Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Residential proximity to major roads and adverse birth outcomes: a hospital-based study

  • Takashi Yorifuji1Email author,
  • Hiroo Naruse2,
  • Saori Kashima3,
  • Soshi Takao4,
  • Takeshi Murakoshi2,
  • Hiroyuki Doi4 and
  • Ichiro Kawachi5
Environmental Health201312:34

DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-12-34

Received: 20 December 2012

Accepted: 8 April 2013

Published: 18 April 2013

Abstract

Background

Exposure to air pollution has been demonstrated to increase the risk of preterm birth and low birth weight (LBW). Although evidence has accumulated on characteristics associated with increased risk of air pollution-related health effects, most studies have been conducted in the adult population and evidence on reproductive outcomes is limited. We examined whether socio-economic position (SEP) and parental characteristics (parental behavior and co-morbidity) modified the relationship between air pollution and adverse birth outcomes.

Methods

Data were extracted from a perinatal hospital database based in Shizuoka, Japan. We restricted the analysis to mothers who delivered live-born single births from January 1997 to December 2010 (n = 16,615). Each birth was assigned proximity to major roads. Multivariate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for the outcomes of preterm birth and term LBW. We stratified subjects by individual/area-level SEP and parental characteristics. We then measured interactions on the additive scale between the respective factors and exposure.

Results

Lower SEP at both individual and area levels was associated with the increased occurrence of adverse birth outcomes. Living within 200 m from a major road increased the risk of preterm birth by 1.5 times (95% CI: 1.3-1.9) and LBW by 1.2 times (95% CI: 0.9-1.6). Mothers with lower individual SEP defined by household occupation experienced higher ORs for term LBW (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.2-8.2) compared with those with higher individual SEP. In contrast, mothers who lived in the highest area-level SEP region (i.e., affluent areas) showed slightly higher point estimates compared with those who lived in middle or poor areas. In addition, maternal diabetic and hypertensive status modified the association between proximity and preterm birth, while maternal smoking status modified the association between proximity and term LBW.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that air pollution is an independent risk factor for adverse birth outcomes. Mothers with lower individual SEP and mothers living in higher SEP region may be susceptible to the adverse effect of air pollution. Maternal diabetic, hypertensive, and smoking status may also increase susceptibility to this air pollution-related health effect.

Keywords

Air pollution Diabetes mellitus Geographic Information System Hypertension Low birth weight Pregnancy outcomes Preterm birth Socio-economic position Smoking

Background

Evidence has accumulated on the association between air pollution and adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth or low birth weight (LBW) [14]. Indeed, recent systematic reviews and original studies have indicated positive associations between various air pollution indicators (e.g., gaseous pollutants, particulate matter, and air pollution surrogates) and birth outcomes [58].

Recently, several studies have attempted to identify characteristics associated with increased risk of air pollution-related health effects, e.g. age, preexisting cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and low socio-economic position (SEP) [9, 10]. However, most studies were conducted in the adult population, and evidence concerning reproductive outcomes is limited and potentially conflicting [11].

Because SEP is a robust predictor of health outcomes, it has been questioned whether SEP is a confounder or an effect modifier of the association between air pollution and adverse health outcomes [12]. A growing number of studies have therefore sought to examine the simultaneous impacts of SEP and air pollution, although most studies considered SEP a confounder. Evidence concerning group/area-level SEP modification is somewhat conflicting [1317], but many studies have observed effect modification by individual SEP, i.e. lower SEP individuals may be more susceptible to adverse effects of air pollution, which may in turn be related to underlying vulnerability (co-morbidity or adverse health behavior such as smoking) [1821].

In the field of air pollution and reproductive epidemiology, four studies have examined how SEP potentially modified the relationships between air pollution and adverse birth outcomes [2225]. Three of these used a distance-based exposure index as the air pollution indicator, but reported potentially conflicting results. Two studies in California, USA, observed increased effect estimates for preterm birth and LBW in low SEP census areas [23, 24], while a study in Canada demonstrated the opposite result, i.e. increased pollution-related effects for preterm birth, LBW, and small-for-gestational-age birth in subjects who had higher SEP both at the individual and group/district level [22]. Another study in Korea, which used particulate matter concentration (PM10) as the exposure index, found a higher effect estimate for preterm birth in low SEP regions [25].

Moreover, few studies have evaluated how parental characteristics (except SEP characteristics) modify the association between air pollution and reproductive outcomes, although the findings may provide important insights for possible mechanisms [3]. One study in New Jersey, USA, observed increased effect estimates for small-for-gestational-age birth among pregnant women with pregnancy complications (i.e. placental abruption and premature rupture of the membrane) [26].

In the present study, we therefore used a hospital-based perinatal database to evaluate how SEP at both individual and group/area levels and parental characteristics potentially modify the relationship between air pollution and adverse birth outcomes (preterm birth and term LBW).

Methods

Participants

Data were extracted from the perinatal database maintained at the Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Shizuoka, Japan since January 1997. The hospital is the main perinatal medical center in the western part of Shizuoka prefecture (west of Tokyo). The hospital reported 1582 new live births in 2010, and approximately one-eighth of the babies born in the western part of Shizuoka were born in this hospital [8]. The database contains information from all mothers admitted to the department of obstetrics in the hospital (n = 21,855 from 1997 to 2010). In this study, we restricted analysis to live-born single births delivered from January 1997 to December 2010. We assumed that babies with an Apgar score of >1 one minute after birth were live-born births. We thus defined the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this study as follows: single births, babies whose Apgar score was >1 one minute after birth, babies who had birth weight data, and deliveries after 22 weeks gestational age. We retrieved 19,218 births from the database (Figure 1). Details of the methodology used in the current study have been published elsewhere [8, 27].
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1476-069X-12-34/MediaObjects/12940_2012_Article_643_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Selection of eligible births. When term low birth weight (LBW), i.e., birth weight <2500 g, was adopted as the health outcome, we restricted analyses to mothers who delivered term births (born at 37 or more completed weeks of gestation).

