Estimating Aspergillus fumigatus exposure from outdoor composting activities in England between 2005 and 14

Bioaerosols, ubiquitous in ambient air, are released in elevated concentrations from composting facilities with open-air processing areas. However, spatial and temporal variability of bioaerosols, particularly in relation to meteorology, is not well understood. Here we model relative concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus at each postcode-weighted centroid within 4 km of 217 composting facilities in England between 2005 and 2014. Facilities were geocoded with the aid of satellite imagery. Data from existing bioaerosol modelling literature were used to build emission profiles in ADMS. Variation in input parameters between each modelled facility was reduced to a minimum. Meteorological data for each composting facility was derived from the nearest SCAIL-Agriculture validated meteorological station. According to our results, modelled exposure risk was driven primarily by wind speed, direction and time-varying emissions factors incorporating seasonal fluctuations in compostable waste. Modelled A.fumigatus concentrations decreased rapidly from the facility boundary and plateaued beyond 1.5–2.0 km. Where multiple composting facilities were within 4 km of each other, complex exposure risk patterns were evident. More long-term bioaerosol monitoring near facilities is needed to help improve exposure estimation and therefore assessment of any health risks to local populations

Risk of respiratory hospital admission associated with modelled concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus from composting facilities in England

Bioaerosols have been associated with adverse respiratory-related health effects and are emitted in elevated concentrations from composting facilities. We used modelled Aspergillus fumigatus concentrations, a good indicator for bioaerosol emissions, to assess associations with respiratory-related hospital admissions. Mean daily Aspergillus fumigatus concentrations were estimated for each composting site for first full year of permit issue from 2005 onwards to 2014 for Census Output Areas (COAs) within 4 km of 76 composting facilities in England, as previously described (Williams et al., 2019). We fitted a hierarchical generalized mixed model to examine the risk of hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of (i) any respiratory condition, (ii) respiratory infections, (iii) asthma, (iv) COPD, (v) diseases due to organic dust, and (vi) Cystic Fibrosis, in relation to quartiles of Aspergillus fumigatus concentrations. Models included a random intercept for each COA to account for over-dispersion, nested within composting facility, on which a random intercept was fitted to account for clustering of the data, with adjustments for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, tobacco sales (smoking proxy) and traffic load (as a proxy for traffic-related air pollution). We included 249,748 respiratory-related and 3163 Cystic Fibrosis hospital admissions in 9606 COAs with a population-weighted centroid within 4 km of the 76 included composting facilities. After adjustment for confounders, no statistically significant effect was observed for any respiratory-related (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.99; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.96–1.01) or for Cystic Fibrosis (RR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.56–1.83) hospital admissions for COAs in the highest quartile of exposure. Similar results were observed across all respiratory disease sub-groups. This study does not provide evidence for increased risks of respiratory-related hospitalisations for those living near composting facilities. However, given the limitations in the dispersion modelling, risks cannot be completely ruled out. Hospital admissions represent severe respiratory episodes, so further study would be needed to investigate whether bioaerosols emitted from composting facilities have impacts on less severe episodes or respiratory symptoms

High cancer mortality for US-born Latinos: evidence from California and Texas

Latinos born in the US, 36 million, comprise 65% of all US Latinos. Yet their cancer experience is nearly always analyzed together with their foreign-born counterparts, 19 million, who constitute a steady influx of truly lower-risk populations from abroad. To highlight specific cancer vulnerabilities for US-born Latinos, we compare their cancer mortality to the majority non-Latino white (NLW) population, foreign-born Latinos, and non-Latino blacks. Methods We analyzed 465,751 cancer deaths from 2008 to 2012 occurring among residents of California and Texas, the two most populous states, accounting for 47% of US Latinos. This cross-sectional analysis, based on granular data obtained from death certificates on cause of death, age, race, ethnicity and birthplace, makes use of normal standardization techniques and negative binomial regression models. Results While Latinos overall have lower all-cancers-combined mortality rates than NLWs, these numbers were largely driven by low rates among the foreign born while mortality rates for US-born Latinos approach those of NLWs. Among Texas males, rates were 210 per 100,000 for NLWs and 166 for Latinos combined, but 201 per 100,000 for US-born Latinos and 125 for foreign-born Latinos. Compared to NLWs, US-born Latino males in California had mortality rate ratios of 2.83 (95% CI: 2.52–3.18) for liver cancer, 1.44 (95% CI: 1.30–1.61) for kidney cancer, and 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17–1.34) for colorectal cancer (CRC). Texas results showed a similar site-specific pattern. Conclusions Specific cancer patterns for US-born Latinos, who have relatively high cancer mortality, similar overall to NLWs, are masked by aggregation of all Latinos, US-born and foreign-born. While NLWs had high mortality for lung cancer, US-born Latinos had high mortality for liver, kidney and male colorectal cancers. HCV testing and reinforcement of the need for CRC screening should be a priority in this specific and understudied population. The unprecedented proximity of overall rates between NLWs and US-born Latino populations runs counter to the prevailing narrative of Latinos having significantly lower cancer risk and mortality. Birthplace data are critical in detecting meaningful differences among Latinos; these findings merit not only clinical but also public health attentio