Skip to main content
Download PDF

Association between PM2.5 from a coal mine fire and FeNO concentration 7.5 years later

BMC Pulmonary Medicine volume 24, Article number: 272 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background and aim

There are few long-term studies of respiratory health effects of landscape fires, despite increasing frequency and intensity due to climate change. We investigated the association between exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) concentration 7.5 years later.

Methods

Adult residents of Morwell, who were exposed to the 2014 Hazelwood mine fire over 6 weeks, and unexposed residents of Sale, participated in the Hazelwood Health Study Respiratory Stream in 2021, including measurements of FeNO concentration, a marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation. Individual exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 was modelled and mapped to time-location diaries. The effect of exposure to PM2.5 on log-transformed FeNO in exhaled breath was investigated using multivariate linear regression models in the entire sample and stratified by potentially vulnerable subgroups.

Results

A total of 326 adults (mean age: 57 years) had FeNO measured. The median FeNO level (interquartile range [IQR]) was 17.5 [15.0] ppb, and individual daily exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 was 7.2 [13.8] µg/m3. We did not identify evidence of association between coal mine fire PM2.5 exposure and FeNO in the general adult sample, nor in various potentially vulnerable subgroups. The point estimates were consistently close to zero in the total sample and subgroups.

Conclusion

Despite previous short-term impacts on FeNO and respiratory health outcomes in the medium term, we found no evidence that PM2.5 from the Hazelwood coal mine fire was associated with any long-term impact on eosinophilic airway inflammation measured by FeNO levels.

Peer Review reports

Background

Climate change is increasing the risk of landscape fires. Rainfall anomalies, the frequency and intensity of heat waves, and strong winds are affecting the wildfire season duration and its intensity [1, 2]. In February 2014, a wildfire ignited the Hazelwood open-cut brown coal mine in south-eastern Australia, covering the nearby town of Morwell in visible smoke for six weeks.

The air pollution health impacts from urban sources such as traffic are well-known [3]. However, wildfire air pollution can potentially lead to stronger toxic health effects [1]. One reason is the extraordinarily high levels of particulate matter with a median aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 µm (PM2.5), which can enter the peripheral lung [2, 4]. PM has been classified by their size as smaller particles, e. g. PM2.5 have higher toxicity than larger particles, e. g. PM ≤ 10 µm, as they can enter the human body more deeply and harm more cells and organs [5]. The toxicity and resulting health effects of PM2.5 additionally vary across different sources of emission, as the equal dose of wildfire PM2.5 compared to non-wildfire PM2.5 has a higher impact on respiratory health outcomes [6]. On the risk of asthma-related events, wildfire PM may have a larger effect than urban background exposures due to higher oxidative and proinflammatory particle characteristics [1], which may lead to respiratory impairment through the underlying inflammatory pathways [7]. The strong inflammatory response of wildfire coarse or fine PM was also demonstrated in mechanistic studies such as in the lungs of mice [8]. PM2.5 pollution is one of the similarities in the emission characteristics between coal mines and wildfires, which allows the comparison of both sources [9, 10].

Epidemiological studies of smoke exposure and respiratory health have mainly focussed on short-term effects, showing increased risks of cough, phlegm and wheeze, respiratory infections, impaired lung function, hospitalizations, and mortality [1, 11, 12]. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) values increased in association with four-hour lags of PM2.5 concentrations from a planned burn, wildfire, and coal mine fire [2]. A recent systematic review of wildfire exposure (excluding coal mine fires) on health impacts at least twelve months later found just one study looking at PM2.5 and respiratory health [11]. That study reported that exposure to smoke from a two-month wildfire was associated with reduced spirometry (observed versus predicted ratio of the forced expiratory volume in the first second to the forced vital capacity ratio) two years later [13].

In studies examining the effects of coal mine fire smoke on respiratory health in adults in the medium term (1.5– 3.5 years) after the Hazelwood mine fire, individuals were not more likely to have higher markers of cardiovascular disease [14], or worse respiratory outcomes among asthmatic participants [4]. However, there was an association with poorer asthma control [4], and a dose–response association between PM2.5 exposure and spirometry consistent with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) among non-smokers [10], increased lung reactance [15], as well as increased 5-year risk of respiratory emergency department presentations [16]. Yet, there is limited evidence on long-term (> 5 years) respiratory effects of wildfire and coal mine fire smoke exposure in the general adult population [1, 9] and vulnerable subgroups [9, 11].

