How Harmful Is Particulate Matter Emitted from Biomass Burning? A Thailand Perspective

Abstract

Purpose of Review A large body of epidemiological evidence demonstrates that exposure to particulate matter (PM) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Many epidemiology studies have investigated the health effects of PM in Europe and North America and focussed on traffic derived PM. However, elevated levels of PM are a global problem and the impacts of other sources of PM on health should be assessed. Biomass burning can increase PM levels in urban and rural indoor and outdoor environments in developed and developing countries. We aim to identify whether the health effects of traffic and biomass burning derived PM are similar by performing a narrative literature review. We focus on Thailand as haze episodes from agricultural biomass burning can substantially increase PM levels. Recent Findings Existing epidemiology, in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that biomass burning derived PM elicits toxicity via stimulation of oxidative stress, inflammation and genotoxicity. Thus, it is likely to cause similar adverse health outcomes to traffic PM, which causes toxicity via similar mechanisms. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding whether traffic or biomass burning derived PM is most hazardous. Also, there is evidence that PM released from different biomass sources varies in its toxic potency. Summary We recommend that epidemiology studies are performed in Thailand to better understand the impacts of PM emitted from specific biomass sources (e.g. agricultural burning). Further, experimental studies should assess the toxicity of PM emitted from more diverse biomass sources. This will fill knowledge gaps and inform evidence-based interventions that protect human health.

Ambient particulate matter and biomass burning: an ecological time series study of respiratory and cardiovascular hospital visits in northern Thailand

“…Liu et al [55] found no indication of curtailed risks at higher concentrations of PM 10 for ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke hospitalisations. While toxicity studies have indicated potential differences based on the type of biomass, such detail is not widely available for epidemiological data [11]. Another possible explanation for the lack of an exposure-response effect on burning days in our study is that individuals might engage in exposure reduction activities (e.g.…”

“…A review of the health effects of wildfire smoke identified consistent evidence of respiratory morbidity, though less clear effects on cardiovascular health [10]. An examination of both epidemiological and toxicological studies concluded that it was not yet clear if urban (traffic) and biomass-derived PM entail differential health hazards [11].…”

Bushfire smoke: urgent need for a national health protection strategy

“…There is no consistent scientific evidence supporting this belief. Toxicological studies have consistently demonstrated that particles derived from biomass burning can activate inflammatory, oxidative and genotoxic responses, similar to road traffic particles . A recent systematic review of epidemiological studies has shown higher asthma‐related effects for PM 2.5 from landscape fire smoke compared with other sources …”

Health Effect of Biomass Fuel Smoke

“…The health effect ranges from cardiovascular, respiratory, neurocognitive and reproductive health effect. The most important one is cardiovascular and respiratory health effect [4][5][6].…”