https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2669-4891
Figures
Abstract
Smoke haze due to vegetation and peatland fires in Southeast Asia is a serious public health concern. Several approaches have been applied in previous studies; however, the concepts and interpretations of these approaches are poorly understood. In this scoping review, we addressed issues related to the application of epidemiology (EPI), health burden estimation (HBE), and health risk assessment (HRA) approaches, and discussed the interpretation of findings, and current research gaps. Most studies reported an air quality index exceeding the ‘unhealthy’ level, especially during smoke haze periods. Although smoke haze is a regional issue in Southeast Asia, studies on its related health effects have only been reported from several countries in the region. Each approach revealed increased health effects in a distinct manner: EPI studies reported excess mortality and morbidity during smoke haze compared to non-smoke haze periods; HBE studies estimated approximately 100,000 deaths attributable to smoke haze in the entire Southeast Asia considering all-cause mortality and all age groups, which ranged from 1,064–260,000 for specified mortality cause, age group, study area, and study period; HRA studies quantified potential lifetime cancer and non-cancer risks due to exposure to smoke-related chemicals. Currently, there is a lack of interconnection between these three approaches. The EPI approach requires extensive effort to investigate lifetime health effects, whereas the HRA approach needs to clarify the assumptions in exposure assessments to estimate lifetime health risks. The HBE approach allows the presentation of health impact in different scenarios, however, the risk functions used are derived from EPI studies from other regions. Two recent studies applied a combination of the EPI and HBE approaches to address uncertainty issues due to the selection of risk functions. In conclusion, all approaches revealed potential health risks due to smoke haze. Nonetheless, future studies should consider comparable exposure assessments to allow the integration of the three approaches.
Citation: Phung VLH, Uttajug A, Ueda K, Yulianti N, Latif MT, Naito D (2022) A scoping review on the health effects of smoke haze from vegetation and peatland fires in Southeast Asia: Issues with study approaches and interpretation. PLoS ONE 17(9): e0274433. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274433
Editor: Mohamad Syazwan Mohd Sanusi, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, MALAYSIA
Received: July 14, 2021; Accepted: August 28, 2022; Published: September 15, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Phung et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: A full list of articles included for analysis is included as supplementary material.
Funding: This study was supported by the JSPS Fostering Joint International Research B [18KK02947]; Environment Research and Technology Development Fund S-20 [JPMEERF21S12020]; and Climate Change Adaptation Research Program, National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES), Japan.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Vegetation and peatland fires are gaining global attention owing to their increasing frequency and intensity. These events have been linked to climate change [1–3], as well as climatic [4] and anthropogenic factors [5–7]. Vegetation fires [8, 9] include natural wildfires and prescribed fires for socioeconomic purposes [10]. Meanwhile, peatland fires includes vegetation and the underlying peat layer [11], which are of high concern in equatorial areas with large organic (histosol) and peat soil volumes [12–15]. Both natural climatic factors [16] and prescribed fires [17] are important for balancing ecosystem mechanisms and land management. However, excessive and uncontrollable fires due to climate change have tremendous negative impacts on ecosystems [18] and human health [19, 20].
Vegetation and peatland fires in Southeast Asia are predominantly attributed to prescribed burning activities for economic and land use change purposes [21–23]. Moreover, dry weather conditions induced by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation or a positive Indian Ocean Dipole event [23, 24] intensify fires in the region. Generally, fire occurrences in Southeast Asia are classified into two main areas [7, 23]: mainland areas (Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, and Cambodia) and maritime areas (Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines). The types and sources of fires are heterogeneous among countries in these areas. Indonesia and Malaysia have marked annual vegetation and peatland fire incidence [25, 26]. Countries located downwind of fire sources are affected by transboundary haze issues during the southwest monsoon season [27–29], in addition to fire and air pollutants from local sources [23, 29, 30]. The mainland is mostly affected by agricultural burning in the northern part of the area [23, 31, 32]. The complexity of haze occurrence across regions increases the challenges in assessing associated health risks.
Smoke released during vegetation and peatland fires contains a complex mixture of chemicals that are harmful to human health [33, 34]. These include particulate matter (PM) (e.g., PM10 and PM2.5) and its chemical constituents (e.g., elemental carbon, ionic species, elemental species, organic carbon), inorganic gases (e.g., carbon monoxide, ozone), hydrocarbons (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)), oxygenated organics (e.g., catechols, quinones), chlorinated organics (e.g., dioxin), and free radicals. Accumulating epidemiological evidence indicates the global health effects of fire smoke [35–37]. Several reviews on this topic have been published, including two that focused on Southeast Asian studies [38, 39]. These studies employed various approaches with different measures of health effects, namely (i) epidemiology (EPI), (ii) health burden estimation (HBE), and (iii) health risk assessment (HRA). The EPI approach is used to infer a causal association and allows quantification of the exposure-response relationship. The HBE approach is used to quantify the attributable health burden (using the exposure-response function derived from EPI studies) over an exposure at an average concentration of pollutant [19] or preventable mortality considering different scenarios [40, 41]. The HRA approach is the process to estimate the nature and probability of adverse health effects in humans who may be exposed to chemicals in contaminated environmental media, now or in the future [42].
