Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Particulate matter and lung function growth in children: a 3-yr follow-up study in Austrian schoolchildren

B. Brunekreef
European Respiratory Journal 2002 20: 1354-1355; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00.00042802
B. Brunekreef
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor:

In the May 2002 issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Horak et al. 1 reported a study on lung function growth in children and air pollution. Their findings were interpreted as showing a significant adverse effect of particulate matter exposure on lung function growth. I was struck by the reported magnitude of the effect. For each 10 µg·m−3 of particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm (PM10) (i.e. about the difference between the most and least exposed community in the study), the effect on forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) growth was estimated to be −84 mL·yr−1 and for midexpiratory flow between 25 and 75% of forced vital capacity (MEF25–75) no less than −329 mL·s−1·yr−1. This is approximately equivalent to 50% of the normal annual increase in FEV1 in children in this age range, and it is equivalent to almost twice the normal annual increase in MEF25–75 2, 3. In other words, the results, if true, suggest that the most highly exposed children are actually losing their MEF25–75. Inspection of an earlier paper from the same study 4 shows even larger estimated effects of ozone on lung function growth. The effect on FEV1 was given as −0.29 mL·day−1·parts per billion (ppb)−1, which translates, over the studied range in ozone concentrations of ∼20 ppb, to an effect of 20×365×−0.029=−212 mL·yr−1. For mean maximal expiratory flow the effect was given as −0.076 mL·day−1·ppb−1, equivalent to 20×365×−0.076=−555 mL·s−1·yr−1. Such values are again approximately equivalent to, or even much larger than, the total expected yearly increase in these indices in growing children.

What could be the explanation for these counterintuitive statistical results? One possible explanation is that in their analysis of change in lung function, the authors adjusted for initial level of lung function which made them run into the eternal problem of regression to the mean 5. Since Oldham 5 (and others before him) raised this issue there has been no shortage of papers and admonitions in the literature warning of this problem 6–12. The problem is introduced in observational studies when a risk factor (in this case, air pollution) is associated with the initial level of the outcome variable of interest (in this case, lung function). Adjustment for initial level then leads to spurious associations between air pollution and lung function change. The presented material does not allow judgement as to whether such associations between initial lung function level and air pollution were present in the data. It is of interest that the authors note that there was no difference in lung function growth between places of residence, despite the clear differences in PM10 (this paper) and ozone 4 that existed between the communities. Other work based largely on the same population has suggested graphically that lung function growth is also essentially the same between high, medium and low ozone communities 13.

PM10 levels were clearly higher in all communities in winter than in summer, and one explanation for the findings could also be confounding by respiratory infections and pollen, which may have depressed lung function results in the spring measurements (which were related to the previous winter PM10 levels) relative to the autumn lung function measurements. In the end, it is clearly important to know whether residence in communities with PM10 levels that, even in the most “polluted” site were, by all existing standards, actually quite low, adversely affects lung function growth. I believe that a more straightforward analysis of the data would need to focus on the maximum period that was observed as the interest is much more in long-term impact than in variations by season. At the end of the discussion, the authors briefly present such an analysis, again adjusting for initial level of lung function, and suggesting similarly strong effects of PM10, which seems contradictory to their statement that there were no differences in lung function growth between communities.

Simple graphical presentations, such as employed in the Children's Health Study from southern California 14, would probably provide a clearer insight. The California study, spanning a range in particles with a 50% cut-off aerodynamic diameter of 10 µm five times the range in the Austrian study, estimated that after 4 yrs of living in the most polluted community, forced expiratory volume in one second would be 3.4% lower than after 4 yrs in the least polluted community. It is my expectation that a more pertinent analysis of the Austrian data would remove most, if not all, of the suggested very large effects of air pollution on lung function growth.

    • © ERS Journals Ltd

    References

    1. ↵
      Horak F, Studnicka M, Gartner C, Spengler J, Tauber E, Urbanek R. Particulate matter and lung function growth in children: a three-year follow-up study in Austrian school children. Eur Respir J 2002;19:838–845.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      Smeets M, Brunekreef B, Dijkstra L, Houthuijs D. Lung growth of pre-adolescent children. Eur Respir J 1990;3:91–96.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      Wang X, Dockery DW, Wypij D, Fay ME, Ferris BG Jr. Pulmonary function between 6 and 18 years of age. Pediatr Pulmonol 1993;15:75–88.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      Frischer T, Studnicka M, Gartner C, et al. Lung function growth and ambient ozone: a three-year population study in school children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;160:390–396.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      Oldham PD. A note on the analysis of repeated measures of the same subjects. J Chron Dis 1962;15:969–977.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      Cole TJ. Commentary: Beware regression to the mean. BMJ 2000;321:281.
    7. Vollmer WM. Comparing change in longitudinal studies: adjusting for initial value. J Clin Epidemiol 1988;4:651–657.
    8. Davis CE. The effect of regression to the mean in epidemiologic and clinical studies. Am J Epidemiol 1976;104:493–498.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    9. Schouten JP, Tager IB. Interpretation of longitudinal studies. An overview. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996;154:S278–S284.
    10. Hayes RJ. Methods for assessing whether change depends on initial value. Stat Med 1988;7:915–927.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    11. Chester MR, Bland M, Chen L, Kaski JC. The relationship between change and initial value: the continuing problem of regression to the mean. Eur Heart J 1995;16:289–290.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      Chinn S, Heller RF. Some further results concerning regression to the mean. Am J Epidemiol 1981;114:902–905.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      Kopp MV, Bohnet W, Frischer T, Ulmer C, Studnicka M, Ihorst G. Effects of ambient ozone on lung function in children over a two-summer period. Eur Respir J 2000;16:893–900.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      Gauderman WJ, McConnell R, Gilliland F, London S, Thomas D, Avol E. Association between air pollution and lung function growth in southern California children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000;162:1383–1390.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 20 Issue 5 Table of Contents
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Particulate matter and lung function growth in children: a 3-yr follow-up study in Austrian schoolchildren
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Citation Tools
    Particulate matter and lung function growth in children: a 3-yr follow-up study in Austrian schoolchildren
    B. Brunekreef
    European Respiratory Journal Nov 2002, 20 (5) 1354-1355; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00.00042802

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Particulate matter and lung function growth in children: a 3-yr follow-up study in Austrian schoolchildren
    B. Brunekreef
    European Respiratory Journal Nov 2002, 20 (5) 1354-1355; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00.00042802
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Endothelial to mesenchymal transition as novel feature of pulmonary fibrosis
    • Transitioning endothelial cells contribute to pulmonary fibrosis
    • Treatable traits in ILD: why not consider acute exacerbations?
    Show more Correspondence

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Publication ethics and malpractice
    • Submit a manuscript

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society