.598
    Lag 2-day 1.005 (0.983, 1.028) 0.656
    Lag 3-day 1.002 (0.980, 1.025) 0.849
    Lag 4-day 1.020 (0.998, 1.042) 0.081
    Lag 5-day 1.033 (1.010, 1.055) 0.004
    Lag 6-day 1.003 (0.981, 1.026) 0.785
    Lag 7-day 1.014 (0.992, 1.037) 0.217
    Lag 01-day 1.006 (0.979, 1.033) 0.679
    Lag 02-day 1.008 (0.977, 1.040) 0.606
    Lag 03-day 1.009 (0.975, 1.043) 0.619
    Lag 04-day 1.019 (0.982, 1.056) 0.316
    Lag 05-day 1.034 (0.995, 1.074) 0.088
    Lag 06-day 1.033 (0.993, 1.075) 0.108
    Lag 07-day 1.038 (0.996, 1.083) 0.078
    BC (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.129 (0.623, 2.046) 0.690
    Lag 1-day 1.343 (0.743, 2.427) 0.329
    Lag 2-day 1.204 (0.664, 2.184) 0.541
    Lag 3-day 0.989 (0.552, 1.771) 0.970
    Lag 4-day 1.559 (0.875, 2.775) 0.132
    Lag 5-day 1.862 (1.038, 3.342) 0.037
    Lag 6-day 1.218 (0.670, 2.215) 0.518
    Lag 7-day 1.349 (0.736, 2.474) 0.333
    Lag 01-day 1.344 (0.663, 2.724) 0.412
    Lag 02-day 1.443 (0.647, 3.217) 0.371
    Lag 03-day 1.384 (0.573, 3.342) 0.469
    Lag 04-day 1.718 (0.665, 4.440) 0.264
    Lag 05-day 2.249 (0.823, 6.144) 0.114
    Lag 06-day 2.389 (0.823, 6.938) 0.109
    Lag 07-day 2.681 (0.866, 8.299) 0.087
    NO3- (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.006 (0.931, 1.088) 0.871
    Lag 1-day 1.020 (0.944, 1.101) 0.623
    Lag 2-day 1.020 (0.944, 1.102) 0.617
    Lag 3-day 1.019 (0.945, 1.099) 0.620
    Lag 4-day 1.078 (1.000, 1.162) 0.049
    Lag 5-day 1.129 (1.049, 1.216) 0.001
    Lag 6-day 1.030 (0.955, 1.112) 0.439
    Lag 7-day 1.064 (0.986, 1.149) 0.109
    Lag 01-day 1.018 (0.929, 1.116) 0.699
    Lag 02-day 1.027 (0.927, 1.139) 0.608
    Lag 03-day 1.035 (0.925, 1.158) 0.546
    Lag 04-day 1.072 (0.951, 1.208) 0.254
    Lag 05-day 1.131 (0.997, 1.283) 0.055
    Lag 06-day 1.140 (0.998, 1.301) 0.054
    Lag 07-day 1.165 (1.013, 1.340) 0.032
    SO42- (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.986 (0.874, 1.112) 0.818
    Lag 1-day 0.985 (0.873, 1.110) 0.801
    Lag 2-day 0.992 (0.879, 1.119) 0.898
    Lag 3-day 0.985 (0.876, 1.108) 0.806
    Lag 4-day 1.079 (0.962, 1.212) 0.195
    Lag 5-day 1.145 (1.021, 1.284) 0.020
    Lag 6-day 0.996 (0.885, 1.122) 0.953
    Lag 7-day 1.056 (0.937, 1.191) 0.371
    Lag 01-day 0.978 (0.846, 1.132) 0.770
    Lag 02-day 0.976 (0.824, 1.155) 0.775
    Lag 03-day 0.968 (0.801, 1.169) 0.735
    Lag 04-day 1.017 (0.828, 1.249) 0.872
    Lag 05-day 1.103 (0.885, 1.375) 0.381
    Lag 06-day 1.099 (0.868, 1.391) 0.432
    Lag 07-day 1.132 (0.880, 1.457) 0.333
    NH4+ (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.008 (0.886, 1.148) 0.903
    Lag 1-day 1.035 (0.910, 1.177) 0.602
    Lag 2-day 1.048 (0.921, 1.193) 0.475
    Lag 3-day 1.027 (0.905, 1.164) 0.682
    Lag 4-day 1.127 (0.995, 1.276) 0.061
    Lag 5-day 1.190 (1.051, 1.346) 0.006
    Lag 6-day 1.046 (0.921, 1.188) 0.490
    Lag 7-day 1.109 (0.976, 1.260) 0.114
    Lag 01-day 1.030 (0.884, 1.200) 0.704
    Lag 02-day 1.055 (0.887, 1.254) 0.544
    Lag 03-day 1.065 (0.881, 1.287) 0.514
    Lag 04-day 1.129 (0.921, 1.384) 0.242
    Lag 05-day 1.222 (0.985, 1.515) 0.068
    Lag 06-day 1.237 (0.985, 1.553) 0.068
    Lag 07-day 1.288 (1.013, 1.639) 0.039
    OM (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.005 (0.914, 1.106) 0.910
    Lag 1-day 1.046 (0.953, 1.149) 0.342
    Lag 2-day 1.019 (0.928, 1.119) 0.689
    Lag 3-day 1.022 (0.933, 1.119) 0.637
    Lag 4-day 1.079 (0.986, 1.180) 0.096
    Lag 5-day 1.105 (1.009, 1.209) 0.031
    Lag 6-day 1.004 (0.915, 1.101) 0.935
    Lag 7-day 1.097 (0.998, 1.205) 0.055
    Lag 01-day 1.037 (0.927, 1.160) 0.525
    Lag 02-day 1.045 (0.919, 1.187) 0.505
    Lag 03-day 1.054 (0.915, 1.214) 0.462
    Lag 04-day 1.097 (0.942, 1.276) 0.234
    Lag 05-day 1.145 (0.977, 1.342) 0.095
    Lag 06-day 1.138 (0.963, 1.344) 0.128
    Lag 07-day 1.178 (0.989, 1.403) 0.066
      Note. P-values of regression coefficient hypothesis test; the bold indicates correlation is significant at the 0.5 level.
    下载: 导出CSV

    S4.   The estimated odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for PM2.5 mass and its constituents for each 10 (µg/m³) increase in AECB risk on different lag days (Elimination of the COVID-19 pandemic: Populations after December 2019)

