AAAR 34th Annual Conference
October 12 - October 16, 2015
Hyatt Regency
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Abstract View
Outdoor Aerosols and Respiratory Health Outcomes in Two Saskatchewan Communities
SHELLEY KIRYCHUK, George Katselis, Wojciech Dawicki, Olasaji Awoyera, Josh Lawson, Donna Rennie, Donald Cockroft, Akwasi Owusu-Kyem, Brian Graham, John Gordon, Niels Koehncke, University of Saskatchewan
Abstract Number: 624 Working Group: Health Related Aerosols
Abstract Background: Outdoor air can impact respiratory health. Coal mining and coal fired power plants contribute potentially different respiratory exposures than agricultural activities. We sought to investigate the effects of outdoor aerosols on respiratory health in populations in two small urban communities from southern Saskatchewan, Canada with differing regional industries.
Methods: Community A with coal strip mining, power plants and agriculture, and Community B with primarily agricultural activities were studied. A sample of adults aged 50 years and older were studied over 4 separate time periods. Daily forced expired volume in 1 second (FEV1) and symptom recording were undertaken for each period. Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter of 2.5 micron size (PM2.5, µg/m3) were monitored continuously during each panel. Weekly size selective filter samples were assessed gravimetrically and for endotoxin, protein, and inflammatory potential.
Results: An average of 40 adults from each community took part in each of the panels. Residents from communities A and B were similar in age [65.2 (SD=9.1) vs 61.8 (9.6) years], sex (63.8% female vs. 67.4% female), current smoking (10.6% vs. 6.7%), and baseline FEV1 [92.2% (SD=20.1) vs 98.2% (SD=22.3) percent predicted]. Residents of community A reported increased chest tightness at night compared to Community B (OR=6.4, 95%CI=1.4-29.9, p=0.02). Levels of air contaminants differed by community. Endotoxin in PM2.5 was significantly higher in community B than community A. Cellular response was greater with community B aerosol stimulation as compared to community A. Air contaminant levels were not associated with degree of symptom disturbance or daily FEV1 levels.
Conclusions: Results indicate lower levels of airborne contaminants as compared to larger urban centres. Respiratory symptoms differed between the two communities but were not explained by the measured aerosols. Ongoing research into the constituents within the dusts from each community may assist in further explaining respiratory differences.