No abstract

No abstract

Background This study uses bibliometric analysis to describe the state of research about the association of NO 2 , PM 2.5 and noise exposures – three traffic-related pollutants – with cardiometabolic disorders. Methods We retrieved references published 1994–2017 from Scopus and classified references with respect to exposure, health outcome and study design using index keywords. Temporal trend, top cited references, used index keywords and the number of hypothesis testing and non-hypothesis testing study design for each group were identified. Results Results show PM 2.5 is the most frequently studied exposure (47%), followed by both NO 2 and PM 2.5 exposure (29%). Only 3% of references considered multiple exposures between NO 2 and/or PM 2.5 and noise, and these were published after 2008. While we observed a growing trend in studies with NO 2 and/or PM 2.5 and noise and diabetes in the last decade, there is a diminishing trend in studies with noise and diabetes. Different patterns of study designs were found through H/NH ratio, the number of references classified as having a hypothesis (H)-testing design relative to the number of references classified as having a non-hypothesis (NH)-testing design. Studies with NO 2 and/or PM 2.5 exposure are more likely to have a H-testing design, while those with noise exposure are more likely to have a NH-testing design, such as cross-sectional study design. Conclusions We conclude with three themes about research trends. First, the study of simultaneous exposures to multiple pollutants is a current trend, and likely to continue. Second, the association between traffic-related pollutants and diabetes and metabolic symptoms is an area for growth in research. Third, the transition to the use of H-testing study designs to explore associations between noise and cardiometabolic outcomes may be supported by improved understanding of the mechanism of action, and/or improvements to the accuracy and precision of air pollution and noise exposure assessments for environmental health research. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7195-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Environmental noise may affect hearing and a variety of non-auditory disease processes. There is some evidence that, like other environmental hazards, noise may be differentially distributed across communities based on socioeconomic status. We aimed to a) predict daytime noise pollution levels and b) assess disparities in daytime noise exposure in Chicago, Illinois. We measured 5-minute daytime noise levels (Leq, 5-min) at 75 randomly selected sites in Chicago in March, 2019. Geographically-based variables thought to be associated with noise were obtained, and used to fit a noise land-use regression model to estimate the daytime environmental noise level at the centroid of the census blocks. Demographic and socioeconomic data were obtained from the City of Chicago for the 77 community areas, and associations with daytime noise levels were assessed using spatial autoregressive models. Mean sampled noise level (Leq, 5-min) was 60.6 dBA. The adjusted R2 and root mean square error of the noise land use regression model and the validation model were 0.60 and 4.67 dBA and 0.51 and 5.90 dBA, respectively. Nearly 75% of city blocks and 85% of city communities have predicted daytime noise level higher than 55 dBA. Of the socioeconomic variables explored, only community per capita income was associated with mean community predicted noise levels, and was highest for communities with incomes in the 2nd quartile. Both the noise measurements and land-use regression modeling demonstrate that Chicago has levels of environmental noise likely contributing to the total burden of environmental stressors. Noise is not uniformly distributed across Chicago; it is associated with proximity to roads and public transportation, and is higher among communities with mid-to-low incomes per capita, which highlights how socially and economically disadvantaged communities may be disproportionately impacted by this environmental exposure.

No abstract