Investigating the impact of London's ultra low emission zone on children's health: children's health in London and Luton (CHILL) protocol for a prospective parallel cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution harms health across the life course. Children are at particular risk of adverse effects during development, which may impact on health in later life. Interventions that improve air quality are urgently needed both to improve public health now, and prevent longer-term increased vulnerability to chronic disease. Low Emission Zones are a public health policy intervention aimed at reducing traffic-derived contributions to urban air pollution, but evidence that they deliver health benefits is lacking. We describe a natural experiment study (CHILL: Children's Health in London and Luton) to evaluate the impacts of the introduction of London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) on children's health. METHODS: CHILL is a prospective two-arm parallel longitudinal cohort study recruiting children at age 6-9 years from primary schools in Central London (the focus of the first phase of the ULEZ) and Luton (a comparator site), with the primary outcome being the impact of changes in annual air pollutant exposures (nitrogen oxides [NOx], nitrogen dioxide [NO2], particulate matter with a diameter of less than 2.5micrograms [PM2.5], and less than 10 micrograms [PM10]) across the two sites on lung function growth, measured as post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) over five years. Secondary outcomes include physical activity, cognitive development, mental health, quality of life, health inequalities, and a range of respiratory and health economic data. DISCUSSION: CHILL's prospective parallel cohort design will enable robust conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of the ULEZ at improving air quality and delivering improvements in children's respiratory health. With increasing proportions of the world's population now living in large urban areas exceeding World Health Organisation air pollution limit guidelines, our study findings will have important implications for the design and implementation of Low Emission and Clean Air Zones in the UK, and worldwide. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT04695093 (05/01/2021).

The Lancet Countdown on health benefits from the UK Climate Change Act: a modelling study for Great Britain.

BACKGROUND: Climate change poses a dangerous and immediate threat to the health of populations in the UK and worldwide. We aimed to model different scenarios to assess the health co-benefits that result from mitigation actions. METHODS: In this modelling study, we combined a detailed techno-economic energy systems model (UK TIMES), air pollutant emission inventories, a sophisticated air pollution model (Community Multi-scale Air Quality), and previously published associations between concentrations and health outcomes. We used four scenarios and focused on the air pollution implications from fine particulate matter (PM2·5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and ozone. The four scenarios were baseline, which assumed no further climate actions beyond those already achieved and did not meet the UK's Climate Change Act (at least an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 2050 compared with 1990) target; nuclear power, which met the Climate Change Act target with a limited increase in nuclear power; low-greenhouse gas, which met the Climate Change Act target without any policy constraint on nuclear build; and a constant scenario that held 2011 air pollutant concentrations constant until 2050. We predicted the health and economic impacts from air pollution for the scenarios until 2050, and the inequalities in exposure across different socioeconomic groups. FINDINGS: NO2 concentrations declined leading to 4 892 000 life-years saved for the nuclear power scenario and 7 178 000 life-years saved for the low-greenhouse gas scenario from 2011 to 2154. However, the associations that we used might overestimate the effects of NO2 itself. PM2·5 concentrations in Great Britain are predicted to decrease between 42% and 44% by 2050 compared with 2011 in the scenarios that met the Climate Change Act targets, especially those from road traffic and off-road machinery. These reductions in PM2·5 are tempered by a 2035 peak (and subsequent decline) in biomass (wood burning), and by a large, projected increase in future demand for transport leading to potential increases in non-exhaust particulate matter emissions. The potential use of biomass in poorly controlled technologies to meet the Climate Change Act commitments would represent an important missed opportunity (resulting in 472 000 more life-years lost from PM2·5 in the low-greenhouse gas scenario and 1 122 000 more life-years lost in the nuclear power scenario from PM2·5 than the baseline scenario). Although substantial overall improvements in absolute amounts of exposure are seen compared with 2011, these outcomes mask the fact that health inequalities seen (in which socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are among the most exposed) are projected to be maintained up to 2050. INTERPRETATION: The modelling infrastructure created will help future researchers explore a wider range of climate policy scenarios, including local, European, and global scenarios. The need to strengthen the links between climate change policy objectives and public health imperatives, and the benefits to societal wellbeing that might result is urgent. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in exposure to air and noise pollution in London.

