Ambient Air Pollution Associated with Body Fat Percentages at Different Body Compartments: A Cohort Study of UK Biobank Participants

Miao Cai,Haitao Li,Yinglin Wu,Shiyu Zhang,Xiaojie Wang,Zilong Zhang,Hualiang Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp10920

IF: 11.035

2022-01-01

Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract:Vol. 130, No. 6 Research LetterOpen AccessAmbient Air Pollution Associated with Body Fat Percentages at Different Body Compartments: A Cohort Study of UK Biobank Participants Miao Cai, Haitao Li, Yinglin Wu, Shiyu Zhang, Xiaojie Wang, Zilong Zhang, and Hualiang Lin Miao Cai https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0170-6905 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China , Haitao Li Department of Social Medicine and Health Service Management, Health Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China , Yinglin Wu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0323-6070 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China , Shiyu Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3645-3891 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China , Xiaojie Wang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6153-2217 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China , Zilong Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7003-6565 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China , and Hualiang Lin Address correspondence to Hualiang Lin, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510080, China. Email: E-mail Address: [email protected] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3643-9408 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China Published:29 June 2022CID: 067702https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10920AboutSectionsPDF ToolsDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InReddit IntroductionA few population-based studies have examined the potential obesogenic effects of ambient air pollution.1–3 However, the measurements of obesity in these studies were restricted to whole-body assessments, including weight, body mass index (BMI), and body fat percentage. With the advancement of bioelectrical impedance technologies, more comprehensive and finessed measurements of adiposity at different body compartments are available. Characterizing the relationship between ambient air pollution and adiposity at different body compartments can deepen the understanding of the association between ambient air pollution and obesity. In this study, we examined the association between ambient air pollution and body fat percentages at different compartments (arm, leg, and trunk) among baseline and cohort participants from the UK Biobank.MethodsThe UK Biobank is a large cohort of approximately half a million participants in the United Kingdom (UK).4 The baseline survey was conducted between 2006 and 2010. Three rounds of follow-up had been conducted as of January 2021. The assessment at baseline recruitment involved 502,461 participants, whereas the later three rounds included many fewer participants, with 60,922 participants having at least two measurements on body fat percentages.Annual concentrations of air pollution in 2010 [particulate matter (PM) with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5μm (PM2.5), PM coarse (PMc), PM10, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx)] were estimated at the residential address of each participant using land use regression models, which yielded median model explained variances (R2) of 71% for PM2.5, 68% for PMc, 77% for PM10, 82% for NO2, and 78% for NOx.5 Cohort longitudinal data analyses were restricted to those who did not move after 2010 to keep the accuracy of exposure measurement. Body fat percentage at different compartments (left arm, right arm, left leg, right leg, and trunk) were measured using the Tanita BC418MA Body Composition Analyzer and bioelectrical impedance analysis at baseline and follow-up visits.Covariates were selected based on availability of variables and potential confounders that may affect both the exposure and