Thus, this study aimed to investigate the association between exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 and eosinophilic airway inflammation as measured by FeNO levels 7.5 years later.

Methods

On 9 February 2014, a wildfire spread to an open-cut brown coal mine, the Hazelwood mine located in the Latrobe Valley of south-eastern Australia, about 135 km south-east of the city of Melbourne [17]. A coal seam fire continued burning for six weeks. The fire released smoke and ash over the town of Morwell, which is a few hundred meters distance north-east and inhabited by 14,000 individuals [17]. The Hazelwood Health Study (HHS) was established in response to community concerns to investigate the potential long-term health effects of the Hazelwood mine fire [18]. In 2021, the Respiratory Stream sample Round 2 of 519 participants (346 from Morwell and 173 from Sale, a minimally exposed yet similar town about 60 km distance east of the Hazelwood mine) established in 2017 [15] was invited to participate in clinical assessments. The clinics included measurements of FeNO concentration as one biomarker of airway inflammation, mostly eosinophilic airway inflammation in the exhaled breath using the Niox Vero (Aerocrine, Solna, Sweden) equipment in line with recommendations [19,20,21]. The FeNO measurement was supervised by the same respiratory scientists at health facilities in Morwell and Sale. Data were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) [22].

Coal mine fire PM2.5 concentrations were retrospectively modelled with resolutions up to 100m2 in areas closest to the mine fire using a chemical transport model driven by the separate downscaled weather Conformal Cubic Atmospheric Model considering air monitoring, coal combustion, and weather conditions. The model was run twice to estimate (1) only background PM2.5 concentrations and (2) additionally to background PM2.5 the coal mine fire PM2.5 emissions to calculate the sole mine fire concentrations by subtracting model 2 from 1 [12, 18]. Mean annual background concentrations of PM2.5 were similar in Morwell and Sale [23, 24]. The individual-level daily exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 was estimated by mapping the modelled concentrations to time-locations diaries of home, work, and any relocation addresses for the mine fire period previously collected from participants. The mean daily exposure over the coal mine fire period was then estimated for each person [12, 17, 18].

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize individual characteristics, FeNO levels and PM2.5 exposures. To assess the group differences between the Morwell and Sale study groups at the 5% significance level, two-sample t-tests were used for continuous measures, and due to small sample sizes, Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical measures. Due to its skewed distribution, FeNO in parts per billion (ppb) was natural log-transformed, with a one added to each value to account for zero values. Using R version 4.1.2, multivariate linear regression models were fitted to loge-FeNO based on complete cases to estimate the percentage change in FeNO per 10 µg/m3 increase in individual exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5, while adjusting for potential confounders selected a priori including town (Morwell vs. Sale), sex, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, education, employment, occupational exposure and any inhaled corticosteroid including combination inhalers. Two-sided p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

In a sensitivity analysis, we tested the robustness of the estimated regression coefficients while excluding 48 individuals who did not follow the preparation for FeNO measurement [20]. Furthermore, we performed stratified analyses in potentially vulnerable subgroups as per Gao et al. [11] including: (1) elderly individuals (≥ 65 years) [1], (2) males, (3) obese individuals (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) [11], (4) current and former smokers [10, 11], (5) socially disadvantaged individuals (up to year 10 education or unemployed/unable to work) [1, 11], (6) individuals with respiratory symptoms (chronic cough, chest tightness or nasal allergy) [1, 10], (7) individuals with atopic conditions (chest tightness, nasal allergy or self-reported doctor-diagnosed asthma) as atopy might be a relevant factor in FeNO [19], and (8) individuals with respiratory diseases (self-reported doctor-diagnosed asthma or COPD [spirometry z-scores < lower limit of normal]) [1, 11].

Results

In the clinical follow-up of the HHS Respiratory Stream 329 (63%) of 519 Respiratory Stream participants attended (217 exposed). Of the 329 participants, 326 provided satisfactory FeNO measurements (mean age: 57, standard deviation: 15 years), 59% were female (Table 1). The median daily individual exposure [IQR] to coal mine fire PM2.5 without the background PM2.5 was 7.2 [13.8] (Morwell: 11.8 [10.3], Sale: 0.0 [0.0] µg/m3). The medians of FeNO levels (interquartile range [IQR]) were 17.5 [15.0] ppb (Morwell: 18.0 [14.0], Sale: 16.0 [18.0]), with 4.0% > 50 ppb (and 27.6% 25–50 ppb) indicating eosinophilic airway inflammation according to the ATS [19]. We found no significant differences between the Morwell and Sale study groups, except in body mass index, chest tightness, and exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 with higher values in Morwell.