    Exposure Lag structures OR (95% CI) P-values
    PM2.5 (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.995 (0.969, 1.022) 0.730
    Lag 1-day 1.003 (0.977, 1.029) 0.842
    Lag 2-day 0.996 (0.971, 1.023) 0.775
    Lag 3-day 1.000 (0.975, 1.025) 0.988
    Lag 4-day 1.004 (0.979, 1.030) 0.731
    Lag 5-day 1.017 (0.992, 1.043) 0.187
    Lag 6-day 1.008 (0.982, 1.034) 0.553
    Lag 7-day 1.035 (1.009, 1.061) 0.009
    Lag 01-day 0.999 (0.968, 1.03) 0.933
    Lag 02-day 0.997 (0.962, 1.032) 0.848
    Lag 03-day 0.997 (0.959, 1.036) 0.871
    Lag 04-day 0.999 (0.959, 1.041) 0.978
    Lag 05-day 1.008 (0.965, 1.052) 0.727
    Lag 06-day 1.011 (0.966, 1.058) 0.642
    Lag 07-day 1.025 (0.978, 1.075) 0.300
    BC (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.869 (0.436, 1.729) 0.688
    Lag 1-day 1.137 (0.576, 2.247) 0.711
    Lag 2-day 0.972 (0.493, 1.917) 0.934
    Lag 3-day 0.882 (0.456, 1.706) 0.708
    Lag 4-day 1.082 (0.557, 2.103) 0.815
    Lag 5-day 1.232 (0.630, 2.407) 0.542
    Lag 6-day 1.364 (0.689, 2.699) 0.373
    Lag 7-day 2.227 (1.116, 4.444) 0.023
    Lag 01-day 0.993 (0.441, 2.237) 0.987
    Lag 02-day 0.977 (0.393, 2.432) 0.961
    Lag 03-day 0.912 (0.338, 2.466) 0.856
    Lag 04-day 0.957 (0.328, 2.790) 0.936
    Lag 05-day 1.059 (0.342, 3.284) 0.920
    Lag 06-day 1.212 (0.365, 4.029) 0.753
    Lag 07-day 1.691 (0.474, 6.026) 0.418
    NO3- (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.998 (0.911, 1.093) 0.958
    Lag 1-day 1.017 (0.930, 1.112) 0.717
    Lag 2-day 0.989 (0.904, 1.082) 0.806
    Lag 3-day 0.998 (0.915, 1.089) 0.962
    Lag 4-day 1.023 (0.936, 1.117) 0.617
    Lag 5-day 1.073 (0.984, 1.171) 0.110
    Lag 6-day 1.046 (0.958, 1.143) 0.318
    Lag 7-day 1.15 (1.054, 1.255) 0.002
    Lag 01-day 1.01 (0.908, 1.124) 0.854
    Lag 02-day 1.002 (0.889, 1.128) 0.977
    Lag 03-day 1.000 (0.879, 1.139) 0.995
    Lag 04-day 1.012 (0.881, 1.162) 0.871
    Lag 05-day 1.045 (0.903, 1.21) 0.554
    Lag 06-day 1.064 (0.911, 1.243) 0.432
    Lag 07-day 1.129 (0.958, 1.331) 0.146
    SO42- (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.962 (0.841, 1.102) 0.577
    Lag 1-day 0.962 (0.841, 1.100) 0.570
    Lag 2-day 0.961 (0.840, 1.100) 0.564
    Lag 3-day 0.987 (0.866, 1.124) 0.841
    Lag 4-day 0.995 (0.873, 1.134) 0.941
    Lag 5-day 1.054 (0.927, 1.199) 0.419
    Lag 6-day 0.992 (0.869, 1.133) 0.908
    Lag 7-day 1.120 (0.981, 1.279) 0.094
    Lag 01-day 0.946 (0.804, 1.112) 0.498
    Lag 02-day 0.928 (0.770, 1.118) 0.433
    Lag 03-day 0.926 (0.753, 1.138) 0.464
    Lag 04-day 0.926 (0.739, 1.161) 0.506
    Lag 05-day 0.958 (0.753, 1.220) 0.731
    Lag 06-day 0.955 (0.738, 1.237) 0.728
    Lag 07-day 1.015 (0.770, 1.337) 0.918
    NH4+ (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.000 (0.862, 1.160) 0.997
    Lag 1-day 1.027 (0.887, 1.189) 0.720
    Lag 2-day 1.001 (0.864, 1.160) 0.987
    Lag 3-day 1.004 (0.871, 1.158) 0.954
    Lag 4-day 1.033 (0.895, 1.192) 0.662
    Lag 5-day 1.089 (0.945, 1.256) 0.240
    Lag 6-day 1.077 (0.932, 1.246) 0.316
    Lag 7-day 1.236 (1.071, 1.427) 0.004
    Lag 01-day 1.019 (0.857, 1.212) 0.833
    Lag 02-day 1.017 (0.836, 1.235) 0.869
    Lag 03-day 1.017 (0.822, 1.259) 0.876
    Lag 04-day 1.033 (0.821, 1.299) 0.783
    Lag 05-day 1.074 (0.842, 1.371) 0.564
    Lag 06-day 1.108 (0.856, 1.435) 0.436
    Lag 07-day 1.216 (0.925, 1.599) 0.161
    OM (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.989 (0.888, 1.101) 0.841
    Lag 1-day 1.049 (0.945, 1.165) 0.367
    Lag 2-day 0.995 (0.895, 1.106) 0.921
    Lag 3-day 1.012 (0.915, 1.120) 0.815
    Lag 4-day 1.025 (0.925, 1.135) 0.637
    Lag 5-day 1.053 (0.951, 1.165) 0.324
    Lag 6-day 1.018 (0.918, 1.130) 0.732
    Lag 7-day 1.183 (1.066, 1.312) 0.002
    Lag 01-day 1.028 (0.906, 1.166) 0.670
    Lag 02-day 1.021 (0.884, 1.179) 0.781
    Lag 03-day 1.026 (0.876, 1.201) 0.749
    Lag 04-day 1.038 (0.876, 1.229) 0.667
    Lag 05-day 1.061 (0.889, 1.267) 0.509
    Lag 06-day 1.066 (0.886, 1.284) 0.497
    Lag 07-day 1.143 (0.942, 1.388) 0.176
      Note. P-values of regression coefficient hypothesis test; the bold indicates correlation is significant at the 0.5 level.
    下载: 导出CSV
  • [1] Mejza F, Gnatiuc L, Buist AS, et al. Prevalence and burden of chronic bronchitis symptoms: results from the BOLD study. Eur Respir J, 2017; 50, 1700621. doi:  10.1183/13993003.00621-2017
    [2] de Oca MM, Halbert RJ, Lopez MV, et al. The chronic bronchitis phenotype in subjects with and without COPD: the PLATINO study. Eur Respir J, 2012; 40, 28−36. doi:  10.1183/09031936.00141611
    [3] van Donkelaar A, Martin RV, Li C, et al. Regional estimates of chemical composition of fine particulate matter using a combined geoscience-statistical method with information from satellites, models, and monitors. Environ Sci Technol, 2019; 53, 2595−611. doi:  10.1021/acs.est.8b06392
    [4] Doiron D, Bourbeau J, De Hoogh K, et al. Ambient air pollution exposure and chronic bronchitis in the Lifelines cohort. Thorax, 2021; 76, 772−9. doi:  10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-216142
    [5] Hooper LG, Young MT, Keller JP, et al. Ambient air pollution and chronic bronchitis in a cohort of U. S. women. Environ Health Perspect, 2018; 126, 027005. doi:  10.1289/EHP2199
    [6] Geng GN, Zhang Q, Tong D, et al. Chemical composition of ambient PM2.5 over China and relationship to precursor emissions during 2005-2012. Atmos Chem Phys, 2017; 17, 9187−203. doi:  10.5194/acp-17-9187-2017
    [7] Liu SG, Geng GN, Xiao QY, et al. Tracking daily concentrations of PM2.5 chemical composition in China since 2000. Environ Sci Technol, 2022; 56, 16517−27. doi:  10.1021/acs.est.2c06510
    [8] Janes H, Sheppard L, Lumley T. Case-crossover analyses of air pollution exposure data: referent selection strategies and their implications for bias. Epidemiology, 2005; 16, 717−26. doi:  10.1097/01.ede.0000181315.18836.9d
    [9] Liu LJ, Song FJ, Fang JY, et al. Intraday effects of ambient PM1 on emergency department visits in Guangzhou, China: a case-crossover study. Sci Total Environ, 2021; 750, 142347. doi:  10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142347
    [10] Song YT, Yang L, Kang N, et al. Associations of incident female breast cancer with long-term exposure to PM2.5 and its constituents: findings from a prospective cohort study in Beijing, China. J Hazard Mater, 2024; 473, 134614. doi:  10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.134614
