English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To evaluate lung function responses to short-term indoor PM 1 and PM 2.5 concentrations, we conducted a panel study of healthy schoolchildren aged 13-14 years. The following lung function parameters FVC, FEV 1 , PEF, and mid expiratory flows MEF 25 , MEF 50 , and MEF 75 were measured in 141 schoolchildren of the secondary school in Wroclaw, Poland in years 2009-2010. On days when spirometry tests were conducted, simultaneously, PM 1 and PM 2.5 samples were collected inside the school premises. Information about differentiating factors for children including smoking parents, sex, living close to busy streets, dust, mold, and pollen allergies were collected by means of questionnaires. To account for repeated measurements, the method of generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used. The GEE models for the entire group of children revealed the adverse effects (p &lt; 0.05) of PM 1 and PM 2.5 . Small differences in effects estimates per interquartile range (IQR) of PM 1 and PM 2.5 on MEF 25 (5.1 and 4.8 %), MEF 50 (3.7 and 3.9 %), MEF 75 (3.5 and 3.6 %) and FEV 1 (1.3 and 1.0 %) imply that PM 1 was likely the component of PM 2.5 that might have a principal health effect on these lung function parameters. However, the reduction of FVC and PEF per IQR for PM 2.5 (2.1 and 5.2 %, respectively) was higher than for PM 1 (1.0 and 4.4 %, respectively). Adjustment for potential confounders did not change the unadjusted analysis.

Influence of PM1 and PM2.5 on lung function parameters in healthy schoolchildren—a panel study