outcome. Age at baseline recruitment was included as a continuous variable. Sex was self-reported as female or male at baseline. Because the UK Biobank includes White participants (>90%), self-reported ethnicity was categorized into a binary variable (White and Other) to avoid convergence issues of regression models. Average total household income before tax was collected at baseline and included six categories: <18,000 £, 18,000–30,999 £, 31,000–51,999 £, 52,000–100,000 £, >100,000 £, and unknown. Smoking status was collected at baseline as a touchscreen question and categorized into never, previous, and current smoker. Rurality was ascertained from the population density of the participant’s home postcode and classified as rural or urban. The Townsend deprivation index (TDI) incorporates four aspects, including unemployment, car ownership, home ownership, and household overcrowding. TDI at recruitment was included as continuous variable, and a larger value indicated greater material deprivation. In the longitudinal analysis, time since baseline was further included to account for the effect of time on body fat percentage changes.For the cross-sectional data, we constructed linear models (lm function in Base R; version 4.1.3) to estimate the association of interquartile range (IQR) increase in air pollutant with the fat percentage at five different compartments. For the cohort longitudinal data, we fitted linear mixed-effects models (lmer function in R package lme4; version 1.1-29) to investigate the association between ambient air pollution and changes in the outcome variables over time.6 The analytical equation of the linear mixed-effects models is: yij=β0+β1iyearij+β2airi×yearij+βhcovariatei+μ0i+μ1iyearij+εij,where yij is the body fat percentages at different compartments for participant i at jth measurement occasion; yearij is the follow-up year for participant i at jth measurement, and β1i is the slope of the time trend for participant i; β2 is our parameter of interest that estimates the association between ambient air pollution and changes in yij per year; and βh are parameters for the preselected covariates. In addition, μ0i is participant-level random error, μ1i is participant-level random error for follow-up year, and εij is measurement or sampling error. All available repeated measurements of body fat percentages were included in the analyses. We reported the associations between per-IQR increment in ambient air pollution and body fat percentages at compartments at mean follow-up time (β2×IQR×8y).1 The estimates can be interpreted as the additional growth of body fat percentages attributable to an IQR increment in air pollution over 8 y.Observations with missing exposure, covariate, or outcome variables were excluded from the analyses. All coefficients were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval (CI) excluded null.ResultsCharacteristics for the baseline cross-sectional and cohort participants are shown in Table 1. The median age of baseline cross-sectional participants (n=444,068) was 56.53 y, 54.43% of them were female, and 94.12% were White; the longitudinal cohort participants (n=45,036) were slightly younger (mean age 56.13 y), had fewer females (51.58%) and more Whites (97.04%).Table 1 Characteristics of baseline cross-sectional participants (n=444,068) and cohort participants (n=45,036) overall and by quartiles of ambient PM2.5 (μg/m3) in 2010 in the UK Biobank.Table 1 has one main column, namely, Baseline cross-sectional participants (lowercase italic n equals 444068). The Baseline cross-sectional participants (lowercase italic n equals 444068) column is sub divided into seven columns, namely, characteristics, Overall (lowercase italic n equals 444068), Quartile 1 (8.17, 9.29) (lowercase italic n equals 111473), Quartile 2 (9.29, 9.94) (lowercase italic n equals 112333), Quartile 3 (9.94, 10.57) (lowercase italic n equals 110355), Quartile 4 (10.57, 21.31) (lowercase italic n equals 109907), and lowercase italic p.Baseline cross-sectional participants (n=444,068)CharacteristicOverall(n=444,068)Quartile 1(8.17, 