BACKGROUND: Transport-related air and noise pollution, exposures linked to adverse health outcomes, varies within cities potentially resulting in exposure inequalities. Relatively little is known regarding inequalities in personal exposure to air pollution or transport-related noise. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to quantify socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in London in 1) air pollution exposure at residence compared to personal exposure; and 2) transport-related noise at residence from different sources. METHODS: We used individual-level data from the London Travel Demand Survey (n = 45,079) between 2006 and 2010. We modeled residential (CMAQ-urban) and personal (London Hybrid Exposure Model) particulate matter <2.5 µm and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), road-traffic noise at residence (TRANEX) and identified those within 50 dB noise contours of railways and Heathrow airport. We analyzed relationships between household income, area-level income deprivation and ethnicity with air and noise pollution using quantile and logistic regression. RESULTS: We observed inverse patterns in inequalities in air pollution when estimated at residence versus personal exposure with respect to household income (categorical, 8 groups). Compared to the lowest income group (<£10,000), the highest group (>£75,000) had lower residential NO2 (-1.3 (95% CI -2.1, -0.6) µg/m3 in the 95th exposure quantile) but higher personal NO2 exposure (1.9 (95% CI 1.6, 2.3) µg/m3 in the 95th quantile), which was driven largely by transport mode and duration. Inequalities in residential exposure to NO2 with respect to area-level deprivation were larger at lower exposure quantiles (e.g. estimate for NO2 5.1 (95% CI 4.6, 5.5) at quantile 0.15 versus 1.9 (95% CI 1.1, 2.6) at quantile 0.95), reflecting low-deprivation, high residential NO2 areas in the city centre. Air pollution exposure at residence consistently overestimated personal exposure; this overestimation varied with age, household income, and area-level income deprivation. Inequalities in road traffic noise were generally small. In logistic regression models, the odds of living within a 50 dB contour of aircraft noise were highest in individuals with the highest household income, white ethnicity, and with the lowest area-level income deprivation. Odds of living within a 50 dB contour of rail noise were 19% (95% CI 3, 37) higher for black compared to white individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic inequalities in air pollution exposure were different for modeled residential versus personal exposure, which has important implications for environmental justice and confounding in epidemiology studies. Exposure misclassification was dependent on several factors related to health, a potential source of bias in epidemiological studies. Quantile regression revealed that socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in air pollution are often not uniform across the exposure distribution.

The London low emission zone baseline study.

