PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the association between residential or occupational short- and long-term exposure to odour pollution from industrial sources and the health status of the exposed population.
The searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE and Scopus in April 2021. Exposure to an environmental odour from industrial sources in population resident near the source or in workers was considered. We considered outcomes for which there was a biological plausibility, such as wheezing and asthma, cough, headache, nausea and vomiting (primary outcomes). We also included stress-related symptoms and novel outcomes (e.g. mood states). Risk of bias was evaluated using the OHAT tool. For primary outcomes, when at least 3 studies provided effect estimates by comparing exposed subjects versus not exposed, we pooled the study-specific estimates of odour-related effect using random effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with Higgins I2.
Thirty studies were eligible for this review, mainly cross-sectional (n = 23). Only one study involved school-age children and two studies involved workers. Only five studies reported odour effects on objective laboratory or clinical outcomes. Animal Feeding Operations and waste were the most common industrial sources. The overall odds ratios in exposed versus not exposed population were 1.15 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.29) for headache (7 studies), 1.09 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.30) for nausea/vomiting (7 studies), and 1.27 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.44) for cough/phlegm (5 studies). Heterogeneity was a moderate concern. Overall, the body of evidence was affected by a definitely high risk of bias in exposure and outcome assessment since most studies used self-reported information.
Findings underline the public health importance of odour pollution for population living nearby industrial odour sources. The limited evidence for most outcomes supports the need for high quality epidemiological studies on the association between odour pollution and its effects on human health.
The searches were conducted in Medline, EMBASE and Scopus in April 2021. Exposure to an environmental odour from industrial sources in population resident near the source or in workers was considered. We considered outcomes for which there was a biological plausibility, such as wheezing and asthma, cough, headache, nausea and vomiting (primary outcomes). We also included stress-related symptoms and novel outcomes (e.g. mood states). Risk of bias was evaluated using the OHAT tool. For primary outcomes, when at least 3 studies provided effect estimates by comparing exposed subjects versus not exposed, we pooled the study-specific estimates of odour-related effect using random effects models. Heterogeneity was evaluated with Higgins I2.
Thirty studies were eligible for this review, mainly cross-sectional (n = 23). Only one study involved school-age children and two studies involved workers. Only five studies reported odour effects on objective laboratory or clinical outcomes. Animal Feeding Operations and waste were the most common industrial sources. The overall odds ratios in exposed versus not exposed population were 1.15 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.29) for headache (7 studies), 1.09 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.30) for nausea/vomiting (7 studies), and 1.27 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.44) for cough/phlegm (5 studies). Heterogeneity was a moderate concern. Overall, the body of evidence was affected by a definitely high risk of bias in exposure and outcome assessment since most studies used self-reported information.
Findings underline the public health importance of odour pollution for population living nearby industrial odour sources. The limited evidence for most outcomes supports the need for high quality epidemiological studies on the association between odour pollution and its effects on human health.
摘要：
进行系统审查，以评估住宅或职业短期和长期暴露于工业来源的气味污染与暴露人群的健康状况之间的关系。
搜索是在Medline进行的，EMBASE和Scopus在2021年4月。考虑了在源附近居住的人口或工人中暴露于来自工业源的环境气味。我们考虑了有生物学合理性的结果，比如喘息和哮喘，咳嗽,头痛,恶心和呕吐（主要结果）。我们还包括与压力相关的症状和新结果（例如情绪状态）。使用OHAT工具评估偏倚风险。对于主要结果，当至少有3项研究通过比较暴露受试者和未暴露受试者提供效果估计时，我们使用随机效应模型汇总了研究特有的气味相关效应估计值.用HigginsI2评估异质性。
30项研究符合本次审查的条件，主要是横截面（n=23）。只有一项研究涉及学龄儿童，两项研究涉及工人。只有五项研究报告了气味对客观实验室或临床结果的影响。动物饲养操作和废物是最常见的工业来源。暴露人群与未暴露人群的总体优势比为1.15（95％CI1.01至1.29）（7项研究），恶心/呕吐为1.09（95%CI0.88至1.30）（7项研究），咳嗽/痰为1.27（95%CI1.10至1.44）（5项研究）。异质性是一个适度的问题。总的来说,由于大多数研究使用的是自我报告的信息,因此在暴露和结局评估方面,证据体受到绝对高偏倚风险的影响.
研究结果强调了气味污染对居住在工业气味来源附近的人群的公共卫生重要性。大多数结果的有限证据支持需要对气味污染及其对人类健康的影响之间的关联进行高质量的流行病学研究。
搜索是在Medline进行的，EMBASE和Scopus在2021年4月。考虑了在源附近居住的人口或工人中暴露于来自工业源的环境气味。我们考虑了有生物学合理性的结果，比如喘息和哮喘，咳嗽,头痛,恶心和呕吐（主要结果）。我们还包括与压力相关的症状和新结果（例如情绪状态）。使用OHAT工具评估偏倚风险。对于主要结果，当至少有3项研究通过比较暴露受试者和未暴露受试者提供效果估计时，我们使用随机效应模型汇总了研究特有的气味相关效应估计值.用HigginsI2评估异质性。
30项研究符合本次审查的条件，主要是横截面（n=23）。只有一项研究涉及学龄儿童，两项研究涉及工人。只有五项研究报告了气味对客观实验室或临床结果的影响。动物饲养操作和废物是最常见的工业来源。暴露人群与未暴露人群的总体优势比为1.15（95％CI1.01至1.29）（7项研究），恶心/呕吐为1.09（95%CI0.88至1.30）（7项研究），咳嗽/痰为1.27（95%CI1.10至1.44）（5项研究）。异质性是一个适度的问题。总的来说,由于大多数研究使用的是自我报告的信息,因此在暴露和结局评估方面,证据体受到绝对高偏倚风险的影响.
研究结果强调了气味污染对居住在工业气味来源附近的人群的公共卫生重要性。大多数结果的有限证据支持需要对气味污染及其对人类健康的影响之间的关联进行高质量的流行病学研究。