  • [1] Jingyu Wang, Yan Wang, Xiaohua Liang, Keyong Huang, Fangchao Liu, Shufeng Chen, Xiangfeng Lu, Jianxin Li.  Changes on Stroke Burden Attributable to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2024, 37(8): 823-833. doi: 10.3967/bes2024.083
    [2] ZHANG Yi Fan, MA Yu Xia, LI He Ping, CHENG Bo Wen, FENG Feng Liu, JIAO Hao Ran.  Short-term exposure to ozone and nonaccidental mortality in Northeast China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(1): 99-102. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.010
    [3] JIANGTULU Bahabaike, LAN Chang Xin, CHEN Jun Xi, CHEN Xi, WANG Bin, XUE Tao.  Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Exposure and Blood Pressure: Evidence from a Large Chinese Multiple Follow-Up Study . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2023, 36(1): 38-49. doi: 10.3967/bes2023.004
    [4] WEI Fei Ran, XIONG Li Lin, LI Wei, WANG Xue Rong, HONG Xin, CHEN Bao An.  Relationship between Short-term Exposure to PM2.5 and Daily Lung Cancer Mortality in Nanjing . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 33(7): 547-551. doi: 10.3967/bes2020.072
    [5] ZHENG Kai, CAI Ying, WANG Bing Yu, QIN Shuang Jian, LI Bo Ru, HUANG Hai Yan, QIN Xiao Yun, LONG Ding Xin, ZHANG Zhao Hui, XU Xin Yun.  Characteristics of Atmospheric Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Induced Differentially Expressed Proteins Determined by Proteomics and Bioinformatics Analyses . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 33(8): 583-592. doi: 10.3967/bes2020.077
    [6] WANG Chao, XU Yong Jun, SHI Ying, WANG Chong, DUAN Lian, GU Wen, RUAN Hong Jie, ZHANG Shao Ping, ZHI Hong, KONG Jian, ZHANG Li Xia, ZHANG Ming, ZHANG Hong Wei.  Verification on the Developmental Toxicity of Short-term Exposure to Phenol in Rats . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 33(6): 403-413. doi: 10.3967/bes2020.055
    [7] DONG Shi Rui, HAN Ya Jing, WU Jing, ZENG Cheng Li, ZHU Ke Hui, CHEN Xiao Jing, LIU Yu Mei, ZOU Xiao Qian, ZHENG Shao Ling, WEN Zi Hao, LIU Dan Dan, WANG Yao, HUANG Xiu Xia, DU Xiu Ben, HAO Jian Lei, WANG Huan Yu, GUO Shu, JING Chun Xia, YANG Guang.  Distribution of Microbiota in Fine Particulate Matter Particles in Guangzhou, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 33(5): 306-314. doi: 10.3967/bes2020.042
    [8] CHE Chun Li, DONG Fu Shi, LI Jia Lin, ZHANG Chun Ling, LIU Lu, WU Yu Han, WANG Kun, QI Hong.  Retrospective Study of Effect of Fine Particulate Matter on Acute Exacerbation of Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 33(2): 138-140. doi: 10.3967/bes2020.018
    [9] YANG Xiao Yan, WEN Bo, HAN Feng, WANG Chong, ZHANG Shao Ping, WANG Jun, XU Dong Qun, WANG Qin.  Acute Effects of Individual Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter on Pulmonary Function in Schoolchildren . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2020, 33(9): 647-659. doi: 10.3967/bes2020.086
    [10] WANG Xiao Wen, TIAN Yao Hua, CAO Ya Ying, SONG Jing, LI Man, WU Yao, WANG Meng Ying, HUANG Zhe, HU Yong Hua.  Association between Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Outpatient Visits for Eczema in Beijing, China: A Time-series Analysis . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2019, 32(8): 624-627. doi: 10.3967/bes2019.080
    [11] TIAN Yan Ming, GUAN Yue, TIAN Si Yu, YUAN Fang, ZHANG Li, ZHANG Yi.  Short-term Chronic Intermittent Hypobaric Hypoxia Alters Gut Microbiota Composition in Rats . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2018, 31(12): 898-901. doi: 10.3967/bes2018.122
    [12] LIAO Yu, XU Lin, LIN Xiao, HAO Yuan Tao.  Temporal Trend in Lung Cancer Burden Attributed to Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in Guangzhou, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2017, 30(10): 708-717. doi: 10.3967/bes2017.096
    [13] SHI Qing Hai, GE Di, ZHAO Wei, MA Xue, HU Ke Yan, LU Yao, LIU Zheng Xiang, RAN Ji Hua, LI Xiao Ling, ZHOU Yu, FU Jian Feng.  A Computerized Evaluation of Sensory Memory and Short-term Memory Impairment After Rapid Ascent to 4280 m . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2016, 29(6): 457-460. doi: 10.3967/bes2016.060
    [14] HUANG Fang, ZHAO Ang, CHEN Ren Jie, KAN Hai Dong, KUANG Xing Ya.  Ambient Temperature and Outpatient Visits for Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Bronchitis in Shanghai:A Time Series Analysis . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2015, 28(1): 76-79. doi: 10.3967/bes2015.008
    [15] WANG Zong Shuang, CHEN Ren Jie, WU Ji Rao, KAN Hai Dong, WU Gang, WU Xue Fang.  Short-term Effects of Air Pollution on Mortality in a Heavily Polluted Chinese City . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2013, 26(8): 671-674. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2013.08.006
    [16] MAO Gen Xiang, LAN Xiao Guang, CAO Yong Bao, CHEN Zhuo Mei, HE Zhi Hua, LV Yuan Dong, WANG Ya Zhen, HU Xi Lian, WANG Guo Fu, YAN Jing.  Effects of Short-Term Forest Bathing on Human Health in a Broad-Leaved Evergreen Forest in Zhejiang Province, China . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2012, 25(3): 317-324. doi: 10.3967/0895-3988.2012.03.010
    [17] SOHAIL EJAZ, MUHAMMAD ASHRAF, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ, CHAE WOONG LIM.  Total Particulate Matter and Wound Healing: An in vivo Study with Histological Insights . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2009, 22(4): 278-287.
    [18] XIAO-JIAN ZHANG, CHAO CHEN, YUN WANG.  Synergetic Inactivation of Microorganisms in Drinking Water by Short-term Free Chlorination and Subsequent Monochloramination . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2007, 20(5): 373-380.
    [19] XIANG GAO, QI YU, LI-MIN CHEN.  Health Effects of Airborne Particulate Matter Trace Elements . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2005, 18(5): 349-355.
    [20] S.C.PANT, R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN.  Histomorphological and Histochemical Alterations Following Short-term Inhalation Exposure to Sulfur Mustard on Visceral Organs of Mice . Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 1999, 12(3): 201-213.
  • 24453+Supplementary Materials.pdf
  • 加载中
图(6) / 表ll (7)
计量
  • 文章访问数:  86
  • HTML全文浏览量:  30
  • PDF下载量:  14
  • 被引次数: 0
出版历程
  • 收稿日期:  2024-09-05
  • 录用日期:  2025-02-05
  • 刊出日期:  2025-03-20