Previous reviews have shown comprehensive literature on smoke haze-related health effects, but have not clearly addressed the differences among the three different approaches [38, 39]. Understanding the basic concepts and interpretation of findings of each approach is important since the results can be used to communicate health risks to the public and subsequently facilitate policy decisions. In this study, we performed a scoping review to summarize the trends of EPI, HBE, and HRA studies in Southeast Asia over the past few decades to clarify health effects, quantify exposure, interpret findings, as well as assess the underlying assumptions, strengths and limitations, and future challenges.
2. Methods
We conducted a literature search using online search engines, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, for scientific articles on vegetation fires and human health, published between 1990 and 2022. The general search terms related to vegetation and peatland fires or smoke haze events, human health, and Southeast Asia are shown in Table 1. Detailed search terms for each search engine are listed in S1 Table. Only full-text original or research articles on smoke haze and human health that were reported in studies conducted in Southeast Asia were included. Descriptive studies were also included if the haze episodes were explicitly mentioned. Gray literature was not considered in this study. Articles that focused on indoor exposure, occupational health, non-health-related issues, review articles, protocol papers, experimental study articles, letters, editorials, and commentaries were excluded. The results of this study were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines [43] (S1 Checklist).
Three authors (VP, AU, and KU) performed initial screening of the articles based on the title and abstract. With three equally distributed sets of articles, two of the three authors screened the same set of articles simultaneously. Any disagreement between the two was resolved through a discussion with the third author. References from full-text articles were manually searched. After identifying eligible articles, full-text articles were reviewed, and the data were extracted according to three approaches (EPI, HBE, and HRA).
The extracted data included the following: study approach, name of the first author, publication year, study area (country and area), study period, health endpoint analyzed, exposure assessment (pollutant of interest, levels of pollutants, exposure indicator of haze), measures of health outcomes, and results.
3. Results
3.1 Study selection
Fig 1 illustrates the selection process for this review. A total of 685 articles were identified. After de-duplicating the articles, title and abstract were screened; this yielded 104 articles. Of these, 58 met the eligibility criteria. Twelve studies were included in this manual search. Finally, 70 studies were included in this review.
3.2 Characteristics of the three approaches
Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of each approach. Among the 70 studies, 42, 11, and 15 were EPI, HBE and HRA studies, respectively; two were both EPI and HBE. Forty-nine studies were conducted in the maritime area (Indonesia [41, 44–57], Malaysia [29, 58–68], Singapore [69–82], Brunei [83, 84], multiple countries in maritime area [40, 85–89]), 17 in the mainland area (Thailand [32, 90–104], multiple countries in mainland area [105]); and 4 in multiple countries in the entire Southeast Asia [19, 106–108] (Fig 2). The breakdown of studies by country is as follows: 41 EPI [32, 44–46, 49–58, 61–67, 69, 70, 75–84, 90, 97–103], three HBE [41, 47, 104], and 15 HRA [29, 48, 59, 60, 68, 71–74, 91–96] studies were conducted in a single country (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, and Thailand); whereas one EPI study [85], eight HBE [19, 40, 86–89, 105, 106] and two EPI- and HBE-combined studies were conducted in multiple countries [107, 108]. Except for four EPI studies [45, 53, 55, 102], majority of the studies examined the health effects of short-term haze exposure, focusing on the daily variation of air pollutants. Three HBE studies estimated the mortality attributed to smoke haze using short-term (daily) and long-term (annual) air pollution levels [19, 86, 106]. Eight HBE studies [40, 41, 47, 87–89, 104, 105] and 15 HRA studies [29, 48, 59, 60, 68, 71–74, 91–96] examined the health effects of long-term exposure. Ten EPI studies [32, 52, 56, 58, 63, 66, 67, 82, 101, 102], 11 HBE studies [19, 40, 41, 47, 86–89, 104–106], and two EPI- and HBE-combined studies [107, 108] assessed mortality as a health endpoint; 35 EPI studies assessed morbidity [32, 44–46, 49–51, 53–57, 61, 62, 64–66, 69, 70, 75–81, 83–85, 90, 97–100, 102]; whereas all HRA studies [29, 48, 59, 60, 68, 71–74, 91–96] assessed potential cancer and non-cancer risks, which could not be clearly distinguished as mortality or morbidity.
Data were obtained from the GADM maps and data [110]. Peatland information was reprinted from previous studies [111] under a CC by license, and with permission from Dr. Nina Yulianti, original copyright (2013, 2016) [112, 113].