The availability of residential information at delivery was a prerequisite for inclusion in the study because we used proximity to major roads as an index for air pollution exposure; as a result of this criterion we excluded 206 births. Furthermore, since the hospital is located in the western part of Shizuoka prefecture, we restricted births to those whose mothers lived in the western part of Shizuoka prefecture, because mothers who lived in central or eastern parts were likely to have returned to their parents’ home during pregnancy to give birth (a Japanese tradition). However, we could not obtain information regarding maternal movement. When we adopted term LBW as a health outcome, we further restricted the analysis to mothers who delivered term births (born at 37 or more weeks of gestation). Our final set of participants included 16,615 births for preterm birth and 14,836 births for term LBW analyses (Figure 1).

Exposure data

We used mothers’ residential proximity to major roads, which was defined according to the amount of traffic, as an index for air pollution exposure. First, we identified the exact residential address at delivery for each birth and measured proximity to major roads for all available mothers’ addresses. We categorized proximity according to the following groups (≤200 m; >200 m) based on previous epidemiological studies [8, 2729] and exposure assessment studies showing exponential decay in exposure with increasing distance from major roads [30, 31]. We also employed an alternative trichotomized exposure indictor (≤50, 50–200, >200 m) to examine a possible dose–response relationship between proximity to major roads and adverse outcomes.

Major roads were defined as those having total vehicle counts greater than 50,000 per 24 hours on a weekday [32, 33]. Road type and traffic volume data were obtained from the 2005 Road Traffic Census conducted by the Road Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism. The major roads defined in this study corresponded almost exactly with the existing expressways or primary national highways. All geographic variables were collected by the Geographic Information System (GIS) software ArcGIS (ESRI Japan Inc., version 9.3).

Outcome data

We examined two adverse birth outcomes: preterm birth and term LBW. Preterm births were defined as births less than 37 weeks gestational age. Gestational ages were measured based on the last menstrual period, and mostly confirmed or corrected by ultrasound measurements at approximately 10 weeks gestational age. Term LBW was defined as birth weight <2500 g among term newborns.

Individual/area-level SEP and personal characteristics

We retrieved information about individual characteristics from the perinatal database. Individual information was obtained from mothers by trained obstetricians or midwives at the time of prenatal checkup when the expected delivery date was confirmed, and added or corrected during admission. Occupation of the mother or father (whichever was higher) was used as our measure of individual SEP. Although occupation was available in five categories (professional workers; employees; self-employed workers; part-time workers; unemployed and not active in the labor force including housewives), we combined the last three categories because of limited numbers in the last two categories.

We also extracted the following personal characteristics: maternal age, maternal smoking (never smoked; ex-smoker including mothers who quit smoking during pregnancy; current-smoker), maternal alcohol consumption (drinker; non-drinker), paternal smoking (never smoked; ex- or current-smoker), maternal obesity (before pregnancy), maternal past history of diabetes, and maternal past history of hypertension. Maternal obesity (before pregnancy) was defined as mothers whose body mass index (BMI) was more than 25. BMI was calculated as body weight before pregnancy (kg) divided by height squared (m2).

Area-level SEP (at the district level) was measured as the proportion of professional workers and the proportion of production or transportation workers over 15 years of age in the corresponding census region where the mothers lived. Data were obtained from the 2000 national census. The study area included 1872 census regions. In the analyses examining effect modification by area-level SEP, the SEP level was tertiled as previous studies used trichotomized categories of regional SEP [23, 25].

Data analyses

First, we calculated the proportions of preterm births and term LBW according to air pollution exposure category (≤200 m; >200 m), personal characteristics, and individual/area-level SEP. We then examined the distribution of individual/area-level SEP and personal characteristics separated by proximity to major roads.

We next estimated the multivariate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth or term LBW according to major roads using a logistic regression model. We first obtained crude ORs (Model 1) and then adjusted for maternal age, newborn’s sex, and personal characteristics that could be considered as potential confounders (Model 2) as follows: household occupation (professionals; employees; self-employed/part-time workers/unemployed), maternal smoking (never smoked; ex-smoker; current-smoker), maternal alcohol consumption (drinker; non-drinker), paternal smoking (ex- or current-smoker; non-smoker), and maternal BMI. We further adjusted for individual SEP (Model 3). Finally, we additionally adjusted for area-level SEP (Model 4), i.e. the proportion of professional workers in the corresponding census. Gestational age was also included in all models in the analyses for LBW. Maternal BMI, the proportion of professional workers, and gestational age were treated as continuous variables. Maternal age was entered as a linear and quadratic term into the models because a U-shaped association was expected between maternal age and adverse birth outcomes.

We also employed the alternative trichotomized exposure indictor (≤50, 50–200, >200 m) instead of the simple dichotomization (≤200 m; >200 m) and repeated the analyses.

To examine effect modification by individual/area-level SEP and parental characteristics, we stratified the subjects by individual/area-level SEP and parental characteristics and applied the final fully-adjusted logistic models (i.e., maternal age, newborn’s sex, personal characteristics, and individual/area-level SEP). Each variable was excluded when the subjects were stratified by the corresponding variable. We then measured interactions on the additive scale between the respective factors and exposure. We used Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) spreadsheets provided by Knol and VanderWeele [34] and calculated the proportion attributable to the interaction (AP), the proportion of disease among those with both exposures that is attributable to their interaction [35]. In the absence of interaction, AP equals 0. AP > 0 means positive interaction or more than additivity and AP < 0 means negative interaction or less than additivity.

All confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated at the 95% level. The PASW software package (Version 18.0 J, SPSS Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was used for statistical analyses. Approval for this study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital and Okayama University (No 498).

Results

Proportions of preterm births and term LBW according to demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. Preterm births and LBW were observed more often in areas closer to major roads. Additionally, younger and older mothers tended to experience more adverse birth outcomes, especially for term LBW. Regarding SEP variables, as expected, mothers with higher individual SEP (defined by household occupation) and mothers who lived in higher area level SEP regions tended to have fewer preterm births. Furthermore, while maternal smoking was associated with both outcomes, maternal obesity was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, but decreased risk of term LBW.
Table 1

Proportions of preterm births and term low birth weight by characteristics of parents, newborns, and census region

 

Births

PTB

Term births

Term LBW

 

n = 16,615

n (%)†

n = 14,836

n (%)†

Parental variables

    

Proximity to major roads

    

  ≤200 m

953

149 (15.6)

804

80 (10.0)

  >200 m

15662

1630 (10.4)

14032

1145 (8.2)

Maternal age

    

  <20

2096

236 (11.3)

1860

183 (9.8)

  20-34

11663

1216 (10.4)

10447

824 (7.9)

  ≥35

2854

327 (11.5)

2527

218 (8.6)

Household occupation

    

  Professional workers

1854

143 (7.7)

1711

121 (7.1)

  Employees

13070

1408 (10.8)

11662

995 (8.5)

  Self-employed/Part-time workers/Unemployed

952

106 (11.1)

846

63 (7.4)

Maternal smoking

    

  Never smoked

15545

1607 (10.3)

13938

1129 (8.1)

  Ex- or current-smoker

877

145 (16.5)

732

82 (11.2)

Maternal alcohol consumption

    

  Non-drinker

15674

1672 (10.7)

14002

1159 (8.3)

  Drinker

757

82 (10.8)

675

53 (7.9)

Paternal smoking

    

  Never smoked

8650

874 (10.1)

7776

620 (8.0)

  Ex or current-smoker

7152

774 (10.8)

6378

545 (8.5)

Maternal obesity

    

  Not obese

15215

1574 (10.3)

13641

1149 (8.4)

  Obese

1348

183 (13.6)

1165

72 (6.2)

Maternal diabetes

    

  No diabetes

15983

1704 (10.7)

14279

1180 (8.3)

  Diabetes

617

72 (11.7)

545

44 (8.1)

Maternal hypertension

    

  No hypertension

15707

1672 (10.6)

14035

1149 (8.2)

  Hypertension

893

104 (11.6)

789

74 (9.4)

Newborn variables

    

Sex

    

  Male

8571

1006 (11.7)

7565

490 (6.5)

  Female

8001

770 (9.6)

7231

730 (10.1)

Parity

    

  First birth

9028

928 (10.3)

8100

748 (9.2)

  Second birth

5686

618 (10.9)

5068

349 (6.9)

  More than third birth

1889

232 (12.3)

1657

127 (7.7)

Birth year

    

  1997-2001

5959

568 (9.5)

5391

425 (7.9)

  2002-2005

4630

539 (11.6)

4091

356 (8.7)

  2006-2010

6026

672 (11.2)

5354

444 (8.3)

Census regions level variables

    

Proportion of professional workers

    

  Q1 (13.0-33.8%) (affluent)

5453

514 (9.4)

4939

342 (6.9)

  Q2 (10.0-13.0%) (middle)

5524

543 (9.8)

4981

441 (8.9)

  Q3 (0–10.0%) (poor)

5628

720 (12.8)

4908

442 (9.0)

Proportion of production or transportation workers

    

  Q1 (0–37.9%) (affluent)

5406

486 (9.0)

4920

374 (7.6)

  Q2 (37.9-45.2%) (middle)

5589

575 (10.3)

5014

414 (8.3)

  Q3 (45.2-86.3%) (poor)

5610

716 (12.8)

4894

437 (8.9)

†Proportions of PTBs were calculated by dividing the number of PTBs by total births in the corresponding category. Proportions of LBW births were calculated by dividing the number of term LBW by total term births in the corresponding category.

PTB; preterm birth, LBW; low birth weight.

In Table 2, the number and percentage of individual/area-level SEP and personal characteristics separated by proximity to major roads are shown. Mothers whose household occupation was professional and mothers who lived in affluent areas had a tendency to live further from major roads. The correlation between individual and area-level SEP is shown in Table 3, and indicates that mothers whose household occupation was professional tended to live in affluent areas.
Table 2

Number and percentages of individual/area-level SEP and personal characteristics by proximity to major roads (≤200 m; >200 m) (n = 16,615)

 

Proximity to major roads

 

≤200 m

>200 m

 

n (%)

n (%)

Individual SEP or personal characteristics

  

Household occupation

  

  Professional workers (n = 1854)

76 (4.1)

1778 (95.9)

  Employees (n = 13070)

767 (5.9)

12303 (94.1)

  Self-employed/Part-time workers/Unemployed (n = 952)

57 (6)

895 (94)

Maternal smoking

  

  Never smoked (n = 15736)

897 (5.7)

14839 (94.3)

  Ex- or current-smoker (n = 686)

46 (6.7)

640 (93.3)

Maternal alcohol drinking

  

  Non-drinker (n = 15674)

902 (5.8)

14772 (94.2)

  Drinker (n = 757)

