As the United Nations Conference on Climate Change kicks off in Paris, new research into the effects of coal burning pollution on heart health is timely.

[Coal burning power station]Share on Pinterest
A study finds that particles from burning coal are far worse for the health than other pollution sources.

The negative health consequences of pollution are well documented, but as additional evidence is collected, the overall picture becomes increasingly grim.

The present study shows, for the first time, the full impact of coal-based pollution on global heart health; the results are worrying.

Researchers at the NYU Langone Medical Center used data from 100 US cities to estimate the health impact of various types of airborne particulate matter.

The current study investigates not only the size of the particulate matter, but also the differing effects of particles from various sources.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), ambient air pollution was the cause of 3.7 million premature deaths in 2012.

Previous research has shown that smaller particulate matter, under 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5), is significantly worse for health than larger particles of 10 µm in diameter or more.

This difference is due to a smaller particle’s ability to enter deeper into the lungs and successfully maneuver within the blood system. Containing substances such as arsenic, mercury and selenium, once inside the human body, they are free to wreak havoc.

Numerous studies have linked airborne particulate matter to a variety of health consequences, including:

  • Premature death in people with existing lung and cardiac disease
  • Nonfatal heart attacks
  • Aggravated asthma
  • Irregular heartbeat
  • Decreased lung function
  • General respiratory problems.

A review in Circulation found that exposure to PM2.5 particles over just a few hours or weeks can trigger cardiovascular disease-related mortality and other negative health events. Longer exposure times – a year or more – increases the likelihood of cardiovascular mortality even further.

The current study is the first of its kind to split pollution by type, as well as size. Rather than simply looking at the diameter of particles, the researchers investigated the source of the pollution, for instance, coal burning, traffic fumes or wood burning.

Investigation lead Dr. George Thurston says:

“Past studies of this kind have essentially assumed that all PM2.5 particles have the same toxicity, irrespective of their source.”

Thurston, professor of Population Health and Environmental Medicine at NYU Langone, delved into the records of 45,000 American patients between 1982 and 2004. He and his team estimated the size, type and amount of pollution each individual would have encountered.

The team used trace element “fingerprints” to estimate the contributions from each of the types of PM2.5. For instance:

  • Coal-burning: contains traces of selenium and arsenic
  • Traffic emissions: contain elemental carbon
  • Oil combustion: contains vanadium and nickel
  • Soil particles: contain calcium and silicon
  • Wood-burning particles: contain potassium.

The results are, to a certain extent, what one might expect – inhaling coal pollution is bad for the health. But the strength of the result certainly is rather surprising.

The research found that, pound-for-pound, particles from coal-burning were five times worse than other particle types of the same size.

Also, particles from burning fossil fuels were associated with an increased risk of death from ischemic heart disease.

Interestingly, the team found that PM2.5 from wind-blown soil and the burning of biomass, like wood, were “non-significant contributors” to mortality risk.

The study’s authors recommend that, on the basis of these findings, the main thrust of air pollution control should focus specifically on coal burning.

On a similar note, Medical News Today recently covered research concluding that pollution increases health risks for diabetic women.