Short-term Effects of Fine Particulate Matter and its Constituents on Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis: A Time-stratified Case-crossover Study

doi: 10.3967/bes2025.026
注释:
1) Authors’ Contributions: 2) Competing Interests:

English Abstract

Jingwei Zhang, Jian Zhang, Pengfei Li, Yandan Xu, Xuesong Zhou, Xiuli Tang, Jia Qiu, Zhongao Ding, Mingjia Xu, Chongjian Wang. Short-term Effects of Fine Particulate Matter and its Constituents on Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis: A Time-stratified Case-crossover Study[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2025, 38(3): 389-393. doi: 10.3967/bes2025.026
Citation: Jingwei Zhang, Jian Zhang, Pengfei Li, Yandan Xu, Xuesong Zhou, Xiuli Tang, Jia Qiu, Zhongao Ding, Mingjia Xu, Chongjian Wang. Short-term Effects of Fine Particulate Matter and its Constituents on Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis: A Time-stratified Case-crossover Study[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2025, 38(3): 389-393. doi: 10.3967/bes2025.026
  • Chronic bronchitis (CB), characterized by persistent coughing with mucus production for at least three consecutive months in two successive years and caused by multiple factors[1], is a progressive condition. Acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis (AECB), marked by recurrent episodes of bronchial inflammation, have been linked to various adverse health outcomes[2]. Environmental PM2.5 results from complex interactions among multiple emissions and chemical compositions. It comprises a complex mixture of chemical components, including black carbon (BC), nitrate (NO3-), sulfate (SO42-), ammonium (NH4+), and organic matter (OM)[3]. While several epidemiological studies have explored the link between long-term exposure to ambient air pollutants and CB[4,5], no studies have focused on the relationship between PM2.5, its constituents, and acute exacerbation of CB. In addition, the specific populations and seasons most susceptible to the effects of PM2.5 and its constituents remain unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to (1) evaluate the association of short-term exposure to PM2.5 and its constituents and the risk of AECB, and (2) identify seasons and populations that are more susceptible to the adverse effects of PM2.5 and its constituents.

    Shanghai, a densely populated first-tier city in the Yangtze River Delta region, belongs to the north subtropical monsoon climate zone. Considering its demographics, location, and urban development, it is an ideal setting to study the interactions between PM2.5, its constituents, and AECB. A total of 269,101 case records were obtained from the Jinshan District Community Health Service Center and Shanghai Hospital System. Patients diagnosed with the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition [ICD-10]: J44.1, from October 2018 to December 2022, with a total of 2,202 AECB cases, were included in the study. Among these, 1,815 cases were hospitalized before the COVID-19 pandemic, while 387 patients were hospitalized during the pandemic. Basic demographic details of these patients, including sex, age, date of hospitalization, and specified disease codes were extracted. The geographic distribution of AECB cases is shown in Supplementary Figure S1.

    Figure S1.  Map distribution of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Map approval number: SH(2020)037.

    PM2.5 and its constituents were obtained as follows: case records provided detailed residential addresses, which were aggregated at the natural village and community level. These addresses were geocoded using Baidu Maps API to generate precise latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates. During the study period, PM2.5 and its constituent data with a spatial resolution of 10 km were obtained from the Tracking Air Pollution in China (TAP) dataset (https://tapdata.org.cn/)[6]. TAP uses multiscale air quality (CMAQ) simulations of operating communities. To correct the simulation deviation of the CMAQ model, the dust emission simulation module was first improved, and then a model was built based on the observed PM2.5, and the extreme gradient boost (XGBoost) algorithm was used to adjust the relative contribution of the simulated PM2.5, to obtain a more accurate conversion factor for PM2.5 constituents. This allowed the acquisition of concentration data of PM2.5 constituents[7]. The PM2.5 constituent data released by TAP included BC, NO3-, SO42-, NH4+ and OM. The resulting exposure data can be viewed as individual horizontal exposure data, based on precise geographic matching.

    In this study, we employed a time-stratified case-crossover design to investigate the acute effects of exposure to PM2.5 and its constituents, on AECB. This methodology incorporated temporal strata, such as years and months, into its framework. Each AECB case served as its own control by comparing exposures during the reference periods preceding and following the event day (case day). Specifically, for each individual AECB episode, the environmental exposure to PM2.5 and its constituents on the actual event date was contrasted with that of three or four corresponding matched days (control days) within the same geographic location, identical year, month, and day of the week (DOW). This design effectively mitigated for seasonal fluctuations, long-term trends, DOW effects, spatial variations, and personal-level confounding factors that remain constant over time, including age, sex, behavior, and metabolic factors[8].

    The Spearman correlation coefficient (rs) was used to determine the correlation between PM2.5 and its constituents. Conditional logistic regression (CLR) model was utilized to estimate this association between short-term exposure to PM2.5, its constituents, and AECB. Various lag structures were assessed, including single-day lags (0-day to 7-day) and moving-average lags (1-day to 7-day). Lag-0 represented pollutant concentrations on the same day, while lag-1 represented the moving average concentration from the present day to the previous day, with subsequent lag periods following suite. The lag period producing the maximum impact estimate was selected for further analysis. The resulting effect estimates provided the odds ratios (ORs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each increase of 10 µg/m³ in PM2.5 and its constituents. A restricted cubic spline (RCS) model was used to fit the relationship of PM2.5 and its constituents, with the AECB concentration-response[9]. Subgroup analyses stratified the data by sex (men and women) and age (< 80 years vs. ≥80 years) to identify potentially susceptible populations. To examine seasonal variations, the study period was divided into two seasonal categories: warm (April–September) and cold (October–March). To ensure the robustness of the findings, multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted by altering specific parameter configurations within the modeling framework. Based on the original model, gaseous pollutants such as O3 were added to test the two-pollutant model. In addition, we used other high-resolution PM2.5-datasets to fit the high-resolution component data to test the robustness of our results. At the same time, the exposure concentration of PM2.5, was obtained using a previous formula[10]. Given that the study period included the COVID-19 pandemic, the population after December 2019 was excluded from the analysis to test the stability and reliability of the results.