9.29)(n=111,473)Quartile 2(9.29, 9.94)(n=112,333)Quartile 3(9.94, 10.57)(n=110,355)Quartile 4(10.57, 21.31)(n=109,907)p-ValueaExposure PM2.5 [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]9.98±1.06————— PMc [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]6.42±0.9————— PM10 [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]16.23±1.9————— NO2 [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]26.58±7.62————— NOx [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]43.89±15.61—————Outcomes Left arm fat [% (mean±SD)]30.39±10.2629.78±9.9130.37±10.1530.72±10.3730.72±10.57<0.001 Right arm fat [% (mean±SD)]29.50±10.1628.87±9.7929.48±10.0529.83±10.2829.83±10.48<0.001 Left leg fat [% (mean±SD)]31.92±10.6531.68±10.4631.95±10.5932.11±10.7031.92±10.85<0.001 Right leg fat [% (mean±SD)]32.00±10.7031.76±10.5032.03±10.6332.21±10.7532.02±10.90<0.001 Trunk fat [% (mean±SD)]31.13±7.9930.72±7.8231.19±7.9231.38±8.0331.24±8.19<0.001Covariates Age [y (mean±SD)]56.53±8.0857.21±7.8356.86±8.0456.38±8.1455.65±8.23<0.001Sex [n (%)]—————0.027 Female241,721 (54.43)60,803 (54.55)61,354 (54.62)60,167 (54.52)59,397 (54.04)— Male202,347 (45.57)50,670 (45.45)50,979 (45.38)50,188 (45.48)50,510 (45.96)—Ethnicity [n (%)]—————<0.001 Other26,108 (5.88)2,826 (2.54)5,472 (4.87)7,164 (6.49)10,646 (9.69)— White417,960 (94.12)108,647 (97.46)106,861 (95.13)103,191 (93.51)99,261 (90.31)—Residence area [n (%)]—————<0.001 Urban376,841 (84.86)61,874 (55.51)100,899 (89.82)106,260 (96.29)107,808 (98.09)— Rural67,227 (15.14)49,599 (44.49)11,434 (10.18)4,095 (3.71)2,099 (1.91)—Income [n (%)]—————<0.001 <18,000 £86,233 (19.42)15,719 (14.10)20,116 (17.91)23,233 (21.05)27,165 (24.72)— 18,000–30,999 £97,355 (21.92)23,375 (20.97)25,136 (22.38)24,926 (22.59)23,918 (21.76)— 31,000−51,999 £99,317 (22.37)26,220 (23.52)26,148 (23.28)24,602 (22.29)22,347 (20.33)— 52,000−100,000 £77,164 (17.38)23,160 (20.78)20,217 (18.00)17,876 (16.20)15,911 (14.48)— >100,000 £20,408 (4.60)7,077 (6.35)4,652 (4.14)3,813 (3.46)4,866 (4.43)— Unknown63,591 (14.32)15,922 (14.28)16,064 (14.30)15,905 (14.41)15,700 (14.28)—Smoking status [n (%)]—————<0.001 Never243,585 (54.85)64,280 (57.66)63,033 (56.11)60,371 (54.71)55,901 (50.86)— Previous154,688 (34.83)38,665 (34.69)39,175 (34.87)38,247 (34.66)38,601 (35.12)— Current45,795 (10.31)8,528 (7.65)10,125 (9.01)11,737 (10.64)15,405 (14.02)—TDI (mean±SD)−1.37±3.02−2.75±2.12–2.06±2.58−1.26±2.810.63±3.35<0.001Cohort participants (n=45,036)CharacteristicOverall(n=45,036)Quartile 1(8.17, 9.22)(n=11,264)Quartile 2(9.22, 9.89)(n=11,293)Quartile 3(9.89, 10.55)(n=11,297)Quartile 4(10.55, 18.52)(n=11,182)p-ValueaExposure PM2.5 [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]9.94±1.04————— PMc [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]6.35±0.87————— PM10 [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]16±1.86————— NO2 [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]25.87±7.05————— NOx [μg/m3 (mean±SD)]42.81±14.38—————Cohort follow-up Number of measurements (mean±SD)2.21±0.442.21±0.442.21±0.442.22±0.452.22±0.450.007 Follow-up time [y (mean±SD)]8.00±2.587.96±2.627.86±2.577.99±2.568.19±2.56<0.001Outcome change at follow-ups Left arm fat [% (mean±SD)]−0.10±4.00−0.15±3.86−0.11±3.90−0.14±4.020.00±4.230.023 Right arm fat [% (mean±SD)]0.11±4.000.05±3.870.09±3.890.08±4.040.22±4.170.012 Left leg fat [% (mean±SD)]1.36±3.041.31±2.981.32±2.961.35±3.031.45±3.190.002 Right leg fat [% (mean±SD)]1.47±3.231.41±3.171.44±3.151.45±3.221.55±3.390.008 Trunk fat % (mean±SD)0.85±4.380.81±4.300.79±4.280.83±4.410.96±4.530.017Covariates Age [y (mean±SD)]56.13±7.5356.74±7.2756.54±7.5555.94±7.5655.28±7.64<0.001Sex [n (%)]—————0.02 Female23,230 (51.58)5,746 (51.01)5,727 (50.71)5,835 (51.65)5,922 (52.96)— Male21,806 (48.42)5,518 (48.99)5,566 (49.29)5,462 (48.35)5,260 (47.04)—Ethnicity [n (%)]—————<0.001 Other1332 (2.96)192 (1.70)267 (2.36)392 (3.47)481 (4.30)— White43,704 (97.04)11,072 (98.30)11,026 (97.64)10,905 (96.53)10,701 (95.70)—Residence area [n (%)]—————<0.001 Urban37,601 (83.49)5,661 (50.26)9,994 (88.50)10,898 (96.47)11,048 (98.80)— Rural7,435 (16.51)5,603 (49.74)1,299 (11.50)399 (3.53)134 (1.20)—Income [n (%)]—————<0.001 <18,000 £5,566 (12.36)978 (8.68)1,243 (11.01)1,487 (13.16)1,858 (16.62)— 18,000–30,999 £9,923 (22.03)2,305 (20.46)2,494 (22.08)2,568 (22.73)2,556 (22.86)— 31,000–51,999 £12,143 (26.96)3,034 (26.94)3,079 (27.26)3,083 (27.29)2,947 (26.35)— 52,000–100,000 £10,601 (23.54)3,027 (26.87)2,731 (24.18)2,558 (22.64)2,285 (20.43)— >100,000 £2,678 (5.95)847 (7.52)648 (5.74)565 (5.00)618 (5.53)— Unknown4,125 (9.16)1,073 (9.53)1,098 (9.72)1,036 (9.17)918 (8.21)—Smoking status [n (%)]—————<0.001 Never27,092 (60.16)7,047 (62.56)6,972 (61.74)6,806 (60.25)6,267 (56.05)— Previous15,225 (33.81)3,715 (32.98)3,717 (32.91)3,812 (33.74)3,981 (35.60)— Current2,719 (6.04)502 (4.46)604 (5.35)679 (6.01)934 (8.35)—TDI (mean±SD)−1.99±2.66−3.06±1.83−2.66±2.22−1.97±2.50−0.25±3.05<0.001Note: —, no data; IQR, interquartile range; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; NOx, nitrogen oxides; PM, particulate matter; PM2.5, PM with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5μm; PM10, PM with aerodynamic diameter ≤10μm; PMc, PM coarse; SD, standard deviation; TDI, Townsend deprivation index.ap-Values for means and frequency distributions by PM2.5 quartiles were tested using analyses of variance and chi-square tests.Table 2 presents the associations between ambient air pollution and body fat percentages at arms, legs, and trunk among baseline and cohort participants. Ambient PM2.5, PMc, PM10, and NOx were significantly associated with increased body fat percentages at arms and trunk at both baseline and follow-up years. The magnitude of associations for PM2.5, PMc, PM10, and NOx with body fat percentages at arms was stronger than those at legs and trunk. For example, the β coefficients for ambient PM2.5 in baseline cross-sectional models (IQR for PM2.5: 1.28 μg/m3) were 0.115 (95% CI: 0.084, 0.147) for left arm fat percentage, 0.106 (95% CI: 0.074, 0.137) for right arm fat percentage, and 0.048 (95% CI: 0.018, 0.078) for trunk fat percentage; the estimates in mixed-effects models for longitudinal cohort data (IQR for PM2.5: 1.32 μg/m3) were: 0.093 (95% CI: 0.051, 0.134) for left arm fat percentage, 0.103 (95% CI: 0.061, 0.144) for right arm fat percentage, and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.035, 0.124) for trunk fat percentage. The magnitude of associations with leg fat percentages in longitudinal cohort models was stronger than that in baseline cross-sectional models (Table 2).Table 2 Associations (beta coefficients and 95% confidence intervals) between interquartile range increment in ambient air pollution (annual average PM2.5, PMc, PM10, NO2, and NOx in 2010) and fat percentages at different body compartments in baseline cross-sectional (n=444,068) and longitudinal cohort (n=45,036) UK Biobank participants.Table 2 has seven columns, namely, Baseline cross-sectional data begin superscript lowercase a end superscript, Air pollutants, particulate matter begin subscript 2.5 end subscript, particulate matter begin subscript lowercase c end subscript, particulate matter begin subscript 10 end subscript, Nitrogen dioxide, and Nitrogen Oxide.Baseline cross-sectional dataaAir pollutantsPM2.5PMcPM10NO2NOxIQR (μg/m3)1.280.791.769.8316.53Arm fat [% (left)], beta (95% CI)0.115 (0.084, 0.147)0.06 (0.041, 0.08)0.065 (0.044, 0.087)−0.041 (−0.077, −0.005)0.085 (0.058, 0.112)Arm fat [% (right)], beta (95% CI)0.106 (0.074, 0.137)0.059 (0.04, 0.078)0.064 (0.042, 0.085)−0.044 (−0.08, −0.009)0.08 (0.053, 0.106)Leg fat [% (left)], beta (95% CI)0.005 (−0.017, 0.027)0.025 (0.012, 0.039)−0.007 (−0.021, 0.008)−0.215 (−0.24, −0.19)−0.03 (−0.048, −0.011)Leg fat [% (right)], beta (95% CI)0.007 (−0.016, 0.03)0.025 (0.01, 0.039)−0.01 (−0.026, 0.005)−0.222 (−0.249, −0.196)−0.03 (−0.05, −0.011)Trunk fat (%), beta (95% CI)0.048 (0.018, 0.078)0.03 (0.011, 0.049)0.024 (0.004, 0.045)−0.121 (−0.156, −0.087)0.027 (0.001, 0.053)Longitudinal cohort databIQR (μg/m3)1.320.691.749.2716.52Arm fat [% (left)], beta (95% CI)0.093 (0.051, 0.134)0.048 (0.022, 0.074)0.047 (0.016, 0.078)0.026 (−0.016, 0.069)0.061 (0.024, 0.098)Arm fat [% (right)], beta (95% CI)0.103 (0.061, 0.144)0.05 (0.024, 0.076)0.05 (0.019, 0.081)0.038 (−0.004, 0.08)0.067 (0.03, 0.104)Leg fat [% (left)], beta (95% CI)0.051 (0.02, 0.081)0.036 (0.016, 0.055)0.032 (0.009, 0.055)0.011 (−0.02, 0.043)0.034 (0.007, 0.062)Leg fat [% (right)], beta (95% CI)0.051 (0.019, 0.084)0.037 (0.016, 0.057)0.034 (0.01, 0.058)0.013 (−0.02, 0.046)0.036 (0.007, 0.066)Trunk fat (%), beta (95% CI)0.08 (0.035, 0.124)0.034 (0.006, 0.062)0.02 (−0.013, 0.054)−0.004 (−0.05, 0.041)0.044 (0.003, 0.084)Note: CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; NOx, nitrogen oxides; PM, particulate matter; PM2.5, PM with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5μm; PM10, PM with aerodynamic diameter ≤10μm; PMc, PM coarse.aModels for cross-sectional data controlled for age, sex, ethnicity, household income, smoking status, Townsend deprivation index, and rurality.bLinear mixed models for cohort data additionally controlled for follow-up time and participant-level variations. In cohort data analyses, the associations between per IQR increment in ambient air pollution and body fat percentages were reported at mean follow-up time (β2×IQR×8 y).1 These estimates can be interpreted as the additional growth of body fat percentages attributable to IQR increment in air pollution over 8 y.In contrast, the associations between ambient NO2 and body fat percentages were significantly negative in baseline cross-sectional data models or insignificant in cohort data models (Table 2). The β coefficients for ambient NO2 in baseline cross-sectional models (IQR for NO2: 9.83 μg/m3) were −0.041 (95% CI: −0.077, −0.005) for left arm fat percentage, −0.044 (95% CI: −0.08, −0.009) for right arm fat percentage, −0.215 (95% CI: −0.24, −0.19) for left leg percentage, −0.222 (95% CI: −0.249, −0.196) for right leg percentage, −0.121 (95% CI: −0.156, −0.087) for trunk fat percentage; the estimates in mixed-effect models for cohort data (IQR for NO2: 9.27 μg/m3) were insignificant: 0.026 (95% CI: −0.016, 0.069) for left arm fat percentage, 0.038 (95% CI: −0.004, 0.08) for right arm fat percentage, 0.011 (95% CI: −0.02, 0.043) for left leg percentage, 0.013 (95% CI: −0.02, 0.046) for right leg percentage, and −0.004 (95% CI: −0.05, 0.041) for trunk fat percentage.DiscussionA previous study reported significant positive associations of air pollution with BMI, overall body fat percentage, and waist to hip ratio using the UK Biobank cohort.3 Our study deepens this knowledge by further examining the associations with fat percentages at different body compartments, and we found that the associations were stronger at arms and trunk but less evident at legs among baseline and cohort participants in UK Biobank. These findings suggest important yet unrecognized potential health benefits of reducing air pollution on fat distribution at anatomical compartments, as well as the prevention of subsequent cardiometabolic syndrome and deaths.7Although the biological mechanisms behind the associations are not clear, several hypotheses supported by animal studies may explain our findings. Mice-based experiments suggested that PM2.5 could induce adipose tissue inflammation, mediate the susceptibility to inflammation, and subsequently trigger redistribution of adipose tissue to viscera.8,9 This mechanism is partially supported by our results that the association between ambient air pollution and body percentage had larger effect size and was consistently significant at arms, which is on the upper body where air pollution induced inflammation reaction may have the greatest consequences.A major limitation of this study is a mismatch between the year of exposure measurement and baseline visit: The exposure was measured in the year of 2010, whereas the baseline visit was conducted between 2006 and 2010. This issue is mitigated by the fact that air pollution in the United Kingdom was relatively unchanged between 2006 and 2010.10 In addition, the participants were primarily White, the concentration of air pollution was low, and the variation was small, which may limit the generalizability to other population or