Table 1 Description of the Respiratory Stream Round 2 clinic participants, FeNO levels and PM2.5 exposures and group differences between the Morwell and Sale study groups
Full size table

Regarding the time trend, 224 participants with diagnosed asthma provided valid FeNO measurements in the Respiratory Stream Round 1 in 2016 (median [IQR] = 16 [18] ppb. Of the 224 individuals, 149 participated in Round 2 clinic, of whom 10 (6.7%) had the same FeNO values in both clinics, 70 (47.0%) had higher FeNO values in Round 2 compared to Round 1, and 69 (46.3%) had lower FeNO levels. Ten individuals had > 50 ppb (and 15 individuals 25–50 ppb) in Round 1 only, 5 individuals (and 14 individuals 25–50 ppb) in Round 2 and 5 individuals (and 23 individuals 25–50 ppb) at both time points.

We found no significant effects of exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 on FeNO levels 7.5 years later (Fig. 1). The results were robust in the sensitivity analysis (Fig. 1). In various potentially vulnerable subgroups, the effect and the trend were stable in all models (Fig. 1). The beta estimates were consistently close to zero in the whole sample and most subgroups.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Percentage change in FeNO levels per 10 µg/m3 increase in mine fire PM2.5 after 7.5 years. FeNO = Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (year: 2021) PM2.5 = particulate matter with a median aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 µm (year: 2014). Main model (entire sample) adjusted for potential confounders selected a priori including town (Morwell vs. Sale), sex, age, BMI, smoking, education, employment, occupational exposure, and any inhaled corticosteroid including combination inhalers. CI = confidence intervals. Preparation for FeNO assessment: excluding individuals who did not follow the preparation for FeNO assessment. Elderly: individuals ≥ 65 years. Obese: individual BMI ≥ 30 kg/m.2. Smoking: current and former smokers. Socially disadvantaged: individuals with secondary education up to year 10 or unemployed/unable to work. Respiratory symptoms: individuals with chronic cough, chest tightness or nasal allergy in 2017. Atopic conditions: individuals with chest tightness, nasal allergy or self-reported doctor-diagnosed asthma. Respiratory diseases: individuals with doctor-diagnosed asthma or COPD (spirometry z-score < lower limit of normal)

Full size image

Discussion

We investigated the association between exposure to PM2.5 from the Hazelwood coal mine fire and eosinophilic airway inflammation as measured by FeNO levels 7.5 years later. We found no association in the whole adult sample or in potentially vulnerable subgroups.

Due to the lack of studies on the long-term respiratory health impacts of landscape fires, it was not possible to directly compare these results with previous findings. Furthermore, the medium-term effects on respiratory health were inconsistent [4, 10, 15]. The assumptions were that: firstly, traffic air pollution exposure has a long-term respiratory health impact [3] and secondly, landscape fire exposure has higher toxicity than urban background exposure [1, 2, 6], which may lead to respiratory impairment through the oxidative and proinflammatory pathways [7]. Impacts on poorer asthma control [4], increased COPD in non-smokers [10], and increased lung reactance [15] in the medium term, as well as a short-term effect on FeNO [2], suggest a likely impact on inflammation which would be detectable in the long-term. These led us to hypothesise that there might be a long-term effect of coal mine fire exposure on eosinophilic airway inflammation, as a marker of chronic respiratory diseases.

However, in this study, beta estimates were close to zero in the adult total sample and potentially vulnerable subgroups. These findings suggested PM2.5 from a coal mine fire has little to no long-term effect on eosinophilic airway inflammation as measured by FeNO. This finding was not consistent with the short-term study on FeNO [2]. There are some explanations for why we did not find a significant effect on eosinophilic airway inflammation as measured by FeNO 7.5 years later. There might be no long-lasting effect on FeNO, because the FeNO levels react to PM2.5 exposure only within a short time [2]. Additionally, FeNO could indicate eosinophilic airway inflammation [19], which is only one biomarker and eosinophilic airway inflammation is only one type of inflammatory process. Furthermore, treating inflammation with inhaled corticosteroids likely reduces detection of long-term effects on FeNO. Further studies are required to validate these findings in other exposed populations.