42 (5.5)

715 (94.5)

Paternal smoking

  

  Never smoked (n = 8650)

477 (5.5)

8173 (94.5)

  Ex or current-smoker (n = 7152)

436 (6.1)

6716 (93.9)

Maternal obesity

  

  Not obese (n = 15215)

855 (5.6)

14360 (94.4)

  Obese (n = 1348)

91 (6.8)

1257 (93.2)

Maternal diabetes

  

  No diabetes (n = 15983)

913 (5.7)

15070 (94.3)

  Diabetes (n = 617)

40 (6.5)

577 (93.5)

Maternal hypertension

  

  No hypertension (n = 15707)

908 (5.8)

14799 (94.2)

  Hypertension (n = 893)

45 (5)

848 (95)

Area-level SEP at census regions

  

Proportion of professional workers

  

  Q1 (affluent) (n = 5453)

182 (3.3)

5271 (96.7)

  Q2 (middle) (n = 5524)

401 (7.3)

5123 (92.7)

  Q3 (poor) (n = 5628)

370 (6.6)

5258 (93.4)

Proportion of production or transportation workers

  

  Q1 (affluent) (n = 5406)

84 (1.6)

5322 (98.4)

  Q2 (middle) (n = 5589)

452 (8.1)

5137 (91.9)

  Q3 (poor) (n = 5610)

417 (7.4)

5193 (92.6)

SEP; socio-economic position.

Table 3

Individual-level SEP within area-level SEP variables (n = 16,615)

 

Area-level SEP at census regions

 

Q1 (affluent)

Q2 (middle)

Q3 (poor)

 

Proportion of professional workers

Household occupation

   

  Professional workers (n = 1853)

850 (45.9)

545 (29.4)

458 (24.7)

  Employees (n = 13062)

4103 (31.4)

4414 (33.8)

4545 (34.8)

  Self-employed/Part-time workers/Unemployed (n = 951)

290 (30.5)

317 (33.3)

344 (36.2)

 

Proportion of production or transportation workers

Household occupation

   

  Professional workers (n = 1853)

811 (43.8)

564 (30.4)

478 (25.8)

  Employees (n = 13062)

4032 (30.9)

4473 (34.2)

4557 (34.9)

  Self-employed/Part-time workers/Unemployed (n = 951)

355 (37.3)

317 (33.3)

279 (29.3)

SEP; socio-economic position.

Table 4 shows the adjusted ORs for the associations of proximity to major roads with preterm birth and term LBW. Although we adjusted for individual SEP (Model 3) and for both individual/area-level SEP variables simultaneously (Model 4), this did not substantially change the point estimates. When we adjusted for both individual/area-level SEP variables simultaneously (Model 4), we found positive associations between proximity to major roads and preterm birth and term LBW. Specifically, living within 200 m of a major road increased the risk of preterm birth by 1.5 times (95% CI: 1.3-1.9) and LBW by 1.2 times (95% CI: 0.9-1.6). Dose–response relationships between proximity to major roads and adverse outcomes were observed when we used the trichotomized exposure indictor.
Table 4

Odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between proximity to major roads and preterm births (PTB) or term low birth weight (LBW)

 

Model 1

Model 2‡

Model 3§

Model 4**

 

Crude model

Adjusted model

Individual SEP adjusted

Individual/area-level SEP adjusted

 

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

PTB*

    

Proximity to major roads

    

  >200 m

1

1

1

1

  ≤200 m

1.6 (1.3, 1.9)

1.6 (1.4, 2.0)

1.6 (1.3, 1.9)

1.5 (1.3, 1.9)

Proximity to major roads

    

  >200 m

1

1

1

1

  50-200 m

1.5 (1.3, 1.9)

1.6 (1.3, 2.0)

1.6 (1.3, 1.9)

1.5 (1.2, 1.8)

  ≤50 m

2.0 (1.2, 3.1)

1.9 (1.2, 3.1)

1.8 (1.1, 3.0)

1.7 (1.0, 2.9)

Term LBW†

    

Proximity to major roads

    

  >200 m

1

1

1

1

  ≤200 m

1.2 (1.0, 1.6)

1.2 (0.9, 1.5)

1.2 (1.0, 1.6)

1.2 (0.9, 1.6)

Proximity to major roads

    

  >200 m

1

1

1

1

  50-200 m

1.2 (1.0, 1.6)

1.2 (0.9, 1.5)

1.2 (0.9, 1.6)

1.2 (0.9, 1.6)

  ≤50 m

1.3 (0.7, 2.5)

1.4 (0.7, 2.8)

1.5 (0.8, 3.1)

1.5 (0.7, 3.0)

*Subjects were all newborns (n = 16,615).

†Subjects were newborns at term birth (n = 14,836).

‡Adjusted for maternal age, newborn’s sex, maternal alcohol consumption, maternal smoking, maternal body mass index, and paternal smoking. Gestational age was also adjusted in the analysis for term LBW.

§ Additionally adjusted for household occupation.

**Additionally adjusted for the proportion of professional workers in the corresponding census.

PTB; preterm birth, LBW; low birth weight, OR; odds ratio, CI; confidence interval, SEP; socio-economic position.