regions.AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank the editors and reviewers for providing instructive suggestions and comments in revising the manuscript. This work was supported by the Ohio Supercomputer Center (PMIU 0180).References1. Bowe B, Gibson AK, Xie Y, Yan Y, Donkelaar A. V, Martin RV, et al.2021. Ambient fine particulate matter air pollution and risk of weight gain and obesity in United States veterans: an observational cohort study. Environ Health Perspect 129(4):47003, PMID: 33793302, 10.1289/EHP7944. Link, Google Scholar2. Zhang Z, Dong B, Chen G, Song Y, Li S, Yang Z, et al.2021. Ambient air pollution and obesity in school-aged children and adolescents: a multicenter study in China. Sci Total Environ 771:144583, PMID: 33524680, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144583. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Furlong MA, Klimentidis YC. 2020. Associations of air pollution with obesity and body fat percentage, and modification by polygenic risk score for BMI in the UK Biobank. Environ Res 185:109364, PMID: 32247148, 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109364. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4. Sudlow C, Gallacher J, Allen N, Beral V, Burton P, Danesh J, et al.2015. UK Biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PloS Med 12(3):e1001779, PMID: 25826379, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001779. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5. Eeftens M, Beelen R, de Hoogh K, Bellander T, Cesaroni G, Cirach M, et al.2012. Development of land use regression models for PM(2.5), PM(2.5) absorbance, PM(10) and PM(coarse) in 20 European study areas; results of the ESCAPE project. Environ Sci Technol 46(20):11195–11205, PMID: 22963366, 10.1021/es301948k. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using Ime4. J Stat Soft 67(1):1–48, 10.18637/jss.v067.i01. Crossref, Google Scholar7. Wang N, Sun Y, Zhang H, Chen C, Wang Y, Zhang J, et al.2021. Total and regional fat-to-muscle mass ratio measured by bioelectrical impedance and risk of incident type 2 diabetes. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 12(6):2154–2162, PMID: 34595832, 10.1002/jcsm.12822. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Sun Q, Yue P, Deiuliis JA, Lumeng CN, Kampfrath T, Mikolaj MB, et al.2009. Ambient air pollution exaggerates adipose inflammation and insulin resistance in a mouse model of diet-induced obesity. Circulation 119(4):538–546, PMID: 19153269, 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.799015. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar9. Liu C, Xu X, Bai Y, Wang T-Y, Rao X, Wang A, et al.2014. Air pollution-mediated susceptibility to inflammation and insulin resistance: influence of CCR2 pathways in mice. Environ Health Perspect 122(1):17–26, PMID: 24149114, 10.1289/ehp.1306841. Link, Google Scholar10. The World Bank Group. 2017. PM2.5 air pollution, mean annual exposure (micrograms per cubic meter) – United Kingdom. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.PM25.MC.M3?name_desc=true&locations=GB [accessed 20 May 2022]. Google ScholarThe authors have no competing interests to declare.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 130, No. 6 June 2022Metrics Downloaded 1,019 times About Article Metrics Publication History Manuscript received10 January 2022Manuscript revised9 June 2022Manuscript accepted16 June 2022Originally published29 June 2022 Financial disclosuresPDF download License information EHP is an open-access journal published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health. All content is public domain unless otherwise noted. Note to readers with disabilities EHP strives to ensure that all journal content is accessible to all readers. However, some figures and Supplemental Material published in EHP articles may not conform to 508 standards due to the complexity of the information being presented. If you need assistance accessing journal content, please contact [email protected]. Our staff will work with you to assess and meet your accessibility needs within 3 working days.