EPI studies used various exposure indicators, including PM2.5, PM10, air quality indices (AQI, PSI, API), PM constituents, and the total ozone mapping spectrometer (TOMS) aerosol index (Fig 3). Among the 12 studies that did not use specific exposure indicators, seven described haze-related diseases [44, 49, 50, 56, 57, 76, 85], lung function [100], and symptoms with perceived PSI level [75], and three made a temporal comparison of health outcomes between haze and non-haze periods [61, 83, 98]. All HBE studies [19, 40, 41, 47, 86–89, 104] and all EPI- and HBE-combined studies [107, 108] used PM2.5 as the exposure indicator; whereas, two HBE studies [105, 106] used both PM2.5 and ozone as indicators. HRA studies used specific PM constituents such as PAHs [60, 68, 73, 91, 92, 94–96], trace metal elements [29, 48, 59, 71, 72, 74], and black carbon [93] as exposure indicators.
AQI: air quality index (generally referred to as “AQI,” although different terms can be used (e.g., PSI (Pollutant Standard Index), API (Air Pollutant Index)); EPI + HBE: studies that applied a combination of EPI and HBE approaches; Combined exposure indicators were defined as a combination of pollutants and pollutant indicators; Others: pollutants other than those specified; NA: no specific variables are used.
3.2.1 Epidemiology approach (EPI).
Among the 42 epidemiological studies, 33 were conducted in the maritime area and nine were conducted in Thailand in the mainland area (Table 2, S2 Table). Studies from Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam mainly focused on specific smoke haze episodes, whereas studies from Thailand were more focused on the health effects of seasonal haze due to burning for agricultural purposes in the northern mountainous areas [32, 90, 97–101, 103].
The 42 studies were classified into eight descriptive and 34 analytical studies examining the association between exposure and diseases (S2 Table). Descriptive studies reported the number of hospital visits owing to respiratory diseases [44, 85] and the prevalence of respiratory symptoms [49, 50, 56, 57, 76, 83] during fire episodes. Headache and eye irritation are the main non-respiratory symptoms frequently reported in Indonesia [49, 50, 56] and Brunei [83]. Only five studies examined the long-term effects of smoke haze: three used an Indonesian Family Life survey, reporting the association of air pollution exposure from 1997 haze with lung capacity [53], cardiovascular disease prevalence [46], and cognitive function [45]; one examined lung function [100]; and the other used height as a nutritional outcome [55].
Health outcomes included all-cause mortality [52, 58, 63, 67, 82, 101, 103], respiratory diseases [63, 103], and cardiovascular diseases [103]. Jayachandran (2009) [52] examined the effects of smoke on infant mortality using an ecological design. Health outcomes other than mortality included clinic/hospital visits and hospitalization due to respiratory diseases [32, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62, 65, 66, 69, 76, 77, 84, 85, 98–100], cardiovascular diseases [61, 78, 80, 99], allergic diseases [32, 69, 76, 77], and lung cancer [64]. Several studies used information on symptoms obtained from interviews [50, 83], questionnaire surveys [45, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56, 75, 98], and reports from haze clinics [76]. Six studies examined lung function [53, 56, 70, 90, 98, 100], two examined cognitive function [45, 75], and two examined laboratory tests [53, 70].
The methods of exposure assessment varied according to the study. Binary variables indicating haze exposure are commonly used in analyses [51, 54, 58, 61, 63–67, 69, 70, 75, 98]. A haze episode was defined according to a certain cutoff value of PM10 [58, 63, 66, 69], visibility [58, 64, 65], or aerosol index derived from satellite data [51]. Two studies considered different aspects of exposure: duration and intensity [67], and days with burning activities [32]. Few studies used a binary variable specified by the time period [61, 83, 98]. Studies from Singapore used a categorical variable based on the PSI [38, 78–80]. Studies from Thailand have generally used PM10 as a continuous variable [32, 90, 97, 99, 101, 103]; whereas other studies used aerosol index values derived from satellite data [52, 53, 55].
3.2.2 Health burden estimation approach (HBE).
Eleven HBE studies estimated the health burden of vegetation and peatland fires in Southeast Asia. Among these, two studies included both global- and regional-scaled estimations, whereby Southeast Asia was one of the regions in the study [19, 105], six were regional-scaled (Southeast Asian region) [40, 86–89, 106], and three were conducted in a single country (Indonesia [41, 47] and Thailand [104]) (Fig 4). The burden estimation was based on historical estimation [19, 47, 86–89, 104–106] or future or scenario projections [40, 41] (S3 Table).
a denotes cardiovascular mortality. * denotes the health burden of ozone exposure. ** denotes an averaged estimate value. *** denotes health burden estimates from August to October of 2004, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2015. BAU: business-as-usual scenario. PP: protecting peatland scenario.