Although none of the additive interaction terms between air pollution and individual/area-level SEP were statistically significant, some tendencies were observed in the stratified analyses by individual/area-level SEP (Table 5). Mothers with lower individual SEP, i.e., household occupation “Self-employed/Part-time workers/Unemployed”, experienced higher ORs for the association between proximity and term LBW (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.2-8.2) compared with other household occupation categories. In contrast, in the analyses stratified by area-level SEP, mothers who lived in the highest area-level SEP region (i.e., affluent areas) showed slightly higher point estimates for the associations between proximity and adverse birth outcomes compared with those who lived in middle or poor areas. For example, the OR in affluent areas defined by proportion of production or transportation workers was 2.5 (95% CI: 1.1-5.5) for term LBW.
Table 5

Odds ratios (ORs) of adverse birth outcomes associated with proximity to major roads (≤200 m) stratified by individual/area-level SEP and parental characteristics

 

PTB*

Term LBW*

 

OR (95% CI)

AP (95% CI)

OR (95% CI)

AP (95% CI)

Individual SEP or personal characteristics

    

Household occupation†

    

  Professional workers

1.6 (0.8, 3.2)

-

1.4 (0.6, 3.3)

-

  Employees

1.5 (1.2, 1.9)

0 (−0.6, 0.6)

1.1 (0.9, 1.5)

−0.2 (−1.2, 0.7)

  Self-employed/Part-time workers/Unemployed

1.6 (0.7, 3.5)

0.2 (−0.6, 1.0)

3.1 (1.2, 8.2)

0.4 (−0.3, 1.1)

Maternal smoking†

    

  Never smoked

1.6 (1.3, 2.0)

-

1.2 (0.9, 1.5)

-

  Ex- or current-smoker

0.8 (0.3, 1.8)

−0.5 (−1.6, 0.7)

2.4 (1.0, 6.2)

0.5 (0, 1.0)

Maternal alcohol drinking†

    

  Non-drinker

1.6 (1.3, 1.9)

-

1.2 (1.0, 1.6)

-

  Drinker

1.2 (0.4, 3.3)

−0.2 (−1.3, 1.0)

0.7 (0.1, 3.3)

−0.8 (−3.6, 1.9)

Paternal smoking†

    

  Never smoked

1.7 (1.3, 2.2)

-

1.2 (0.8, 1.7)

-

  Ex or current-smoker

1.4 (1.1, 1.9)

−0.1 (−0.6, 0.3)

1.2 (0.9, 1.8)

−0.1 (−0.9, 0.8)

Maternal obesity†

    

  Not obese

1.6 (1.3, 2.0)

-

1.2 (0.9, 1.6)

-

  Obese

1.3 (0.7, 2.5)

−0.1 (−0.8, 0.6)

1.6 (0.7, 3.6)

0.2 (−0.5, 0.9)

Maternal diabetes†

    

  No diabetes

1.5 (1.2, 1.8)

-

1.2 (0.9, 1.6)

-

  Diabetes

4.4 (1.9, 10.0)

0.6 (0.4, 0.9)

1.4 (0.3, 7.0)

0 (−1.5, 1.5)

Maternal hypertension†

    

  No hypertension

1.5 (1.2, 1.8)

-

1.3 (1.0, 1.6)

-

  Hypertension

2.6 (1.2, 5.4)

0.4 (0, 0.9)

0.5 (0.1, 2.5)

−1.1 (−4.2, 2.0)

Area-level SEP at census regions

    

Proportion of professional workers§

    

  Q1 (affluent)

1.9 (1.2, 3.0)

-

1.4 (0.8, 2.6)

-

  Q2 (middle)

1.6 (1.2, 2.2)

−0.2 (−0.8, 0.4)

1.3 (0.9, 1.9)

0 (−0.6, 0.6)

  Q3 (poor)

1.4 (1.1, 1.9)

−0.2 (−0.7, 0.4)

1.1 (0.7, 1.6)

−0.2 (−1.0, 0.6)

Proportion of production or transportation workers§

    

  Q1 (affluent)

2.5 (1.4, 4.4)

-

2.5 (1.1, 5.5)

-

  Q2 (middle)

1.2 (0.9, 1.7)

−0.9 (−2.1, 0.2)

1.2 (0.8, 1.8)

−0.9 (−2.5, 0.7)

  Q3 (poor)

1.6 (1.2, 2.2)

−0.3 (−0.9, 0.4)

1.0 (0.7, 1.6)

−1.1 (−2.9, 0.7)

ORs were estimated against subjects living in the area more than 200 m from major roads. Proportions attributable to the interaction (AP) between the respective factors and proximity to major roads are also shown.

*Subjects were all newborns (n = 16,615) in the analyses for PTB and subjects were newborns at term birth (n = 14,836) in the analyses for term LBW.

†Adjusted for maternal age, newborn’s sex, maternal smoking, maternal alcohol consumption, maternal body mass index, paternal smoking, household occupation, and the proportion of professional workers in the corresponding census. Each confounder was excluded when subjects were stratified by the corresponding variable. Gestational age was also adjusted in the analysis for term LBW.

§Adjusted for maternal age, newborn’s sex, maternal smoking, maternal alcohol consumption, maternal body mass index, paternal smoking, and household occupation. Gestational age was also adjusted in the analysis for term LBW.

AP; Proportion attributable to the interaction, CI; confidence interval, LBW; low birth weight, OR; odds ratio, PTB; preterm birth, SEP; socio-economic position.

Regarding stratified analyses by parental characteristics, mothers who reported a past history of diabetes and hypertension experienced a higher OR for the association between proximity and preterm birth (Table 5): e.g., OR = 4.4 (95% CI: 1.9-10) for those with diabetes and OR = 1.5 for those without diabetes (95% CI: 1.2-1.8), and the corresponding AP was 0.6. Thus, it could be argued that 60% of preterm births among those with both exposure conditions (living within 200 m from major roads and diabetes) were attributable to their interaction. In contrast, ex- or currently smoking mothers experienced a higher OR for the association between proximity and term LBW.