    All statistical analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.3.2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The “ggcorrplot” package was employed to conduct Spearman’s correlation analysis, while the “survival” package was used to implement conditional logistic regression modeling. Additionally, the “splines” package was utilized for NCS smoothing. In this study, a bilateral test P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

    As shown in Table 1, the study included 2,202 cases of AECB from the Jinshan District in Shanghai, China, between October 2018 and December 2022. Included cases were aged from 42 to 102 years [mean ± SD (standard deviation): 78.47 ± 8.53 years]. Among these cases, 1,348 were men (constituting 61.22% of the total), and more than half (62.85%) of AECB cases occurred in colder months.

    Table 1.  Summary statistics and characteristics of AECB cases

    Characteristic Number Percentage (%)
    AECB (ICD-10 code: J44.1) 2,202 100
    Case days 2,202
    Control days 7,381
    Sex
    Men 1,348 61.22
    Women 854 38.78
    Age of onset (years, mean ± SD) 78.47 ± 8.53
    < 80 years 1,057 48.00
    ≥ 80 years 1,145 52.00
    Season at happen
    Cold (January to March, October to December) 1,384 62.85
    Warm (April to September) 818 37.15
      Note. Number is frequency, or mean ± SD, or n (%). ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases–Tenth Revision; AECB, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis.

    Supplementary Table S1 summarizes the distribution of ambient PM2.5 and its constituents on case and control days. The mean daily concentrations of PM2.5 were recorded as 34.52 µg/m³ on case days, and 34.53 µg/m³ on control days. Among the five constituents analyzed, their collective contribution to the total PM2.5, was 87.02%, with individual constituent contributions ranging from 4.08% to 23.70%. The average daily concentrations of PM2.5 constituents, including BC, NO3-, SO4²⁻, NH4+, and OM, were found to be 1.41, 8.18, 6.66, 5.33, and 7.46 µg/m³, respectively (Supplementary Table S2). Supplementary Figure S2 presents a heat map of Spearman’s correlation showing the relationship between PM2.5 and its constituents. The figure shows a moderate-to-high correlation between PM2.5 and its five constituents (rs > 0.6).

    Table S1.  Summary distributions of total PM2.5, PM2.5 constituents on case days and control days, 2018–2022

    Variables Min Q1 (25%) Median Q3 (75%) Max Mean SD IQR % of PM2.5 mass
    On case days (n = 2,202)
    PM2.5 (µg/m³) 1.00 18.00 27.00 47.00 132.00 34.52 22.85 29.00 100
    BC (µg/m³) 0.03 0.79 1.21 1.84 5.26 1.42 0.84 1.05 4.11
    NO3- (µg/m³) 0.11 3.09 5.73 11.88 40.59 8.20 6.94 8.79 23.75
    SO42- (µg/m³) 0.18 3.76 5.55 8.46 31.05 6.65 4.13 4.70 19.26
    NH4+ (µg/m³) 0.09 2.35 4.04 7.66 21.36 5.34 4.03 5.31 15.47
    OM (µg/m³) 0.20 3.72 5.83 9.74 32.59 7.47 5.32 6.02 21.64
    On control days (n = 7,381)
    PM2.5 (µg/m³) 1.00 18.00 27.00 47.00 135.00 34.53 22.73 29.00 100
    BC (µg/m³) 0.03 0.80 1.23 1.84 4.95 1.41 0.80 1.04 4.08
    NO3- (µg/m³) 0.10 3.03 5.80 12.13 42.28 8.17 6.75 9.10 23.66
    SO42- (µg/m³) 0.17 3.73 5.60 8.70 31.20 6.66 4.12 4.97 19.29
    NH4+ (µg/m³) 0.08 2.32 4.09 7.73 22.12 5.33 3.95 5.41 15.44
    OM (µg/m³) 0.17 3.75 5.88 9.75 34.21 7.46 5.22 6.00 21.60
      Note. PM2.5, fine particulate matter; BC, black carbon; NO3- , nitrate; SO42- , sulfate; NH4+ , ammonium; OM, organic matter. Min, minimum; Max, maximum; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range.

    Table S2.  Summary distribution of average levels of PM2.5 its constituents for the study period 2018–2020

    Variable Min Q1 (25%) Median Q3 (75%) Max Mean SD IQR
    PM2.5 (µg/m³) 1.00 18.00 27.00 47.00 135.00 34.52 22.48 29.00
    BC (µg/m³) 0.03 0.8 1.22 1.84 5.26 1.41 0.81 1.04
    NO3- (µg/m³) 0.10 3.04 5.79 12.09 42.28 8.18 6.79 9.05
    SO42- (µg/m³) 0.17 3.74 5.59 8.61 31.20 6.66 4.12 4.87
    NH4- (µg/m³) 0.08 2.33 4.07 7.72 22.12 5.33 3.97 5.38
    OM (µg/m³) 0.17 3.74 5.86 9.75 34.21 7.46 5.24 6.01
      Note. PM2.5, fine particulate matter; BC, black carbon; NO3- , nitrate; SO42- , sulfate; NH4+ , ammonium; OM, organic matter. Min, minimum; Max, maximum; SD, standard deviation; IQR, interquartile range.

    Figure S2.  The pairwise coefficients of Spearman correlation between PM2.5 and its constituents.

    The OR values for AECB incidence at different lag days are estimated in Figure 1, and they correspond to each increment of 10 µg/m3; in PM2.5 and its constituents’ exposure. PM2.5 constituents were found to exert detrimental effects on AECB. The relative risks associated with PM2.5 and its constituents, showed a roughly similar lagged structure, with risks peaking on the 5th day of lagged exposure. This study selected the lag 5th day as the main lag for further analyses The CLR model estimates revealed that a single-day lagged exposure on the 5th day to PM2.5 and its constituents (BC, NO3-, SO42-, NH4+, OM) were linked with an increased incidence of AECB, as indicated by elevated odds ratios (ORs) values of 1.033 (95% CI: 1.010–1.055), 1.862 (1.038–3.342), 1.129 (1.049–1.216), 1.145 (1.021–1.284), 1.190 (1.051–1.346) and 1.105 (1.009–1.209), respectively, for every 10 µg/m3; increase in exposure. The detailed risk estimates for different lag periods can be found in the supplementary material, specifical Supplementary Table S3. Supplementary Table S4 shows that after excluding the COVID-19 population, the OR value of PM2.5 and its components on the risk of AECB reached a maximum on the 7th day lag, and the OR and 95% CI were 1.035 (1.009, 1.061), 2.227 (1.116, 4.444), 1.150 (1.054, 1.255), 1.120 (0.981, 1.279), 1.236 (1.071, 1.427), and 1.183 (1.066, 1.312).