The health burden was reported as excess mortality for all-causes [19, 40, 41, 86–89, 105], chronic respiratory diseases [47, 86, 88, 104], lung cancer [47, 86, 88, 104], cardiovascular diseases [47, 86, 88, 104, 106], acute lower respiratory infection [40, 41, 89, 104, 105]. HBE studies included populations encompassing a wide age range; some included the whole population [19, 41, 47, 86, 88, 89, 104], while others targeted adults (age >25 years) [40, 47, 87, 105, 106] and under-fives [40, 47]. More than 300,000 deaths globally were estimated to be attributed to exposure to PM2.5 from vegetation fires during 1997–2006 [19], and approximately 100,000 deaths were reported in Southeast Asia during the fire seasons in 1997–2006 [19], 2004–2015 [89], and 2015 [87], with approximately 27,500 deaths in the mainland area [105]. Short-term exposure to fire-related ozone [106] and PM2.5 [86] was estimated to have resulted in 4,100 annual cardiovascular and 11,800 all-cause deaths, respectively, whereas long-term exposure to ozone has led to 2,250 excess deaths [105]. In the maritime area, long-term exposure to fire-related PM2.5 was expected to cause 100,300 [87], 75,600 [86], and 131,700 [89] all-cause deaths. Annual mortality in the maritime area also differed by year, depending on the occurrence and intensity of fires, and a study estimated 150,000 and 204,000 annual deaths in 2005 and 2015, respectively [88]. Meanwhile, the protection of fire-vulnerable areas can reduce preventable deaths. It was estimated that there would be fewer excess deaths (reducing 24,000 deaths) under the protecting peatland scenario (PP) compared to 36,000 excess deaths under the business-as-usual scenario (BAU) projected for 2020–2029 [40], and a 21% of excess deaths to be reduced under peatland restoration scenario [41].
The methods of exposure assessment in HBE studies included simulation of the pollutant of interest considering atmospheric conditions, such as fires or burning activities, and weather information. The emissions to be accounted for included all vegetation types [19, 40, 86–88, 104–106] or peatland [41, 47, 89]. Some studies specifically distinguished the haze period (e.g., July–August to September–October) and non-haze periods (e.g., November–December, January–July) to quantify the health burden distinct from different sources [86, 87, 89]; whereas, others simulated the annual average pollutant concentration that accounted for vegetation and peatland fires [19, 40, 41, 47,88, 104–106]. Sensitivity tests for exposure assessment included varying inputs of fire emissions [19] and meteorological conditions [87] for fire-related PM simulations.
All HBE studies applied concentration-response functions (CRFs) for PM2.5, except for two studies [105, 106] that applied CRFs for ozone based on previous epidemiological studies. These included four studies using long-term CRFs [40, 41, 47, 87–89, 104, 105], three studies using short- and long-term CRFs separately [86, 106], and one study that presented the combined excess mortality using both short- and long-term CRFs [19] (Fig 4). The counterfactual concentrations (i.e., concentrations beyond which there would be assumed the same risks as that of the minimum or maximum concentration) considered through CRFs were 5–200 μg/m3 for short-term [19] and <50 μg/m3 for long-term-PM2.5 exposures [19, 87], and a range of 6.96–8.38 μg/m3 depending on the specific disease [104]. For sensitivity tests, models were altered with different CRFs, such as by shifting between linear and log-linear functions [19, 47, 106].
3.2.3 Combined epidemiology and health burden estimation (EPI+HBE) approach.
Two studies used a combination of EPI and HBE approaches [107, 108] (S4 Table). Both studies estimated smoke-haze-attributable mortality globally; whereby, one study included Thailand and the Philippines [107], and another study included all countries in the Southeast Asia [108]. These studies first derived a CRF using an epidemiological approach, and subsequently used the CRF in the second part, the HBE approach, to estimate attributable mortality. Over short-term exposure to fire-related PM2.5, Chen et al. (2021) [107] estimated 33,510 all-cause, 6,993 cardiovascular, and 3,503 respiratory excess deaths globally. Another study [108] showed that long-term exposure to fire-related PM2.5 attributed to 12.9 million and 55,904 excess child mortality, globally and in Southeast Asia, respectively. Among Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia has comprised the highest number of excess child mortality [108].
3.2.4 Health risk assessment approach (HRA).
Among the 15 HRA studies identified (S5 Table), nine were conducted in the maritime area (Malaysia [29, 59, 60, 68], Indonesia [48], and Singapore [71–74]), and six were conducted in Thailand [91–96] (i.e., mainland). Higher concentrations of PM10 [73, 91, 96], PM2.5 [29, 74, 95, 96], PAHs [73, 96], carcinogenic metals [48], and elemental potassium and secondary inorganic aerosols (i.e., indicators of biomass burning sources) [29] during haze compared to non-haze periods were reported. Peatland fires were linked to an extremely high level of PM2.5 (7,818 μg/m3 on October 1, 2009) in the immediate vicinity of the fire source (10–20 m) [48] compared with distant areas (54–329 μg/m3) [71].
Haze episodes pose potential carcinogenic [48, 71, 72, 74, 96] and non-carcinogenic risks [29, 48] to exposed populations. These risks have been demonstrated across different age groups [29, 60]. Carcinogenic risks increased with increasing intensity of haze [94], and these risks were observed for naturally ventilated indoor exposure, outdoor exposure, combined indoor and outdoor exposures [74], and in areas closer to burning activities [96]. One study highlighted the interactions between chemicals and lung fluids in the human body [72].
