Why should we target the burden of disease for indoor air pollutants?
Ningrui Liu,Zhuohui Zhao,Corinne Mandin,Haidong Kan,Yinping Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.13147
IF: 6.5539
2022-01-01
Indoor Air
Abstract:People spend more than 80% of their lifetime indoors, and inhaled air is more than 75% of an individual's daily mass intake of air, food, and water.1, 2 Indoor air pollution often consists of more complex components and higher pollutant concentrations than outdoor air due to additional indoor sources and poor ventilation.3, 4 From the perspectives of public health and engineering control, the ultimate purposes of both outdoor and indoor air studies are to improve human health. However, compared to outdoor air pollution, indoor air pollution has been largely overlooked, as is evident from the much smaller number of publications and researchers, and the smaller amount of available research funds. One of the main reasons for insufficient attention to indoor air pollution is the lack of data on the burden of disease attributable to indoor air pollutants. The burden of disease due to indoor air pollution needs to be known to quantitively evaluate the value of regulations and standards and the corresponding engineering approaches to addressing indoor air pollution problems. The Global Burden of Diseases Study (GBD) 2019 has pointed out that air pollution (i.e., ambient and household particulate matter, and ambient ozone) is the fourth leading risk factor globally5 but only a few pioneer studies in Europe and United States have addressed the burden of disease attributable to multiple indoor air pollutants in recent decades.6-8 The Environmental Burden of Disease in Europe (EBoDE), initiated in 2009, considered seven indoor air pollutants with both outdoor and indoor origins: PM2.5, ozone, benzene, dioxins, secondhand smoke, formaldehyde, and radon among the nine environmental risk factors studied in six European countries.6 Based on the EBoDE study, the HealthVent project extended evaluation to 26 European countries in 2016, and added indoor PM2.5 and carbon monoxide. The European studies followed the systematic framework with population attributable fraction (PAF) used by the GBD study to estimate the attributable burden of disease for indoor air pollutants.7 For the United States, the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab evaluated the disease burden of 69 indoor air pollutants in US residences in 2012, but mostly used toxicological data from animal tests rather than the PAF method.8 Other countries, especially China and India whose combined population is nearly 3 billion, still lack data on the burden of disease from indoor air pollutants. Indoor air pollution from both indoor and outdoor origins is possibly the most severe in these countries.9-11 In addition, the lack of concentration/exposure–response relationships for many indoor air pollutants adds difficulties to evaluating the attributable burden of disease. Hence, this special issue focuses on the exposure level, concentration/exposure–response relationships, and attributable burden of disease for different kinds of indoor air pollutants. In particular, several studies in this special issue have evaluated the exposure levels of formaldehyde,12 typical volatile organic compounds (VOCs),13 and phthalates14 in residences, offices, and schools, through systematic review and statistical modeling. Other studies in this issue focus on the associations between indoor air pollutants and different health outcomes, including meta-analyses of VOCs,15 radon,16 and phthalates,14 and original studies of desert dust and mold,17, 18 and the mediation of indoor air pollution effect on health.19 Additionally, some studies directly provide the attributable burden of diseases, such as for phthalates14 and radon.20 All these studies provide valuable basic data to lay a solid foundation for estimating the burden of disease for indoor air pollutants. We also hope that, on this basis, more studies will be conducted to further enrich the database. With these data, the estimated burden of disease from indoor air pollutants can become a metric of “importance” and “risk.” The indoor air pollutants associated with a higher burden of disease should be controlled with high priority, and suitable thresholds for these indoor air pollutants should be clearly defined in adequate standards for different countries and building types. Financial costs can be calculated from the attributable burden of disease and be used to estimate the economic benefits of various indoor air quality control standards, policies, and engineering approaches from a socioeconomic perspective.21 For this purpose, the coefficient of health-benefit and coefficient of economy-benefit have been proposed,22 and can be used to assess the health and economic effectiveness of various indoor air quality improvement measures. We hope that through this special issue the importance of indoor air pollution problems and the benefits of solving them can be quantitatively identified from both health and economic perspectives. Only in this way can indoor air pollution study and control be given enough attention in the future. As guest editors of the special topic issue, we express our heartfelt thanks to the Editor-in-chief of Indoor Air, Yuguo Li, to provide us the chance to publish a special issue on the burden of diseases for indoor air pollutants, and to Louise B. Weschler for brushing up the English of our editorial.