    Figure 1.  Odds ratios (with 95% CIs) for the increased incidence of acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis associated with a 10 µg/m³ increment increase in PM2.5 and its constituents at various lag days.

    The C-R curves indicating the connection between the fifth day of exposure to PM2.5, its constituents, and the incidence of AECB are shown in Figure 2. There was an increasing trend in the exposure risks linked to PM2.5, NO3-, and NH4+. However, no significant exposure risks were observed for BC, SO42-, or OM. All P-values > 0.05, which corroborated this conclusion, showed that there was no significant deviation from linearity in the correlations between these constituents and the prevalence of AECB when examined using nonlinear likelihood ratio tests.

    Figure 2.  Concentration-response curves PM2.5 and its constituents associated with acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis. P nonlinear: Likelihood ratio tests for non-linearity with the null hypothesis that there was no difference between the linear assumption and NSC smoothing function. NSC: natural spline cubic.

    Based on single-day lagged exposure on the fifth day, Supplementary Table S5 shows the stratified analysis estimates of the connection between PM2.5, its constituents, and AECB. Men were found to have slightly higher illness occurrence risks in the sex-stratified analysis, but there were no statistically significant differences in susceptibility to sex modification (with interaction effects of P.int > 0.05). With respect to age, individuals aged ≥ 80 years demonstrated a higher risk of BC exposure, whereas those < 80 years of age showed a heightened risk of NH4+ exposure. Further contrast across different seasons revealed that PM2.5 and its constituents exerted a greater influence on AECB during colder periods. No significant differences were observed between subgroups.

    Table S5.  In subgroup analyses, the odds ratio (95% CI) for AECB was associated with each 10µg/m³ increase in exposure to PM2.5 and its constituents

    Subgroup PM2.5 BC NO3-
    OR (95% CI) P-values P.int OR (95% CI) P-values P.int OR (95% CI) P-values P.int
    Sex
    Men 1.046 (1.017, 1.076) 0.002 0.165 2.352 (1.104, 5.009) 0.027 0.341 1.168 (1.062, 1.285) 0.001 0.271
    Women 1.013 (0.979, 1.049) 0.455 1.317 (0.522, 3.32) 0.559 1.074 (0.956, 1.207) 0.231
    Age
    < 80 years 1.034 (1.002, 1.067) 0.035 0.888 1.549 (0.669, 3.586) 0.307 0.548 1.132 (1.019, 1.258) 0.021 0.951
    80+ years 1.031 (1.000, 1.063) 0.048 2.218 (0.981, 5.013) 0.056 1.127 (1.017, 1.249) 0.023
    Season at happen
    Cold 1.034 (1.009, 1.059) 0.008 0.882 2.391 (1.223, 4.674) 0.011 0.138 1.125 (1.037, 1.221) 0.005 0.835
    Warm 1.029 (0.980, 1.081) 0.252 0.840 (0.251, 2.813) 0.778 1.148 (0.969, 1.36) 0.110
    Subgroup SO42- NH4+ OM
    OR (95% CI) P-values P.int OR (95% CI) P-values P.int OR (95% CI) P-values P.int
    Sex
    Men 1.235 (1.065, 1.432) 0.005 0.119 1.265 (1.077, 1.485) 0.004 0.24 1.145 (1.018, 1.287) 0.023 0.394
    Women 1.025 (0.855, 1.229) 0.789 1.087 (0.894, 1.321) 0.404 1.048 (0.909, 1.209) 0.515
    Age
    < 80 years 1.172 (0.996, 1.38) 0.056 0.391 1.207 (1.011, 1.441) 0.037 0.818 1.116 (0.982, 1.269) 0.094 0.826
    80+ years 1.119 (0.953, 1.315) 0.170 1.173 (0.986, 1.395) 0.072 1.094 (0.963, 1.242) 0.166
    Season
    Cold 1.171 (1.020, 1.344) 0.025 0.569 1.191 (1.035, 1.37) 0.015 0.972 1.111 (1.005, 1.228) 0.039 0.793
    Warm 1.089 (0.884, 1.341) 0.423 1.184 (0.909, 1.544) 0.210 1.077 (0.876, 1.325) 0.480
      Note. *P < 0.05; P.int: P-value of regression coefficient hypothesis test. P-values of regression coefficient hypothesis test.

    A sensitivity analysis verified the robustness of the main findings. Results using the dual-pollutant model showed little change in OR estimates compared to the main model refer to Supplementary Table S6. Similar results were obtained with the high-resolution exposure assessment datasets, as detailed in Supplementary Figures S3 and S4.

    Table S6.  Sensitivity analysis of odds ratios (95% CI) for each 10 µg/m³-associated increase in exposure to air pollutants in AECB

    Exposure Model adjustments OR (95% CI) P-values a P.int
    PM2.5 Main model 1.033 (1.01, 1.055) 0.004
    and O3 1.029 (1.005, 1.052) 0.016 0.656
    BC Main model 1.862 (1.038, 3.342) 0.037
    and O3 1.642 (0.890, 3.027) 0.112 0.209
    NO3- Main model 1.129 (1.049, 1.216) 0.001
    and O3 1.116 (1.033, 1.206) 0.005 0.754
    SO42- Main model 1.145 (1.021, 1.284) 0.02
    and O3 1.122 (0.997, 1.262) 0.056 0.769
    NH4+ Main model 1.190 (1.051, 1.346) 0.006
    and O3 1.162 (1.020, 1.324) 0.024 0.657
    OM Main model 1.105 (1.009, 1.209) 0.031
    and O3 1.082 (0.984, 1.191) 0.105 0.595
      Note. df: degrees of freedom; P.int: P-value of regression coefficient hypothesis test. P-values of regression coefficient hypothesis test.

    Figure S3.  The association between PM2.5 and its constituents and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis in the CHAP data set.

    Figure S4.  Concentration-response curves PM2.5 and its constituents associated with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis in the CHAP data set.

    This study has some limitations. First, the data were sourced from the Jinshan District Health Service Medical Center in Shanghai, China, which implies that the findings may not be universally applicable to other regions with distinct meteorological and geographical attributes. Second, as smoking status and indoor air pollutant data were not accessible, we could not adjust for these potential confounders. Instead, we relied on a time-stratified case crossover design, assuming that these conditions remained relatively constant throughout the study period. Third, the high inter-correlation among individual fine particulate matter constituents (rs: 0.62–0.98) constrained our capacity to construct multi-pollutant models that accurately determined the individual contribution of each constituent to the incidence of acute episodes of chronic bronchitis. In addition, because PM2.5 and its constituents with a spatial resolution of 10 km, may lack the accuracy required for research at the level of natural villages and communities, higher-resolution data of PM2.5 and its components are needed for further research. Finally, owing to the limited sample size, there is a possibility of error, and the sampled data may not fully represent the overall population characteristics.