Haze periods were determined for exposure assessment (Fig 5). Haze days were defined by PM2.5 concentration (PM2.5 >35 μg/m3) [29, 60], visibility (visibility <8, <6, and <3 km) [74], and air quality index (AQI >100) [73]. Some studies identified haze by areas [68, 95] or by burning activity seasons [59, 71, 72, 91–94, 96], during which samples were collected. Specifically, these studies identified haze events by examining burning sources [59, 95], weather conditions (i.e., dry or wet seasons) [91], and burning intensities (low: PM10 <50 μg/m3; medium: PM10 ranged 50–70 μg/m3; high: PM10 ranged 75–100μg/m3; and extreme: PM10 >100 μg/m3) [94]. One HRA study was conducted in the immediate vicinity of a fire source (peatland fire) [48].
Green indicates sampling period. Yellow indicates haze period specified within the sampling period.
Exposure-response assessments in HRA studies were classified into carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic. Cancer slope factor (SF) [48, 60, 72–74] or inhalation unit risk (IUR) [29, 59, 91, 92, 95, 96] was used for the carcinogenic assessment. Meanwhile, the reference dose (RfD) or reference concentration (RfC) was used [29, 48, 59, 72, 74] for the non-carcinogenic assessment. One study used the number of passively smoked cigarettes equivalent to a 1 μg/m3 increase in pollutants for both assessments [93].
Source apportionment was performed to identify the sources of chemicals or pollutants. There were five categories of chemical constituents: PAHs, trace metal elements, water-soluble ions, elemental (black) carbon, and biomass tracers (S5 Table). Biomass tracers, such as levoglucosan, mannosan, and galactosan, were used to determine whether vegetation or peatland fires contributed to the generation of chemicals rather than to characterize health risks. Source apportionment was based on fire hotspot data [59, 91, 93, 95], diagnostic ratio (DR) [60, 73, 91, 92, 94, 95], backward trajectory Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model [71, 73, 91, 95], principal component analysis (PCA) [73, 91, 92], positive matrix factorization (PMF) [29, 59, 60], enrichment factor (EF) [59, 71, 72], aethalometer [93], BaA/CHR ratio [91], and BeP/(BeP+BaP) ratio [68].
3.3 Exposure levels and AQI
Most studies have reported exposure levels by different temporal dimensions (daily, monthly, seasonally, and annually) depending on the exposure assessment; the results are listed in Table 2. In some studies, such information could not be extracted because it was not available for several reasons: not reported due to study design (e.g., comparison of temporal trends); not reported for a specific study area, and thus the exposure quantification was directly made by spatial grids; or no exact value was available, and thus the results were displayed as figures. We identified studies for which the study period included the years 1997 [50, 58, 61, 69, 70], 2005 and 2006 [63, 90, 97, 101], 2009 [48], 2013 [59, 62, 71, 101], and 2015 [29, 32, 54, 57, 66, 67, 73, 74, 77–80, 82, 86, 99, 101], which were the years with severe regional smoke haze in Southeast Asia, especially in 1997, 2013, and 2015 (Fig 6).
We classified the AQI based on the U.S. EPA Air Quality Index [109] or the local AQI (e.g., PSI, API) if it was reported in the study. Consequently, AQI is indicated by the highest value among criteria pollutants observed on a daily scale; the studies that reported longer-term concentrations (e.g., monthly, seasonally, and annually) were not used for indications of AQI. We found 35 of the total 70 studies could be reanalyzed for AQI, whereby nine studies were classified as ‘good’ to ‘moderate’ AQI levels [59, 63, 70, 97–99, 101, 103] and 26 studies were classified as ‘unhealthy’ level, which encompasses the levels from ‘unhealthy for sensitive groups’ and above [29, 32, 48, 50, 54, 57, 58, 61, 62, 66, 67, 69, 71–74, 77–80, 82, 86, 90, 93–95] (Fig 6). Studies that were classified as ‘good’ to ‘moderate’ AQI levels might have had higher AQI levels within the study period, but this could not be identified in this study, and thus the reported values were based on a daily mean or median throughout the study period; the maximum value was not available. Most of the studies classified as ‘unhealthy’ AQI had reported the observed maximum level of pollution, while there were several studies which reported daily mean concentrations [29, 32, 62, 73, 74, 93–95] (Table 2). These high concentrations were mostly due to the haze period, as specified in the study by sampling period, or stratification by haze and non-haze periods.
