Anthropogenic or non-anthropogenic particulate matter: Which one is more dangerous and how to differentiate between the effects?

The authors have observed that the function linking health outcomes with exposure to particulate-matter (PM) follows a biphasic pattern. It peaks around levels of PM10≤100 μg/m3, then weakens and rises again at PM10 levels in the range of hundreds. This could be due to a different nature of PM, the first peak reflecting a stronger anthropogenic and the second - weaker non-anthropogenic particles' effect. The current analysis is focused at the biphasic pattern on the association between PM levels with BG and asthma exacerbations. Pollutants were assessed by local monitoring stations and a satellitebased model. Local weekends/holidays were used to define nonanthropogenic levels of pollutants featured by lower Nitrogen Dioxide, the proxy for anthropogeneity. The association of PM₁₀ with health outcomes within 24-48h lag was explored using spline functions of generalized additive models. Analysis of 546,420 BG tests (43,569 subjects) showed an almost linear association of PM₁₀ with asthma with BG during the days with anthropogenic activity and no trend on other days. Analysis of asthmatic exacerbations within 1576 children showed no heterogeneity in association with PM₁₀ by anthropogeneity levels, possibly indicating a mechanical impact on alveolar as the main trigger for exacerbations rather than PM₁₀ chemical composition.