However, this finding does not rule out other long-term respiratory health impacts. Instead, there could be impacts of air pollution on spirometry such as COPD [10] or respiratory mechanics [15]. A recent analysis found the PM2.5 exposure from the mine fire continued to increase prevalence of several respiratory symptoms, and this may have been exacerbated by COVID-19 [25]. Studies of the associations between traffic related air pollution and respiratory health support this hypothesis [26,27,28,29]. Alternatively, the health impact may depend on fire exposure characteristics such as type (geography, the substrate burned, combustion conditions resulting in ozone or nitrogen oxides [11]), fire intensity and duration [7], as well as characteristics of the exposed population such as age and pre-existing conditions [9, 10]. Consequently, fires with a higher intensity or duration, such as 2023 wildfires in Quebec, Canada, Rhodes, Greece, and the US state of Hawaii, and 2017 wildfire lasting two months in the US state of Montana with a daily average PM2.5 exposure of 221 µg/m3 [13], might increase airway inflammation years later.

Although our results suggested no long-term impact of the Hazelwood mine fire on eosinophilic airway inflammation as measured by FeNO, education of the general population about the health impacts of landscape fires [1] should also include the long-term perspective. While there are action plans on how to behave to reduce the duration and intensity of exposure and consequently to reduce the health risk when the wildfires are present [1], there are currently no strategies for health monitoring or promotion after the fire is extinguished. Due to climate change-related increases in landscape fires, more individuals are at risk. Affected individuals may include people living far from the fire [7]. Cooperation between epidemiologists and social scientists working together with high-risk communities and government agencies, is required to develop more comprehensive recommendations [9, 10, 30]. Specifically for vulnerable subgroups, recommendations to promote their health and avoid deterioration in quality of life and well-being are required, since they are disproportionately affected [9, 31].

The Hazelwood Health study is a unique epidemiological study that was established in response to community concerns about the potential long-term health effects of a coal mine fire. Based on scientific research, health strategies can be developed and directly applied to the exposed population. However, further studies are required to improve health strategies while distinguishing fire exposure characteristics on short-term, as well as long-term health impacts in different vulnerable subgroups.

This study has a number of strengths. The Hazelwood Health Study collected cohort data including an objectively-measured health outcome. Additionally, estimates of fire PM2.5 exposure accounted for individual location, as well as time-varying fire extent and intensity, as recommended by Gao et al. [11]. Furthermore, the use of survey data allowed us to adjust for important confounders including indicators of socioeconomic status [18]. The potential confounding effect of cigarette smoking was addressed in the FeNO measurement and analysis, while following recommendations on smoking [20].

However, there were methodological limitations that could affect the interpretation of our findings. Selection bias could not be ruled out, if some participants did not remember their precise locations [18] or if continuing participants differed from those lost to follow-up. For example, exposed individuals with severe respiratory impacts may have been more likely to move away or not have the capacity to participate in the study. Inflammation could be decreased by inhaled steroid treatment in general, and especially in the Morwell residents as the dosage was higher compared to the Sale residents in the first clinic examination, perhaps due to a higher clinician awareness after the fire exposure [4]. In this sample of the second clinic examination, the number of treatments was similar between Morwell and Sale residents. However, only a proportion of individuals with doctor-diagnosed asthma reported inhaled corticosteroids, which could indicate misclassification bias and underestimate the effect.

Eosinophilic airway inflammation may not be detectable based on FeNO concentration but could have been detectable by including additional biomarkers that were unavailable in this study [21]. Furthermore, there could be some residual confounding due to unmeasured factors [18]. Another limitation could be that the fire PM2.5 concentration was retrospectively modelled. However, there is no significant difference in the individual exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 between participants of the Respiratory Stream Round 2 clinic and non-participants [data not shown]. This analysis did not focus on longitudinal effects using outcome measurements more than one time, however we presented descriptive statistics of outcome measurements at two time points. Additionally, greater power could be required to detect small effect sizes.

Conclusions

Despite previous short-term impacts on FeNO and respiratory health outcomes in the medium term, exposure to coal mine fire PM2.5 likely has no, or minimal long-term impact on eosinophilic airway inflammation as measured by FeNO in the total adult sample and vulnerable subgroups. However, further studies to validate these findings are required. Furthermore, there may be other long-term respiratory health impacts of landscape fires. Vulnerable subgroups should be included in all studies to generate specific recommendations to promote their health, quality of life and well-being after smoke exposure.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available due restrictions under the license for this study but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request with the permission of the Victorian Department of Health.