4. Discussion
In this scoping review, we systematically identified studies on the health effects of smoke haze according to study approaches, such as EPI, HBE, and HRA. Although smoke haze is a regional issue in Southeast Asia, studies have been reported in majority of the countries in the region. All approaches revealed potential health risks due to smoke haze. Earlier works have mainly used descriptive designs in the EPI approach, especially after the severe Southeast Asia smoke haze episode in 1997. EPI studies in later years focused on estimating relative risks; however, most of these studies have a major limitation on exposure assessment. HBE studies have been conducted in recent years to quantify the smoke haze attributable health burden; however, most of these studies utilized CRFs from studies conducted in other regions or non-smoke-haze-related CRFs (i.e., using CRFs from total PM2.5). This may have led to uncertainties in the estimation. Finally, the HRA approach has contributed different information about the health risks of smoke haze. Unlike EPI and HBE, HRA studies have reported potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks owing to the toxicity of chemical constituents during smoke haze.
We clarified the methods and interpretations of the findings in each approach for studies conducted in Southeast Asia and found that more studies are needed to clarify the following aspects. First, there is a need for further long-term exposure studies. Currently, there are limited EPI studies that examine long-term exposure, and such information is needed as CRF in HBE studies. Second, further studies evaluating smoke haze and carcinogenic health risks are required. Most HRA studies have reported potential carcinogenic risks due to smoke haze, but these have been less investigated in EPI and HBE studies. Third, explore smoke haze effects on cause-specific health outcomes. Most EPI studies have shown consistent respiratory health effects due to smoke haze, but other health outcomes such as cognitive function, diabetes, and birth-related outcomes are scarce, although these health outcomes have been associated with exposures to PM and its constituents [114–118].
4.1 Terminology for vegetation and peatland fires
Various terminologies have been used to describe vegetation and peatland fires. The terms included ‘wildfire’ or ‘bushfire’ [36, 37, 52, 88, 100, 107, 119–128]; ‘agricultural burning,’ ‘open burning,’ or ‘biomass burning’ [5, 23, 59, 91–95, 99, 104]; ‘vegetation fire,’ ‘peat fire,’ ‘peatland fire,’ or ‘vegetation and peat fire’ [21, 26, 27, 32, 46–48, 86, 89]; ‘forest fire’ [44, 45, 51, 57, 58, 63, 95, 129]; ‘forest and vegetation fire’ [105]; ‘landscape fire’ [19, 106, 108, 130]; ‘Indonesian fire’ [41]; ‘smog’ [97, 98]; ‘haze’ or ‘Southeast Asian haze’ [28–30, 39, 44, 50, 54, 55, 60, 63–69, 74–76, 78–81, 83, 101, 131]; ‘smoke’ or ‘smoke haze’ [20, 40, 68, 71–73, 87, 94–96, 127, 132]; and ‘transboundary haze’ [29, 38, 60, 62, 74, 133]. In the present review, the terms ‘haze’ or ‘smoke haze’ were used to represent extreme air pollution episodes due to burning activities on vegetation and peatlands [134, 135]. Notably, haze generally refers to high pollutant concentrations, especially PM, and low visibility, and is widely used to describe extreme air pollution episodes not limited to vegetation and peatland fires, but also for other sources from urban, industrial, and desert dust [136–139]. Nonetheless, it is common to refer to smoke haze as a vegetation and peatland fire-related air pollution episode in Southeast Asia [133, 140–142]. This may be due to smoke blanketing and reduced visibility conditions caused by smoldering fires in peatlands, which are usually intensified in dry weather [143]. It may also have been used to describe extreme air pollution that was contributed by different burning sources, whereby it was difficult to describe using specific terminology of fires (e.g., forest fire and agricultural burning) [95].
4.2 Health effects and interpretation of findings
The reported health effects and their interpretations varied according to approach. EPI studies have reported measures of association, such as relative risk (RR), odds ratio (OR), and excess risk (percentage change). These measures show the direction and strength of an association and are used to evaluate causal inference and comparability with cross-disciplinary studies [144]. HBE studies reported on the health burden attributable to the pollutant of interest, usually with attributable excess mortality. Other measures of health burden, such as years of life lost (YLL) and disability-adjusted life years (DALY), have also been reported [41, 89]. Although mortality reflects the overall impact of the pollutant of interest [121], YLL and DALY could be used for quantification from the perspectives of valuation and economic cost, which would be more informative for policy decision making [145]. HRA studies have reported toxicity or carcinogenicity risks related to PM composition. While toxicity risks were reported as a ratio (HQ) showing the possibility of any non-cancer health effect; carcinogenicity risks were reported as a probability of cancer (e.g., 1 in 1,000,000 persons) if the population was to be exposed to the investigated chemicals for a lifetime [59].
4.3 Exposure assessment
Haze exposure was quantified using several methods. Many EPI studies conducted in the maritime area used binary variables (i.e., haze and non-haze) [51, 55, 58, 62–67, 69], while most studies in northern Thailand used continuous variables [32, 90, 97, 99, 101, 103]. HBE studies quantified exposure to pollutants of interest [19, 47, 87, 89], such as fire-related PM [107, 108], and estimated population-weighted exposure [19, 41, 105]. Long-term exposure was estimated using the annual average pollutant concentration, and short-term exposure was estimated using the daily average pollutant concentration during specified periods that spanned several months to years. HRA studies quantified lifetime exposure to fire-related PM constituents through calculations that considered exposure duration and individual characteristics [29, 71]. For example, 60 haze days per year were used as an assumption when considering the worst-case scenario. Individual characteristics included the inhalation rate, body weight, age, and expected life years.