    In summary, short-term exposure to PM2.5 and its constituents was associated with an increased AECB incidence. Men exhibited greater susceptibility to PM2.5 and its constituents. Research has demonstrated that during colder seasons, patients are more susceptible to the detrimental effects of fine particulate matter constituents. This study presents novel evidence on the immediate adverse health impacts resulting from exposure to PM2.5 and its constituents in relation to AECB occurrences. These findings underscore the importance of implementing rigorous emission reduction strategies and sustainable environmental management practices in regions with elevated air pollution levels, particularly PM2.5.

  • Table S3.  The estimated odds ratios (95% CI) for PM2.5 and its constituents for each 10 (µg/m³) increase in AECB risk on different lag days

    Exposure Lag structures OR (95% CI) P-values
    PM2.5 (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.002 (0.979, 1.025) 0.869
    Lag 1-day 1.006 (0.984, 1.029) 0.598
    Lag 2-day 1.005 (0.983, 1.028) 0.656
    Lag 3-day 1.002 (0.980, 1.025) 0.849
    Lag 4-day 1.020 (0.998, 1.042) 0.081
    Lag 5-day 1.033 (1.010, 1.055) 0.004
    Lag 6-day 1.003 (0.981, 1.026) 0.785
    Lag 7-day 1.014 (0.992, 1.037) 0.217
    Lag 01-day 1.006 (0.979, 1.033) 0.679
    Lag 02-day 1.008 (0.977, 1.040) 0.606
    Lag 03-day 1.009 (0.975, 1.043) 0.619
    Lag 04-day 1.019 (0.982, 1.056) 0.316
    Lag 05-day 1.034 (0.995, 1.074) 0.088
    Lag 06-day 1.033 (0.993, 1.075) 0.108
    Lag 07-day 1.038 (0.996, 1.083) 0.078
    BC (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.129 (0.623, 2.046) 0.690
    Lag 1-day 1.343 (0.743, 2.427) 0.329
    Lag 2-day 1.204 (0.664, 2.184) 0.541
    Lag 3-day 0.989 (0.552, 1.771) 0.970
    Lag 4-day 1.559 (0.875, 2.775) 0.132
    Lag 5-day 1.862 (1.038, 3.342) 0.037
    Lag 6-day 1.218 (0.670, 2.215) 0.518
    Lag 7-day 1.349 (0.736, 2.474) 0.333
    Lag 01-day 1.344 (0.663, 2.724) 0.412
    Lag 02-day 1.443 (0.647, 3.217) 0.371
    Lag 03-day 1.384 (0.573, 3.342) 0.469
    Lag 04-day 1.718 (0.665, 4.440) 0.264
    Lag 05-day 2.249 (0.823, 6.144) 0.114
    Lag 06-day 2.389 (0.823, 6.938) 0.109
    Lag 07-day 2.681 (0.866, 8.299) 0.087
    NO3- (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.006 (0.931, 1.088) 0.871
    Lag 1-day 1.020 (0.944, 1.101) 0.623
    Lag 2-day 1.020 (0.944, 1.102) 0.617
    Lag 3-day 1.019 (0.945, 1.099) 0.620
    Lag 4-day 1.078 (1.000, 1.162) 0.049
    Lag 5-day 1.129 (1.049, 1.216) 0.001
    Lag 6-day 1.030 (0.955, 1.112) 0.439
    Lag 7-day 1.064 (0.986, 1.149) 0.109
    Lag 01-day 1.018 (0.929, 1.116) 0.699
    Lag 02-day 1.027 (0.927, 1.139) 0.608
    Lag 03-day 1.035 (0.925, 1.158) 0.546
    Lag 04-day 1.072 (0.951, 1.208) 0.254
    Lag 05-day 1.131 (0.997, 1.283) 0.055
    Lag 06-day 1.140 (0.998, 1.301) 0.054
    Lag 07-day 1.165 (1.013, 1.340) 0.032
    SO42- (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.986 (0.874, 1.112) 0.818
    Lag 1-day 0.985 (0.873, 1.110) 0.801
    Lag 2-day 0.992 (0.879, 1.119) 0.898
    Lag 3-day 0.985 (0.876, 1.108) 0.806
    Lag 4-day 1.079 (0.962, 1.212) 0.195
    Lag 5-day 1.145 (1.021, 1.284) 0.020
    Lag 6-day 0.996 (0.885, 1.122) 0.953
    Lag 7-day 1.056 (0.937, 1.191) 0.371
    Lag 01-day 0.978 (0.846, 1.132) 0.770
    Lag 02-day 0.976 (0.824, 1.155) 0.775
    Lag 03-day 0.968 (0.801, 1.169) 0.735
    Lag 04-day 1.017 (0.828, 1.249) 0.872
    Lag 05-day 1.103 (0.885, 1.375) 0.381
    Lag 06-day 1.099 (0.868, 1.391) 0.432
    Lag 07-day 1.132 (0.880, 1.457) 0.333
    NH4+ (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.008 (0.886, 1.148) 0.903
    Lag 1-day 1.035 (0.910, 1.177) 0.602
    Lag 2-day 1.048 (0.921, 1.193) 0.475
    Lag 3-day 1.027 (0.905, 1.164) 0.682
    Lag 4-day 1.127 (0.995, 1.276) 0.061
    Lag 5-day 1.190 (1.051, 1.346) 0.006
    Lag 6-day 1.046 (0.921, 1.188) 0.490
    Lag 7-day 1.109 (0.976, 1.260) 0.114
    Lag 01-day 1.030 (0.884, 1.200) 0.704
    Lag 02-day 1.055 (0.887, 1.254) 0.544
    Lag 03-day 1.065 (0.881, 1.287) 0.514
    Lag 04-day 1.129 (0.921, 1.384) 0.242
    Lag 05-day 1.222 (0.985, 1.515) 0.068
    Lag 06-day 1.237 (0.985, 1.553) 0.068
    Lag 07-day 1.288 (1.013, 1.639) 0.039
    OM (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.005 (0.914, 1.106) 0.910
    Lag 1-day 1.046 (0.953, 1.149) 0.342
    Lag 2-day 1.019 (0.928, 1.119) 0.689
    Lag 3-day 1.022 (0.933, 1.119) 0.637
    Lag 4-day 1.079 (0.986, 1.180) 0.096
    Lag 5-day 1.105 (1.009, 1.209) 0.031
    Lag 6-day 1.004 (0.915, 1.101) 0.935
    Lag 7-day 1.097 (0.998, 1.205) 0.055
    Lag 01-day 1.037 (0.927, 1.160) 0.525
    Lag 02-day 1.045 (0.919, 1.187) 0.505
    Lag 03-day 1.054 (0.915, 1.214) 0.462
    Lag 04-day 1.097 (0.942, 1.276) 0.234
    Lag 05-day 1.145 (0.977, 1.342) 0.095
    Lag 06-day 1.138 (0.963, 1.344) 0.128
    Lag 07-day 1.178 (0.989, 1.403) 0.066
      Note. P-values of regression coefficient hypothesis test; the bold indicates correlation is significant at the 0.5 level.

