Acute Impact of Volcanic Ash on Asthma Symptoms and Treatment

Shimizu, Yasuo; Dobashi, Kunio; Hisada, Takeshi; Ono, Akiko; Todokoro, Makoto; Iijima, Hiroaki; Utsugi, Mitsuyoshi; Kakegawa, Seiichi; Iizuka, Keiko; Ishizuka, Tadao; Morikawa, Akihiro; Mori, Makoto

doi:10.1177/03946320070200s203

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A Japanese study of asthma treatment and volcanic ash exposure found worsening of symptoms in asthmatics in areas with more than 100 g/m 2 ash, but not in areas with less ash fall 34. The psychological morbidity found in the current study (20–26%) was lower than that found in the survey of the most exposed area right after the Eyjafjallajökull eruption ended (39%) 7.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

Health effects following the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption: a cohort study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe study aimed to determine whether exposure to a volcanic eruption was associated with increased prevalence of physical and/or mental symptoms.DesignCohort, with non-exposed control group.SettingNatural disasters like volcanic eruptions constitute a major public-health threat. The Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull exposed residents in southern Iceland to continuous ash fall for more than 5 weeks in spring 2010. This study was conducted during November 2010–March 2011, 6–9 months after the Eyjafjallajökull eruption.ParticipantsAdult (18–80 years of age) eruption-exposed South Icelanders (N=1148) and a control population of residents of Skagafjörður, North Iceland (N=510). The participation rate was 72%.Main outcome measuresPhysical symptoms in the previous year (chronic), in the previous month (recent), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) measured psychological morbidity.ResultsThe likelihood of having symptoms during the last month was higher in the exposed population, such as; tightness in the chest (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.1 to 5.8), cough (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.7 to 3.9), phlegm (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.3 to 3.2), eye irritation (OR 2.9; 95% CI 2.0 to 4.1) and psychological morbidity symptoms (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.7). Respiratory symptoms during the last 12 months were also more common in the exposed population; cough (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.6 to 2.9), dyspnoea (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1 to 2.3), although the prevalence of underlying asthma and heart disease was similar. Twice as many in the exposed population had two or more symptoms from nose, eyes or upper-respiratory tract (24% vs 13%, p<0.001); these individuals were also more likely to experience psychological morbidity (OR 4.7; 95% CI 3.4 to 6.5) compared with individuals with no symptoms. Most symptoms exhibited a dose–response pattern within the exposed population, corresponding to low, medium and high exposure to the eruption.Conclusions6–9 months after the Eyjafjallajökull eruption, residents living in the exposed area, particularly those closest to the volcano, had markedly increased prevalence of various physical symptoms. A portion of the exposed population reported multiple symptoms and may be at risk for long-term physical and psychological morbidity. Studies of long-term consequences are therefore warranted.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 79%

Health effects following the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption: a cohort study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The children had normal spirometry measurements. Previous studies have not found changes in lung function in children after volcanic ash exposure, but asthma hospitalisation rates have been seen to increase after several eruptions,11 12 and a dose–response has also been found in a Japanese study of asthmatic adults who were exposed to volcanic ash 28…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

A survey of early health effects of the Eyjafjallajökull 2010 eruption in Iceland: a population-based study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo estimate physical and mental health effects of the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption on nearby residents.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingThe Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull erupted on 14 April 2010. The eruption lasted for about 6 weeks and was explosive, ejecting some 8 million tons of fine particles into the atmosphere. Due to prevailing winds, the ash spread mostly to the south and south-east, first over the rural region to the south, later over the Atlantic Ocean and Europe, closing European air space for several days.ParticipantsResidents (n=207) of the most ash-exposed rural area south and east of the volcano.MethodsThe study period was from 31 May to 11 June 2010. Participants were examined by a physician. To ascertain respiratory health, standardised spirometry was performed before and after the use of a bronchodilator. All adult participants answered questionnaires about mental and physical health, their children's health and the use of protective equipment.ResultsEvery other adult participant reported irritation in eyes and upper airway when exposed to volcanic ash. Adults (n=26) and children (n=5) with pre-existing asthma frequently reported worsening of their symptoms. No serious health problems requiring hospitalisation could be attributed to the eruption. The majority of the participants reported no abnormal physical or mental symptoms to the examining physician. Compared to an age- and gender-matched reference group, the ash-exposed participants reported lower smoking rates and were less likely to have ventilation impairment. Less than 10% of the participants reported symptoms of stress, anxiety or depression.ConclusionsShort-term ash exposure was associated with upper airway irritation symptoms and exacerbation of pre-existing asthma but did not contribute to serious health problems. The exposure did not impair respiratory function compared to controls. Outdoor use of protective glasses and face masks was considered protective against irritation in eyes and upper airway.

show abstract

“…A study of individuals with symptomatic asthma and acute bronchitis, and healthy controls, from communities heavily impacted by the eruption, supported the a priori hypothesis that preexisting respiratory diseases are important risk factors for adverse respiratory reactions to volcanic ash (Bernstein et al, 1986). Similarly, after the 2004 eruption of Mount Asama in Japan, a survey of 236 asthmatic adults found 43% experienced exacerbations, compared to 8% in an unexposed control area; those cases with more severe asthma did not experience such changes, as these individuals apparently tended to reduce their exposure by staying indoors with closed windows (Shimizu et al, 2007).…”

Section: Health Effects From Exposure To Volcanic Ashmentioning

confidence: 68%

Health Impact Assessment of Volcanic Ash Inhalation: A Comparison With Outdoor Air Pollution Methods

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper critically appraises the extrapolation of concentration-response functions (CRFs) for fine and coarse particulate matter, PM 2.5 and PM 10 , respectively, used in outdoor air pollution health impact assessment (HIA) studies to assess the extent of health impacts in communities exposed to volcanic emissions. Treating volcanic ash as PM, we (1) consider existing models for HIA for general outdoor PM, (2) identify documented health effects from exposure to ash in volcanic eruptions, (3) discuss potential issues of applying CRFs based on the composition and concentration of ash-related PM, and (4) critically review available case studies of volcanic exposure scenarios utilizing HIA for outdoor air pollution. We identify a number of small-scale studies focusing on populations exposed to volcanic ash; exposure is rarely quantified, and there is limited evidence concerning the health effects of PM from volcanic eruptions. That limited evidence is, however, consistent with the CRFs typically used for outdoor air pollution HIA. Two health assessments of exposure to volcanic emissions have been published using population-and occupational-based CRFs, though each application entails distinct assumptions and limitations. We conclude that the best available strategy, at present, is to apply outdoor air pollution risk estimates to scenarios involving volcanic ash emissions for the purposes of HIA. However, due to the knowledge gaps on, for example, the health effects from exposure to volcanic ash and differences in ash composition, there is inherent uncertainty in this application. To conclude, we suggest actions to enable better prediction and assessment of health impacts of volcanic emissions.

show abstract

Acute Impact of Volcanic Ash on Asthma Symptoms and Treatment

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

Health effects following the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption: a cohort study

Health effects following the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption: a cohort study

A survey of early health effects of the Eyjafjallajökull 2010 eruption in Iceland: a population-based study

Health Impact Assessment of Volcanic Ash Inhalation: A Comparison With Outdoor Air Pollution Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About