Discussion

In this study, we evaluated how SEP at both individual and group/area-levels and parental characteristics modified the relationship between air pollution and adverse birth outcomes (preterm birth and term LBW), using proximity to major roads as an exposure indicator. We observed that mothers from lower individual SEP, defined by household occupation, had higher effect estimates for term LBW compared with mothers with higher individual SEP. In contrast, mothers from higher area-level SEP regions tended to have higher effect estimates for both preterm birth and term LBW compared with mothers from lower area-level SEP regions. In addition, maternal diabetic, hypertensive, and smoking status modified the association between proximity and birth outcomes.

There is a lack of studies on this topic from Asian countries. Extrapolation from studies conducted in different areas may be inappropriate because of differences in pollution characteristics, health care systems, meaning of SEP indicators, study designs, and demographics of the population.

The findings of this study are consistent with recent studies suggesting that air pollution exposure increases the risk of preterm birth and term LBW [6, 7]. Our study additionally supports the finding that lower individual or area-level SEP is associated with adverse birth outcomes [36, 37], even in an egalitarian country like Japan [38].

In the analyses stratified by SEP, although not statistically significant, mothers with lower individual SEP showed susceptibility to air pollution as expected, especially in the “Self-employed/Part-time workers/Unemployed” occupational category. This finding is consistent with previous air pollution studies examining cardiopulmonary outcomes among the adult population. These studies showed susceptibility associated with lower education or income at the individual level [1821]. In contrast, mothers who lived in higher area-level SEP regions tended to have greater effect estimates for adverse birth outcomes stemming from air pollution exposure. This finding is similar to the study in Canada, which showed stronger effects in higher area-level SEP neighborhoods [22], and contradicts some previous studies showing increased susceptibility in lower SEP areas [2325].

Moreover, we found that maternal diabetic and hypertensive status modified the relationship between air pollution and preterm birth. This finding is consistent with previous air pollution studies in adult settings, which showed that air pollution-related health effects were stronger among diabetic or hypertensive patients [9, 10, 39]. Indeed, recent reviews suggest that the potential mechanism for the association between air pollution and adverse birth outcomes is impaired placental function (placental oxygen and nutrient transport), in turn brought about by oxidative stress, inflammation, coagulation, impaired endothelial function, and hemodynamic responses [3, 40]. Diabetes and hypertension can cause preeclampsia, infections, vascular complications, and placental insufficiency during pregnancy [41], which may support the susceptibility of diabetic and hypertensive mothers. The reason why maternal smoking status modified the association between proximity and term LBW may also be related to this mechanism, because smoking is associated with placental insufficiency during pregnancy [41].

Although most air pollution studies used register-based participants [2224, 42, 43], our study participants were maternal-newborn pairs who attended one general hospital with a perinatal center. Not all babies in the western part of Shizuoka are born in this particular hospital and this hospital-based sampling method may introduce selection bias. However, the proportion of preterm births delivered in this hospital was higher mainly among mothers residing far from the hospital. The proportion of preterm births was 7.4% among mothers residing close to the hospital (lowest 10th percentile of the distance from the hospital), and 23.4% among mothers residing far from the hospital (highest 10th percentile of the distance). The hospital is located relatively close to major roads [8], hence this type of selection bias, if it exists, would likely only underestimate the results.

In the present study, we used mothers’ proximity to major roads as an index for air pollution exposure, since air-monitoring stations are limited in their coverage and spatial resolution. However, there is a possibility that proximity to major roads is limited in temporal resolution. Traffic information in this study was obtained from the Road Traffic Census conducted in 2005, and traffic volume data were recorded for only 1 day, during the period from September to November in 2005. Thus, our exposure indicator does not reflect year-to-year or seasonal variations in traffic exposure. Because major roads did not change, the traffic volume would not have varied substantially in the year-to-year comparison. The average changes (increase) in daily traffic volume over a 12-hour time period for the whole Shizuoka prefecture were 135 vehicles from 1999 to 2005 and 200 vehicles from 2005 to 2010, respectively [44]. However, our exposure indicator did not provide any indication of seasonal variation.

Exposure misclassification could have occurred because of mothers’ movement during pregnancy, as we used maternal residential information at delivery. Therefore, we restricted subjects to those who lived in the western part of Shizuoka prefecture to reduce the possibility of misclassification. Although we could not obtain information about maternal movement, such possible non-differential exposure misclassification between the two categories (≤200 m; > 200 m) would likely have moved effect estimates toward the null [45].

In the present study, we used household occupation as our measure of individual SEP. However, the category was relatively crude. Moreover, we had to combine three categories (Self-employed; Part-time workers; Unemployed) because of limited numbers. Furthermore, we did not have other individual SEP information such as education, income, or wealth [46]. These issues might have affected the observed non-significant interactions between air pollution and adverse birth outcomes in the present study. Additionally, we could not separate mothers who quit smoking before pregnancy (ex-smoker) from mothers who quit smoking during pregnancy, which may have been a potentially confounding factor in the present study.

Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that air pollution is an independent risk factor for adverse birth outcomes, and lower SEP at both individual and area-levels was associated with the increased occurrence of adverse birth outcomes. Although the interaction was not statistically significant, mothers with lower individual SEP and mothers living in higher SEP regions tended to be susceptible to the adverse effect of air pollution. Moreover, maternal diabetic, hypertensive, and smoking status increased susceptibility to the effect. Further studies are needed to identify mothers vulnerable to air pollution to reduce reproductive adverse outcomes of newborns.

Consent

According to the ethical guidelines for epidemiological research in Japan, no informed consent from participants was needed because data were existing materials and analyzed anonymously.

