Systematic review of impacts of occupational exposure to wildfire smoke on respiratory function, symptoms, measures and diseases.

BACKGROUND

Wildfire smoke contains numerous hazardous air pollutants which pose serious health risks to humans. Despite this, there has been a limited focus on the assessment of the acute physiological and longer-term respiratory effects of wildfire exposure on firefighters and other emergency workers. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review of the evidence about the respiratory impacts of occupational wildfire smoke exposure among wildfire fighters (WFF).

METHODS

Eligible studies from Medline, Embase and Scopus databases were included if they described the relationship between wildfire exposure and respiratory function, symptoms, measures and diseases amongst emergency personnel or firefighters who had responded to wildfires.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. 24 out of 26 (22 out of 23 moderate/high quality) studies provided evidence of adverse respiratory effects, including reduced lung function, increased airway dysfunction and airway inflammation, upper and lower respiratory tract symptoms and increased asthma incidence related to wildfires or prescribed burns exposure among WFF and police responders. Fourteen out of 19 studies showed statistically significant declines in spirometry measures of lung function (mostly short-term studies). Two studies using complex lung function tests showed a significant effect on peripheral airway function.

DISCUSSION

This review found a convincing body of evidence that occupational exposure to wildfires or prescribed burns has both acute and possibly longer-term respiratory effects among WFFs and some other emergency personnel. Given that these events are increasing, more needs to be done to identify those most at risk and mitigate these risks.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.