The main exposure variables differed for each approach. As shown in Fig 3, EPI studies in Southeast Asia comprised not only continuous pollutant variables but also binary and categorical indicators to quantify the health effects of smoke haze. This review found that the connection between EPI and HBE was mainly comprised of PM2.5 as an exposure indicator. Although HRA studies have focused on PM, the analyses were mainly based on PM constituents, which suggested both potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic toxicity related to smoke haze pollutants. However, no EPI studies have examined health effects related to the PM constituents.
4.4 Exposure-response association and assessment
Exposure-response association is a function which indicates health effects given a particular level of exposure. CRF is established through EPI studies and is applied in HBE studies to estimate the attributable health burden. One major difference between EPI and HBE/HRA studies is that the EPI approach aims to examine associations and causal inferences, whereas the HBE and HRA approaches assume that exposure is causally related to health outcomes.
In the present review, most CRFs applied in HBE studies were based on epidemiological studies in urban settings in other regions [19, 40, 47, 86]. This may have increased uncertainties owing to differences in pollutant emissions and chemical compositions of fires in different regions [1, 146]. Although an increasing number of studies have attempted to estimate the health burden of fire-related PM [147], only two studies have been conducted to estimate the attributable mortality for global and included Southeast Asia, comprising the entire population in Thailand and the Philippines [107]; and children in Southeast Asia [108]. In addition, while the HBE approach may be used to estimate health burden based on exposure duration, most epidemiological studies in Southeast Asia have focused on short-term exposure. Similar to the HBE approach, the HRA approach applies risk functions to assess health risks due to the pollutant of interest. Risk functions in HRA studies are often derived from animal studies, given the difficulty in conducting human studies which consider a lifetime period.
4.5 Research gaps and future studies
The present literature review revealed research gaps and challenges related to the interconnectivity of the three approaches. First, there was heterogeneity in the exposure assessment methods, which limited the connectivity and generalizability of the evidence. The HBE studies used population-scale exposure levels, and no individual exposure levels, which may differ according to the pattern of daily activities, were considered. Behavior and mitigation measures, such as school closure and reduction of outdoor movements, implemented during haze episodes may also lead to misclassification of actual exposure and increased uncertainty. In contrast, HRA studies accounted for individual characteristics, such as age, body weight, inhalation rate, and years of exposure. Although the EPI approach is relatively advantageous in terms of demonstrating associations based on observed datasets, long-term studies require extensive effort. In this sense, the HBE and HRA approaches may complement EPI studies, but these approaches require careful consideration of the underlying assumptions.
Second, there is little evidence regarding the health effects of various pollutants or chemical components released into smoke plumes. PM was among the most intensively studied pollutants in EPI and HBE studies; whereas HRA studies mainly examined the toxicity of PM constituents emitted during smoke haze [33, 127]. Emissions of fire-related pollutants may vary depending on vegetation type and burning conditions [2, 148]. Furthermore, it is difficult to distinguish and quantify fire-related pollutants from peatland fires because of the nature of the shift between flaming and smoldering condition [146]. HRA studies have shown potential carcinogenic risks of smoke haze, but only one EPI study [64] and two HBE studies [47, 104] have examined lung cancer risk. Black carbon was mentioned in one HBE study [87], and only one HRA study examined its health risk [93]. Gaseous pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO) have been shown to increase the prevalence of headaches in EPI studies [56], but health risks due to exposure to such pollutants are yet to be clarified, especially in the vicinity of burning sites where the concentration of CO is high [149–152].
Third, the local and transboundary sources of smoke haze from vegetation and peatland fires remain largely unaddressed. The wind direction and dry season caused an imbalance in the amount of pollutants in the fire pollutant source and receptor areas. Some areas may not have burning activity but are exposed to high concentrations of transboundary pollutants. Local sources of haze pollutants can be reduced or controlled via local mitigation policies, but transboundary sources of haze pollutants require efforts across borders. Additionally, pollutants in burning areas may differ from those found in distant locations. Burning conditions such as moisture content and weather may contribute to this [2, 153], for example, higher EC, K+, CL-, and PAHs at flammable and higher temperatures; levoglucosan and water-soluble organic carbon at low temperatures and in smoldering combustions [154]. Thus, evidence across multiple areas in the region is needed to facilitate policy decision making.
Future studies should consider the interconnectivity between different approaches. Pollutants and chemicals quantified in HRA sampling may be further utilized in EPI studies, although more effort may be required given the need for a larger dataset. Findings reported in EPI and HRA studies regarding chemical components may be considered in exposure assessments in HBE studies. Studies with a combination of approaches, such as the EPI- and HBE-combined approach [107, 108], would be useful because they maximize the strengths of one approach and complement the limitations of the other. For example, the combined approach demonstrates both EPI evidence and health burden, which would facilitate future policy decisions and risk communication. More EPI studies compiling different local characteristics with similar exposure metrics could facilitate the quantification of risks and establish exposure-response functions to be applied in HBE studies in a particular region.
