Skip to main content
. 2020 Jan 3;3(1):e1918504. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18504

Table 2. Association Between Annual Ambient Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Bone Mineral Content Corrected by Bone Area at the Hip and Lumbar Spine Sitesa.

Site, Model Bone Mineral Content, Mean Difference (95% CI), g
Per 3 μg/m3 Increase in PM2.5 Per 1 μg/m3 Increase in BC
Hip
Model 1b −0.14 (−0.39 to 0.10) −0.80 (−1.59 to −0.02)
Model 2c −0.15 (−0.32 to 0.02) −0.39 (−1.01 to 0.23)
Model 3d −0.13 (−0.29 to 0.03) −0.36 (−0.96 to 0.25)
Model 4e −0.13 (−0.30 to 0.03) −0.35 (−0.96 to 0.25)
Lumbar spine
Model 1b −0.62 (−1.13 to −0.10) −1.22 (−2.95 to 0.51)
Model 2c −0.62 (−1.12 to −0.11) −1.18 (−2.89 to 0.53)
Model 3d −0.59 (−1.09 to −0.09) −1.17 (−2.86 to 0.53)
Model 4e −0.57 (−1.06 to −0.07) −1.13 (−2.81 to 0.54)

Abbreviations: BC, black carbon; PM2.5, ambient particulate matter air pollution less than 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter.

a

Associations were estimated using mixed effects linear models with nested random intercepts (household within village) using inverse-probability weighting.

b

Model 1 was adjusted for bone area (natural cubic spline with 3 df), a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry machine indicator, sex, age (second-degree polynomial), and a sex-by-age interaction.

c

Model 2 included model 1 and was further adjusted for percentage lean and percentage fat body mass.

d

Model 3 added to model 2 log-transformed intake of fruit, vegetables, and calcium; weight-bearing physical activity; smoking status; and household cooking fuel.

e

Model 4 (main model) was also adjusted for socioeconomic confounders, including occupation, education, and standard of living index.