Abbreviations

ATS:

American Thoracic Society

BMI:

Body mass index

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

FeNO:

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide

HHS:

Hazelwood Health Study

IQR:

Interquartile range

PM2.5 :

Particulate matter with a median aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 µm

ppb:

Parts per billion

References

  1. Xu R, Yu P, Abramson MJ, Johnston FH, Samet JM, Bell ML, et al. Wildfires, global climate change, and human health. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2173–81. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr2028985.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Dwyer T, Abramson MJ, Straney L, Salimi F, Johnston F, Wheeler AJ, et al. Sub-clinical effects of outdoor smoke in affected communities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1131. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031131.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Manisalidis I, Stavropoulou E, Stavropoulos A, Bezirtzoglou E. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: A review. Front Public Health. 2020;8:14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Taylor S, Borg B, Gao C, Brown D, Hoy R, Makar A, et al. The impact of the Hazelwood coal mine fire smoke exposure on asthma. J Asthma. 2022;59:213–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02770903.2020.1847931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schraufnagel DE. The health effects of ultrafine particles. Exp Mol Med. 2020;52:311–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s12276-020-0403-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Aguilera R, Corringham T, Gershunov A, Benmarhnia T. Wildfire smoke impacts respiratory health more than fine particles from other sources: observational evidence from Southern California. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1493. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21708-0.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen H, Oliver BG, Pant A, Olivera A, Poronnik P, Pollock CA, Saad S. Effects of air pollution on human health - Mechanistic evidence suggested by in vitro and in vivo modelling. Environ Res. 2022;212:113378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2022.113378.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wegesser TC, Franzi LM, Mitloehner FM, Eiguren-Fernandez A, Last JA. Lung antioxidant and cytokine responses to coarse and fine particulate matter from the great California wildfires of 2008. Inhal Toxicol. 2010;22:561–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/08958370903571849.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Melody SM, Johnston FH. Coal mine fires and human health: What do we know? Int J Coal Geol. 2015;152:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2015.11.001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Prasad S, Gao CX, Borg B, Broder J, Brown D, Ikin JF, et al. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in adults exposed to fine particles from a coal mine fire. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022;19:186–95. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202012-1544OC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gao Y, Huang W, Yu P, Xu R, Yang Z, Gasevic D, et al. Long-term impacts of non-occupational wildfire exposure on human health: A systematic review. Environ Pollut. 2023;320: 121041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.121041.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson AL, Gao CX, Dennekamp M, Williamson GJ, Brown D, Carroll MTC, et al. Associations between respiratory health outcomes and coal mine fire PM2.5 smoke exposure: A cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:4262. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16214262.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Orr A, AL Migliaccio C, Buford M, Ballou S, Migliaccio CT. Sustained effects on lung function in community members following exposure to hazardous PM2.5 levels from wildfire smoke. Toxics. 2020;8:53. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics8030053.

  14. Betts J, Dewar EM, Stub D, Gao CX, Brown DW, Ikin JF, et al. Markers of cardiovascular disease among adults exposed to smoke from the Hazelwood Coal Mine Fire. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041587.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Holt NR, Gao CX, Borg BM, Brown D, Broder JC, Ikin J, et al. Long-term impact of coal mine fire smoke on lung mechanics in exposed adults. Respirology. 2021;26:861–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith CL, Gao CX, Xu R, Ikin JF, Dimitriadis C, Carroll MT, et al. Long-term impact of the 2014 Hazelwood coal mine fire on emergency department presentations in Australia. Environ Res. 2023;223:115440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115440.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luhar AK, Emmerson KM, Reisen F, Williamson GJ, Cope ME. Modelling smoke distribution in the vicinity of a large and prolonged fire from an open-cut coal mine. Atmos Environ. 2020;229: 117471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117471.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ikin J, Carroll MTC, Walker J, Borg B, Brown D, Cope M, et al. Cohort profile: The Hazelwood Health Study Adult Cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;49:1777–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa083.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dweik RA, Boggs PB, Erzurum SC, Irvin CG, Leigh MW, Lundberg JO, et al. An official ATS clinical practice guideline: interpretation of exhaled nitric oxide levels (FENO) for clinical applications. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184:602–15. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.9120-11ST.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the European Respiratory Society. ATS/ERS recommendations for standardized procedures for the online and offline measurement of exhaled lower respiratory nitric oxide and nasal nitric oxide. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171:912–30. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200406-710ST.