Abbreviations

AP: 

Proportion attributable to the interaction

BMI: 

Body mass index

CI: 

Confidence interval

GIS: 

Geographic Information System

LBW: 

Low birth weight

OR: 

Odds ratio

SEP: 

Socio-economic position.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the contributions of the staff at Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital in maintaining the perinatal dataset. The software in this study was supported by the Higher Education Grant Program of ESRI Japan Corp. This work was supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (No 24510033) and Grants for Environmental Research Projects from the Sumitomo Foundation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Human Ecology, Okayama University Graduate School of Environmental and Life Science
(2)
Department of Obstetrics, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital
(3)
Department of Public Health and Health Policy, Institute of Biomedical Health Sciences, Hiroshima University
(4)
Department of Epidemiology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences
(5)
Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health

References

  1. Glinianaia SV, Rankin J, Bell R, Pless-Mulloli T, Howel D: Particulate air pollution and fetal health: a systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Epidemiology. 2004, 15: 36-45. 10.1097/01.ede.0000101023.41844.ac.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Maisonet M, Correa A, Misra D, Jaakkola JJ: A review of the literature on the effects of ambient air pollution on fetal growth. Environ Res. 2004, 95: 106-115. 10.1016/j.envres.2004.01.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Slama R, Darrow L, Parker J, Woodruff TJ, Strickland M, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Glinianaia S, Hoggatt KJ, Kannan S, Hurley F, Kalinka J, Sram R, Brauer M, Wilhelm M, Heinrich J, Ritz B: Meeting report: atmospheric pollution and human reproduction. Environ Health Perspect. 2008, 116: 791-798. 10.1289/ehp.11074.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sram RJ, Binkova B, Dejmek J, Bobak M: Ambient air pollution and pregnancy outcomes: a review of the literature. Environ Health Perspect. 2005, 113: 375-382. 10.1289/ehp.6362.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Ghosh JK, Wilhelm M, Su J, Goldberg D, Cockburn M, Jerrett M, Ritz B: Assessing the influence of traffic-related air pollution on risk of term low birth weight on the basis of land-use-based regression models and measures of air toxics. Am J Epidemiol. 2012, 175: 1262-1274. 10.1093/aje/kwr469.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Shah PS, Balkhair T: Air pollution and birth outcomes: a systematic review. Environ Int. 2011, 37: 498-516. 10.1016/j.envint.2010.10.009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Stieb DM, Chen L, Eshoul M, Judek S: Ambient air pollution, birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res. 2012, 117: 100-111.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Yorifuji T, Naruse H, Kashima S, Ohki S, Murakoshi T, Takao S, Tsuda T, Doi H: Residential proximity to major roads and preterm births. Epidemiology. 2011, 22: 74-80. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181fe759f.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Brook RD, Rajagopalan S, Pope CA, Brook JR, Bhatnagar A, Diez-Roux AV, Holguin F, Hong Y, Luepker RV, Mittleman MA, Peters A, Siscovick D, Smith SC, Whitsel L, Kaufman JD: Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010, 121: 2331-2378. 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Sacks JD, Stanek LW, Luben TJ, Johns DO, Buckley BJ, Brown JS, Ross M: Particulate matter-induced health effects: who is susceptible?. Environ Health Perspect. 2011, 119: 446-454.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Woodruff TJ, Parker JD, Darrow LA, Slama R, Bell ML, Choi H, Glinianaia S, Hoggatt KJ, Karr CJ, Lobdell DT, Wilhelm M: Methodological issues in studies of air pollution and reproductive health. Environ Res. 2009, 109: 311-320. 10.1016/j.envres.2008.12.012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. O’Neill MS, Jerrett M, Kawachi I, Levy JI, Cohen AJ, Gouveia N, Wilkinson P, Fletcher T, Cifuentes L, Schwartz J: Health, wealth, and air pollution: advancing theory and methods. Environ Health Perspect. 2003, 111: 1861-1870. 10.1289/ehp.6334.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Bell ML, Dominici F: Effect modification by community characteristics on the short-term effects of ozone exposure and mortality in 98 US communities. Am J Epidemiol. 2008, 167: 986-997. 10.1093/aje/kwm396.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Forastiere F, Stafoggia M, Tasco C, Picciotto S, Agabiti N, Cesaroni G, Perucci CA: Socioeconomic status, particulate air pollution, and daily mortality: differential exposure or differential susceptibility. Am J Ind Med. 2007, 50: 208-216. 10.1002/ajim.20368.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Martins MC, Fatigati FL, Vespoli TC, Martins LC, Pereira LA, Martins MA, Saldiva PH, Braga AL: Influence of socioeconomic conditions on air pollution adverse health effects in elderly people: an analysis of six regions in Sao Paulo, Brazil. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004, 58: 41-46. 10.1136/jech.58.1.41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Samet JM, Dominici F, Curriero FC, Coursac I, Zeger SL: Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities, 1987–1994. N Engl J Med. 2000, 343: 1742-1749. 10.1056/NEJM200012143432401.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Zanobetti A, Schwartz J, Dockery DW: Airborne particles are a risk factor for hospital admissions for heart and lung disease. Environ Health Perspect. 2000, 108: 1071-1077. 10.1289/ehp.001081071.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoek G, Brunekreef B, Goldbohm S, Fischer P, van den Brandt PA: Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet. 2002, 360: 1203-1209. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11280-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Medina-Ramon M, Schwartz J: Who is more vulnerable to die from ozone air pollution?. Epidemiology. 2008, 19: 672-679. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181773476.