On February 4, 2008, the world's largest low emission zone (LEZ) was established. At 2644 km2, the zone encompasses most of Greater London. It restricts the entry of the oldest and most polluting diesel vehicles, including heavy-goods vehicles (haulage trucks), buses and coaches, larger vans, and minibuses. It does not apply to cars or motorcycles. The LEZ scheme will introduce increasingly stringent Euro emissions standards over time. The creation of this zone presented a unique opportunity to estimate the effects of a stepwise reduction in vehicle emissions on air quality and health. Before undertaking such an investigation, robust baseline data were gathered on air quality and the oxidative activity and metal content of particulate matter (PM) from air pollution monitors located in Greater London. In addition, methods were developed for using databases of electronic primary-care records in order to evaluate the zone's health effects. Our study began in 2007, using information about the planned restrictions in an agreed-upon LEZ scenario and year-on-year changes in the vehicle fleet in models to predict air pollution concentrations in London for the years 2005, 2008, and 2010. Based on this detailed emissions and air pollution modeling, the areas in London were then identified that were expected to show the greatest changes in air pollution concentrations and population exposures after the implementation of the LEZ. Using these predictions, the best placement of a pollution monitoring network was determined and the feasibility of evaluating the health effects using electronic primary-care records was assessed. To measure baseline pollutant concentrations before the implementation of the LEZ, a comprehensive monitoring network was established close to major roadways and intersections. Output-difference plots from statistical modeling for 2010 indicated seven key areas likely to experience the greatest change in concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (at least 3 microg/m3) and of PM with an aerodynamic diameter < or = 10 microm (PM10) (at least 0.75 microg/m3) as a result of the LEZ; these suggested that the clearest signals of change were most likely to be measured near roadsides. The seven key areas were also likely to be of importance in carrying out a study to assess the health outcomes of an air quality intervention like the LEZ. Of the seven key areas, two already had monitoring sites with a full complement of equipment, four had monitoring sites that required upgrades of existing equipment, and one required a completely new installation. With the upgrades and new installations in place, fully ratified (verified) pollutant data (for PM10, PM with an aerodynamic diameter < or = 2.5 microm [PM2.5], nitrogen oxides [NOx], and ozone [O3] at all sites as well as for particle number, black smoke [BS], carbon monoxide [CO], and sulfur dioxide [SO2] at selected sites) were then collected for analysis. In addition, the seven key monitoring sites were supported by other sites in the London Air Quality Network (LAQN). From these, a robust set of baseline air quality data was produced. Data from automatic and manual traffic counters as well as automatic license-plate recognition cameras were used to compile detailed vehicle profiles. This enabled us to establish more precise associations between ambient pollutant concentrations and vehicle emissions. An additional goal of the study was to collect baseline PM data in order to test the hypothesis that changes in traffic densities and vehicle mixes caused by the LEZ would affect the oxidative potential and metal content of ambient PM10 and PM2.5. The resulting baseline PM data set was the first to describe, in detail, the oxidative potential and metal content of the PM10 and PM2.5 of a major city's airshed. PM in London has considerable oxidative potential; clear differences in this measure were found from site to site, with evidence that the oxidative potential of both PM10 and PM2.5 at roadside monitoring sites was higher than at urban background locations. In the PM10 samples this increased oxidative activity appeared to be associated with increased concentrations of copper (Cu), barium (Ba), and bathophenanthroline disulfonate-mobilized iron (BPS Fe) in the roadside samples. In the PM2.5 samples, no simple association could be seen, suggesting that other unmeasured components were driving the increased oxidative potential in this fraction of the roadside samples. These data suggest that two components were contributing to the oxidative potential of roadside PM, namely Cu and BPS Fe in the coarse fraction of PM (PM with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microm to 10 microm; PM(2.5-10)) and an unidentified redox catalyst in PM2.5. The data derived for this baseline study confirmed key observations from a more limited spatial mapping exercise published in our earlier HEI report on the introduction of the London's Congestion Charging Scheme (CCS) in 2003 (Kelly et al. 2011a,b). In addition, the data set in the current report provided robust baseline information on the oxidative potential and metal content of PM found in the London airshed in the period before implementation of the LEZ; the finding that a proportion of the oxidative potential appears in the PM coarse mode and is apparently related to brake wear raises important issues regarding the nature of traffic management schemes. The final goal of this baseline study was to establish the feasibility, in ethical and operational terms, of using the U.K.'s electronic primary-care records to evaluate the effects of the LEZ on human health outcomes. Data on consultations and prescriptions were compiled from a pilot group of general practices (13 distributed across London, with 100,000 patients; 29 situated in the inner London Borough of Lambeth, with 200,000 patients). Ethics approvals were obtained to link individual primary-care records to modeled NOx concentrations by means of post-codes. (To preserve anonymity, the postcodes were removed before delivery to the research team.) A wide range of NOx exposures was found across London as well as within and between the practices examined. Although we observed little association between NOx exposure and smoking status, a positive relationship was found between exposure and increased socioeconomic deprivation. The health outcomes we chose to study were asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, wheeze, hay fever, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. These outcomes were measured as prevalence or incidence. Their distributions by age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity, and smoking were found to accord with those reported in the epidemiology literature. No cross-sectional positive associations were found between exposure to NOx and any of the studied health outcomes; some associations were significantly negative. After the pilot study, a suitable primary-care database of London patients was identified, the General Practice Research Database responsible for giving us access to these data agreed to collaborate in the evaluation of the LEZ, and an acceptable method of ensuring privacy of the records was agreed upon. The database included about 350,000 patients who had remained at the same address over the four-year period of the study. Power calculations for a controlled longitudinal analysis were then performed, indicating that for outcomes such as consultations for respiratory illnesses or prescriptions for asthma there was sufficient power to identify a 5% to 10% reduction in consultations for patients most exposed to the intervention compared with patients presumed to not be exposed to it. In conclusion, the work undertaken in this study provides a good foundation for future LEZ evaluations. Our extensive monitoring network, measuring a comprehensive set of pollutants (and a range of particle metrics), will continue to provide a valuable tool both for assessing the impact of LEZ regulations on air quality in London and for furthering understanding of the link between PM's composition and toxicity. Finally, we believe that in combination with our modeling of the predicted population-based changes in pollution exposure in London, the use of primary-care databases forms a sound basis and has sufficient statistical power for the evaluation of the potential impact of the LEZ on human health.