    Table S4.  The estimated odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for PM2.5 mass and its constituents for each 10 (µg/m³) increase in AECB risk on different lag days (Elimination of the COVID-19 pandemic: Populations after December 2019)

    Exposure Lag structures OR (95% CI) P-values
    PM2.5 (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.995 (0.969, 1.022) 0.730
    Lag 1-day 1.003 (0.977, 1.029) 0.842
    Lag 2-day 0.996 (0.971, 1.023) 0.775
    Lag 3-day 1.000 (0.975, 1.025) 0.988
    Lag 4-day 1.004 (0.979, 1.030) 0.731
    Lag 5-day 1.017 (0.992, 1.043) 0.187
    Lag 6-day 1.008 (0.982, 1.034) 0.553
    Lag 7-day 1.035 (1.009, 1.061) 0.009
    Lag 01-day 0.999 (0.968, 1.03) 0.933
    Lag 02-day 0.997 (0.962, 1.032) 0.848
    Lag 03-day 0.997 (0.959, 1.036) 0.871
    Lag 04-day 0.999 (0.959, 1.041) 0.978
    Lag 05-day 1.008 (0.965, 1.052) 0.727
    Lag 06-day 1.011 (0.966, 1.058) 0.642
    Lag 07-day 1.025 (0.978, 1.075) 0.300
    BC (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.869 (0.436, 1.729) 0.688
    Lag 1-day 1.137 (0.576, 2.247) 0.711
    Lag 2-day 0.972 (0.493, 1.917) 0.934
    Lag 3-day 0.882 (0.456, 1.706) 0.708
    Lag 4-day 1.082 (0.557, 2.103) 0.815
    Lag 5-day 1.232 (0.630, 2.407) 0.542
    Lag 6-day 1.364 (0.689, 2.699) 0.373
    Lag 7-day 2.227 (1.116, 4.444) 0.023
    Lag 01-day 0.993 (0.441, 2.237) 0.987
    Lag 02-day 0.977 (0.393, 2.432) 0.961
    Lag 03-day 0.912 (0.338, 2.466) 0.856
    Lag 04-day 0.957 (0.328, 2.790) 0.936
    Lag 05-day 1.059 (0.342, 3.284) 0.920
    Lag 06-day 1.212 (0.365, 4.029) 0.753
    Lag 07-day 1.691 (0.474, 6.026) 0.418
    NO3- (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.998 (0.911, 1.093) 0.958
    Lag 1-day 1.017 (0.930, 1.112) 0.717
    Lag 2-day 0.989 (0.904, 1.082) 0.806
    Lag 3-day 0.998 (0.915, 1.089) 0.962
    Lag 4-day 1.023 (0.936, 1.117) 0.617
    Lag 5-day 1.073 (0.984, 1.171) 0.110
    Lag 6-day 1.046 (0.958, 1.143) 0.318
    Lag 7-day 1.15 (1.054, 1.255) 0.002
    Lag 01-day 1.01 (0.908, 1.124) 0.854
    Lag 02-day 1.002 (0.889, 1.128) 0.977
    Lag 03-day 1.000 (0.879, 1.139) 0.995
    Lag 04-day 1.012 (0.881, 1.162) 0.871
    Lag 05-day 1.045 (0.903, 1.21) 0.554
    Lag 06-day 1.064 (0.911, 1.243) 0.432
    Lag 07-day 1.129 (0.958, 1.331) 0.146
    SO42- (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.962 (0.841, 1.102) 0.577
    Lag 1-day 0.962 (0.841, 1.100) 0.570
    Lag 2-day 0.961 (0.840, 1.100) 0.564
    Lag 3-day 0.987 (0.866, 1.124) 0.841
    Lag 4-day 0.995 (0.873, 1.134) 0.941
    Lag 5-day 1.054 (0.927, 1.199) 0.419
    Lag 6-day 0.992 (0.869, 1.133) 0.908
    Lag 7-day 1.120 (0.981, 1.279) 0.094
    Lag 01-day 0.946 (0.804, 1.112) 0.498
    Lag 02-day 0.928 (0.770, 1.118) 0.433
    Lag 03-day 0.926 (0.753, 1.138) 0.464
    Lag 04-day 0.926 (0.739, 1.161) 0.506
    Lag 05-day 0.958 (0.753, 1.220) 0.731
    Lag 06-day 0.955 (0.738, 1.237) 0.728
    Lag 07-day 1.015 (0.770, 1.337) 0.918
    NH4+ (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 1.000 (0.862, 1.160) 0.997
    Lag 1-day 1.027 (0.887, 1.189) 0.720
    Lag 2-day 1.001 (0.864, 1.160) 0.987
    Lag 3-day 1.004 (0.871, 1.158) 0.954
    Lag 4-day 1.033 (0.895, 1.192) 0.662
    Lag 5-day 1.089 (0.945, 1.256) 0.240
    Lag 6-day 1.077 (0.932, 1.246) 0.316
    Lag 7-day 1.236 (1.071, 1.427) 0.004
    Lag 01-day 1.019 (0.857, 1.212) 0.833
    Lag 02-day 1.017 (0.836, 1.235) 0.869
    Lag 03-day 1.017 (0.822, 1.259) 0.876
    Lag 04-day 1.033 (0.821, 1.299) 0.783
    Lag 05-day 1.074 (0.842, 1.371) 0.564
    Lag 06-day 1.108 (0.856, 1.435) 0.436
    Lag 07-day 1.216 (0.925, 1.599) 0.161
    OM (10 µg/m³) Lag 0-day 0.989 (0.888, 1.101) 0.841
    Lag 1-day 1.049 (0.945, 1.165) 0.367
    Lag 2-day 0.995 (0.895, 1.106) 0.921
    Lag 3-day 1.012 (0.915, 1.120) 0.815
    Lag 4-day 1.025 (0.925, 1.135) 0.637
    Lag 5-day 1.053 (0.951, 1.165) 0.324
    Lag 6-day 1.018 (0.918, 1.130) 0.732
    Lag 7-day 1.183 (1.066, 1.312) 0.002
    Lag 01-day 1.028 (0.906, 1.166) 0.670
    Lag 02-day 1.021 (0.884, 1.179) 0.781
    Lag 03-day 1.026 (0.876, 1.201) 0.749
    Lag 04-day 1.038 (0.876, 1.229) 0.667
    Lag 05-day 1.061 (0.889, 1.267) 0.509
    Lag 06-day 1.066 (0.886, 1.284) 0.497
    Lag 07-day 1.143 (0.942, 1.388) 0.176
      Note. P-values of regression coefficient hypothesis test; the bold indicates correlation is significant at the 0.5 level.
参考文献 (10)
补充材料:
24453+Supplementary Materials.pdf

目录

    /

    返回文章
    返回