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Pope CA, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD: Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA. 2002, 287: 1132-1141. 10.1001/jama.287.9.1132.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Zeka A, Zanobetti A, Schwartz J: Individual-level modifiers of the effects of particulate matter on daily mortality. Am J Epidemiol. 2006, 163: 849-859. 10.1093/aje/kwj116.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Genereux M, Auger N, Goneau M, Daniel M: Neighbourhood socioeconomic status, maternal education and adverse birth outcomes among mothers living near highways. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008, 62: 695-700. 10.1136/jech.2007.066167.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Ponce NA, Hoggatt KJ, Wilhelm M, Ritz B: Preterm birth: the interaction of traffic-related air pollution with economic hardship in Los Angeles neighborhoods. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 162: 140-148. 10.1093/aje/kwi173.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilhelm M, Ritz B: Residential proximity to traffic and adverse birth outcomes in Los Angeles county, California, 1994–1996. Environ Health Perspect. 2003, 111: 207-216.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Yi O, Kim H, Ha E: Does area level socioeconomic status modify the effects of PM(10) on preterm delivery?. Environ Res. 2010, 110: 55-61. 10.1016/j.envres.2009.10.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Rich DQ, Demissie K, Lu SE, Kamat L, Wartenberg D, Rhoads GG: Ambient air pollutant concentrations during pregnancy and the risk of fetal growth restriction. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009, 63: 488-496. 10.1136/jech.2008.082792.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Yorifuji T, Naruse H, Kashima S, Murakoshi T, Tsuda T, Doi H, Kawachi I: Residential proximity to major roads and placenta/birth weight ratio. Sci Total Environ. 2012, 414: 98-102.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Hart JE, Laden F, Puett RC, Costenbader KH, Karlson EW: Exposure to traffic pollution and increased risk of rheumatoid arthritis. Environ Health Perspect. 2009, 117: 1065-1069. 10.1289/ehp.0800503.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Jerrett M, Arain A, Kanaroglou P, Beckerman B, Potoglou D, Sahsuvaroglu T, Morrison J, Giovis C: A review and evaluation of intraurban air pollution exposure models. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2005, 15: 185-204. 10.1038/sj.jea.7500388.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Nitta H, Sato T, Nakai S, Maeda K, Aoki S, Ono M: Respiratory health associated with exposure to automobile exhaust. I. Results of cross-sectional studies in 1979, 1982, and 1983. Arch Environ Health. 1993, 48: 53-58. 10.1080/00039896.1993.9938393.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Ono M: Pollution around a road (in Japanese): from Introduction of Environmental Health edited by Koizumi, A. and Murakami, M. 1990, Nihonhyouronnsha: TokyoGoogle Scholar
  32. Kashima S, Yorifuji T, Tsuda T, Doi H: Application of land use regression to regulatory air quality data in Japan. Sci Total Environ. 2009, 407: 3055-3062. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.12.038.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Ryan PH, LeMasters GK: A review of land-use regression models for characterizing intraurban air pollution exposure. Inhal Toxicol. 2007, 19 (Suppl 1): 127-133.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Knol MJ, VanderWeele TJ: Recommendations for presenting analyses of effect modification and interaction. Int J Epidemiol. 2012, 41: 514-520. 10.1093/ije/dyr218.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S: Confidence interval estimation of interaction. Epidemiology. 1992, 3: 452-456. 10.1097/00001648-199209000-00012.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Sugiri D, Ranft U, Schikowski T, Kramer U: The influence of large-scale airborne particle decline and traffic-related exposure on children’s lung function. Environ Health Perspect. 2006, 114: 282-288. 10.1289/ehp.8180.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Morgen CS, Bjork C, Andersen PK, Mortensen LH, Nybo Andersen AM: Socioeconomic position and the risk of preterm birth–a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort. Int J Epidemiol. 2008, 37: 1109-1120. 10.1093/ije/dyn112.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Kagamimori S, Gaina A, Nasermoaddeli A: Socioeconomic status and health in the Japanese population. Soc Sci Med. 2009, 68: 2152-2160. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.030.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Baja ES, Schwartz JD, Wellenius GA, Coull BA, Zanobetti A, Vokonas PS, Suh HH: Traffic-related air pollution and QT interval: modification by diabetes, obesity, and oxidative stress gene polymorphisms in the normative aging study. Environ Health Perspect. 2010, 118: 840-846. 10.1289/ehp.0901396.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Kannan S, Misra DP, Dvonch JT, Krishnakumar A: Exposures to airborne particulate matter and adverse perinatal outcomes: a biologically plausible mechanistic framework for exploring potential effect modification by nutrition. Environ Health Perspect. 2006, 114: 1636-1642.Google Scholar
  41. Cunningham FG: Williams JW (Eds): Williams obstetrics, 23rd edition. 2010, New York: McGraw-Hill MedicalGoogle Scholar
  42. Brauer M, Lencar C, Tamburic L, Koehoorn M, Demers P, Karr C: A cohort study of traffic-related air pollution impacts on birth outcomes. Environ Health Perspect. 2008, 116: 680-686. 10.1289/ehp.10952.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Leem JH, Kaplan BM, Shim YK, Pohl HR, Gotway CA, Bullard SM, Rogers JF, Smith MM, Tylenda CA: Exposures to air pollutants during pregnancy and preterm delivery. Environ Health Perspect. 2006, 114: 905-910. 10.1289/ehp.8733.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Road Traffic Census.http://www.cbr.mlit.go.jp/road/census/,
  45. Szklo M, Nieto FJ: pidemiology : beyond the basics. 2007, Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2Google Scholar
  46. Oakes JM, Kaufman JS: Methods in social epidemiology. 2006, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1Google Scholar

Copyright

© Yorifuji et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.