Nitrogen dioxide (NO
2) is a ubiquitous atmospheric pollutant due to the widespread prevalence of both natural and anthropogenic sources, and it can be a respiratory irritant when inhaled at elevated concentrations. Evidence for health effects of ambient NO
2 derives from three types of studies: observational epidemiology, human clinical exposures, and animal toxicology. Our review focuses on the human clinical studies of adverse health effects of short-term NO
2 exposures, given the substantial uncertainties and limitations in interpretation of the other lines of evidence. We examined more than 50 experimental studies of humans inhaling NO
2, finding notably that the reporting of statistically significant changes in lung function and bronchial sensitivity did not show a consistent trend with increasing NO
2 concentrations. Functional changes were generally mild and transient, the reported effects were not uniformly adverse, and they were not usually accompanied by NO
2-dependent increases in symptoms. The available human clinical results do not establish a mechanistic pathway leading to adverse health impacts for short-term NO
2 exposures at levels typical of maximum 1-h concentrations in the present-day ambient environment (i.e., below 0.2 ppm). Our review of these data indicates that a health-protective, short-term NO
2 guideline level for susceptible (and healthy) populations would reflect a policy choice between 0.2 and 0.6 ppm.
Extended abstractNitrogen dioxide (NO
2) is a ubiquitous atmospheric pollutant due to the widespread prevalence of both natural and anthropogenic sources, and it can be a respiratory irritant when inhaled at elevated concentrations. Natural NO
2 sources include volcanic action, forest fires, lightning, and the stratosphere; man-made NO
2 emissions derive from fossil fuel combustion and incineration.The current National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for NO
2, initially established in 1971, is 0.053 ppm (annual average). Ambient concentrations monitored in urban areas in the United States are ~0.015 ppm, as an annual mean, i.e., below the current NAAQS. Short-term (1-h peak) NO
2 concentrations outdoors are not likely to exceed 0.2 ppm, and even 1-h periods exceeding 0.1 ppm are infrequent. Inside homes, 1-h NO
2 peaks, typically arising from gas cooking, can range between 0.4 and 1.5 ppm.The health effects evidence of relevance to ambient NO
2 derives from three lines of investigation: epidemiology studies, human clinical studies, and animal toxicology studies. The NO
2 epidemiology remains inconsistent and uncertain due to the potential for exposure misclassification, residual confounding, and co-pollutant effects, whereas animal toxicology findings using high levels of NO
2 exposure require extrapolation to humans exposed at low ambient NO
2 levels. Given the limitations and uncertainties in the other lines of health effects evidence, our review thus focused on clinical studies where human volunteers (including asthmatics, children, and elderly) inhaled NO
2 at levels from 0.1 to 3.5 ppm during short-term (½–6-h) exposures, often combined with exercise, and occasionally combined with co-pollutants. We examined the reported biological effects and classified them into (a) lung immune responses and inflammation, (b) lung function changes and airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR), and (c) health effects outside the lungs (extrapulmonary).We examined more than 50 experimental studies of humans inhaling NO
2, finding that such clinical data on short-term exposure allowed discrimination of NO
2 no-effect levels versus lowest-adverse-effects levels. Our conclusions are summarized by these six points:
For lung immune responses and inflammation: (1) healthy subjects exposed to NO
2 below 1 ppm do not show pulmonary inflammation; (2) at 2 ppm for 4?h, neutrophils and cytokines in lung-lavage fluid can increase, but these changes do not necessarily correlate with significant or sustained changes in lung function; (3) there is no consistent evidence that NO
2 concentrations below 2 ppm increase susceptibility to viral infection; (4) for asthmatics and individuals having chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), NO
2-induced lung inflammation is not expected below 0.6 ppm, although one research group reported enhancement of proinflammatory processes at 0.26 ppm.
With regard to NO2-induced AHR: (5) studies of responses to specific or nonspecific airway challenges (e.g., ragweed, methacholine) suggest that asthmatic individuals were not affected by NO
2 up to about 0.6 ppm, although some sensitive subsets may respond to levels as low as 0.2 ppm.
And finally, for extra-pulmonary effects: (6) such effects (e.g., changes in blood chemistry) generally required NO
2 concentrations above 1–2 ppm.Overall, our review of data from experiments with humans indicates that a health-protective, short-term-average NO
2 guideline level for susceptible populations (and healthy populations) would reflect a policy choice between 0.2 and 0.6 ppm. The available human clinical results do not establish a mechanistic pathway leading to adverse health impacts for short-term NO
2 exposures at levels typical of maximum 1-h concentrations in the present-day ambient environment (i.e., below 0.2 ppm).
相似文献