  21. Marcos MC, Cisneros SC. What is the added value of FeNO as T2 biomarker? Front Allergy. 2022;3:957106. https://doi.org/10.3389/falgy.2022.957106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Knibbs LD, van Donkelaar A, Martin RV, Bechle MJ, Brauer M, Cohen DD, et al. Satellite-Based Land-Use Regression for Continental-Scale Long-Term Ambient PM2.5 Exposure Assessment in Australia. Environ Sci Technol. 2018;52:12445–55. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02328.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lane TJ, Carroll M, Borg BM, McCaffrey TA, Smith CL, Gao CX, et al. Long-term effects of extreme smoke exposure on COVID-19: A cohort study. Respirology. 2024;29:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.14591.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lane TJ, Carroll M, Borg BM, McCaffrey TA, Smith CL, Gao C, et al. Respiratory symptoms after coalmine fire and pandemic: a longitudinal analysis of the Hazelwood Health Study adult cohort. medRxiv 2023. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.08.23.23294510.

  26. Kress S, Kilanowski A, Wigmann C, Zhao Q, Zhao T, Abramson MJ, et al. Airway inflammation in adolescents and elderly women: Chronic air pollution exposure and polygenic susceptibility. Sci Total Environ. 2022;841:156655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156655.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chen X, Liu F, Niu Z, Mao S, Tang H, Li N, et al. The association between short-term exposure to ambient air pollution and fractional exhaled nitric oxide level: A systematic review and meta-analysis of panel studies. Environ Pollut. 2020;265:114833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114833.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abramson MJ, Wigmann C, Altug H, Schikowski T. Ambient air pollution is associated with airway inflammation in older women: a nested cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2020;7:e000549. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000549.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Adamkiewicz G, Ebelt S, Syring M, Slater J, Speizer FE, Schwartz J, et al. Association between air pollution exposure and exhaled nitric oxide in an elderly population. Thorax. 2004;59:204–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax.2003.006445.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. World Health Organization, Health and Welfare Canada, Canadian Public Health Association. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Ottawa: World Health Organization; 1986. (The 1st International Conference on HealthPromotion). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WH-1987.

  31. Schraufnagel DE, Balmes JR, Cowl CT, de Matteis S, Jung S-H, Mortimer K, et al. Air Pollution and Noncommunicable Diseases: A Review by the Forum of International Respiratory Societies’ Environmental Committee, Part 1: The Damaging Effects of Air Pollution. Chest. 2019;155:409–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2018.10.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Respiratory Stream clinics were set up in facilities provided by the Central Gippsland Health Service, Sale and The Healthcare Centre, Morwell. We thank Shantelle Allgood and David Poland, who oversaw all aspects of participant recruitment and Sharon Harrison for assistance with purchasing, logistics and set up of the clinics.

Funding

This work was funded by the Victorian Department of Health, Australia. The paper presents the views of the authors and does not represent the views of the Department.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IUF – Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Sara Kress

  2. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia

    Tyler J. Lane, David Brown, Catherine L. Smith, Caroline X. Gao, Brigitte M. Borg & Michael J. Abramson

  3. Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Caroline X. Gao

  4. Orygen, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Caroline X. Gao

  5. Respiratory Medicine, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Thomas McCrabb & Brigitte M. Borg

  6. Cabrini Health, Malvern, VIC, Australia

    Mikayla Thomas

  7. Melbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

    Bruce R. Thompson

Authors
  1. Sara Kress
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tyler J. Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine L. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Caroline X. Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas McCrabb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mikayla Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Brigitte M. Borg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bruce R. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Michael J. Abramson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SK was involved in the formulation of overarching research goals and aims; SK developed the methodology, programmed the analysis code, synthesized and analysed the data, visualized the findings, and wrote the original manuscript draft. TJL was involved in the formulation of overarching research goals and aims, in the supervision, in the validation of the findings, and in summarizing the results. DB provided study materials and contributed to generating the dataset. CLS and CXG were involved in the validation of the findings and summarizing the results. TM, MT, BMB, and BRT provided study materials. MJA led the formulation of overarching research goals and aims, the acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication, and the coordination of the project; MJA was involved in the supervision and provided study materials. All authors read, edited, and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Abramson.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Monash University (ID 1078). All participants gave written informed consent to participate in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MJA holds investigator initiated grants for unrelated research from Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi and GSK. He has also undertaken an unrelated consultancy for Sanofi and received a speaker’s fee from GSK. BRT is on the medical advisory board of Chiesi and NDD. He has also undertaken unrelated consultancy for GSK. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kress, S., Lane, T.J., Brown, D. et al. Association between PM2.5 from a coal mine fire and FeNO concentration 7.5 years later. BMC Pulm Med 24, 272 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-024-03075-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-024-03075-w

Keywords

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

ISSN: 1471-2466

Contact us