Effect of PM2.5 on burden of mortality from non-communicable diseases in northern Thailand

Nichapa Parasin,Teerachai Amnuaylojaroen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18055
IF: 3.061
2024-09-18
PeerJ
Abstract:Background: Particulate pollution, especially PM2.5from biomass burning, affects public and human health in northern Thailand during the dry season. Therefore, PM2.5exposure increases non-communicable disease incidence and mortality. This study examined the relationship between PM2.5and NCD mortality, including heart disease, hypertension, chronic lung disease, stroke, and diabetes, in northern Thailand during 2017-2021. Methods: The analysis utilized accurate PM2.5data from the MERRA2 reanalysis, along with ground-based PM2.5measurements from the Pollution Control Department and mortality data from the Division of Non-Communicable Disease, Thailand. The cross-correlation and spearman coefficient were utilized for the time-lag, and direction of the relationship between PM2.5and mortality from NCDs, respectively. The Hazard Quotient (HQ) was used to quantify the health risk of PM2.5to people in northern Thailand. Results: High PM2.5 risk was observed in March, with peak PM2.5concentration reaching 100 µg/m3, with maximum HQ values of 1.78 ± 0.13 to 4.25 ± 0.35 and 1.45 ± 0.11 to 3.46 ± 0.29 for males and females, respectively. Hypertension significantly correlated with PM2.5levels, followed by chronic lung disease and diabetes. The cross-correlation analysis showed a strong relationship between hypertansion mortality and PM2.5at a two-year time lag in Chiang Mai (0.73) (CI [-0.43-0.98], p-value of 0.0270) and a modest relationship with chronic lung disease at Lampang (0.33) (a four-year time lag). The results from spearman correlation analysis showed that PM2.5concentrations were associated with diabetes mortality in Chiang Mai, with a coefficient of 0.9 (CI [0.09-0.99], p-value of 0.03704). Lampang and Phayao had significant associations between PM2.5 and heart disease, with coefficients of 0.97 (CI [0.66-0.99], p-value of 0.0048) and 0.90 (CI [0.09-0.99], p-value of 0.0374), respectively, whereas Phrae had a high coefficient of 0.99 on stroke.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?