5. Conclusion
This study reviewed previous studies on smoke haze-related health effects in Southeast Asia. The studies were reviewed and discussed based on EPI, HBE, and HRA approaches. This study found that although all the approaches indicated potential health risks due to smoke haze, currently available studies have limited interconnectivity among approaches. This is due to the heterogeneity in exposure assessments, the use of different pollutants or exposure metrics, and the unaddressed issue of smoke haze sources.
Future studies should consider integrating the findings from the three approaches through study designs with comparable exposure assessments and a combination of approaches. The sources of smoke haze should be clearly indicated, as this would facilitate policy decisions for efficient mitigation of smoke haze in the region.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Search terms used in each search engine.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274433.s002
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Summary of epidemiological studies on the health effects of smoke haze in Southeast Asia.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274433.s003
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Summary of health burden estimation studies on the health effects of smoke haze in Southeast Asia.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274433.s004
(DOCX)
S4 Table. Summary of studies using combined epidemiological and health burden estimation approaches on the health effects of smoke haze in Southeast Asia.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274433.s005
(DOCX)
S5 Table. Summary of health risk assessment studies on the health effects of smoke haze in Southeast Asia.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274433.s006
(DOCX)
S1 Appendix. List of articles subjected for review.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274433.s007
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Langmann B, Duncan B, Textor C, Trentmann J, van der Werf GR. Vegetation fire emissions and their impact on air pollution and climate. Atmos Environ. 2009;43: 107–116.
- 2. Flannigan MD, Krawchuk MA, de Groot WJ, Wotton BM, Gowman LM. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. Int J Wildl Fire. 2009;18: 483–507.
- 3. Page SE, Siegert F, Rieley JO, Boehm HD V., Jaya A, Limin S. The amount of carbon released from peat and forest fires in Indonesia during 1997. Nature. 2002;420: 61–65. pmid:12422213
- 4. Field RD, van der Werf GR, Fanin T, Fetzer EJ, Fuller R, Jethva H, et al. Indonesian fire activity and smoke pollution in 2015 show persistent nonlinear sensitivity to El Niño-induced drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016;113: 9204–9209. pmid:27482096
- 5. Field RD, van der Werf GR, Shen SSP. Human amplification of drought-induced biomass burning in Indonesia since 1960. Nat Geosci. 2009;2: 185–188.
- 6. Bowman DMJS, Balch J, Artaxo P, Bond WJ, Cochrane MA, D’Antonio CM, et al. The human dimension of fire regimes on Earth. J Biogeogr. 2011;38: 2223–2236. pmid:22279247
- 7. Earl N, Simmonds I. Spatial and temporal variability and trends in 2001–2016 global fire activity. J Geophys Res Atmos. 2018;123: 2524–2536.
- 8. Bowman DMJS, Kolden CA, Abatzoglou JT, Johnston FH, van der Werf GR, Flannigan M. Vegetation fires in the Anthropocene. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2020;1: 500–515.
- 9. WHO. Health guidelines for vegetation fire events. 1999.
- 10. Dennis A, Fraser M, Anderson S, Allen D. Air pollutant emissions associated with forest, grassland, and agricultural burning in Texas. Atmos Environ. 2002;36: 3779–3792.
- 11.
Page S, Hoscilo A, Langner A, Tansey K, Siegert F, Limin S, et al. Tropical peatland fires in Southeast Asia. Tropical Fire Ecology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg; 2009. pp. 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77381-8_9
- 12. Usup A, Hashimoto Y, Takahashi H, Hayasaka H. Combustion and thermal characteristics of peat fire in tropical peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Tropics. 2004;14: 1–19.
- 13. Rein G, Cleaver N, Ashton C, Pironi P, Torero JL. The severity of smouldering peat fires and damage to the forest soil. CATENA. 2008;74: 304–309.
- 14. Putra EI, Hayasaka H. The effect of the precipitation pattern of the dry season on peat fire occurrence in the Mega Rice Project area, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Tropics. 2011;19: 145–156.
- 15.
Hayasaka H, Takahashi H, Limin SH, Yulianti N, Usup A. Peat fire occurrence. Tropical Peatland Ecosystems. Tokyo: Springer Japan; 2016. pp. 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55681-7_25
- 16. McLauchlan KK, Higuera PE, Miesel J, Rogers BM, Schweitzer J, Shuman JK, et al. Fire as a fundamental ecological process: Research advances and frontiers. Durigan G, editor. J Ecol. 2020;108: 2047–2069.
- 17. Ryan KC, Knapp EE, Varner JM. Prescribed fire in North American forests and woodlands: history, current practice, and challenges. Front Ecol Environ. 2013;11.
- 18. Stevens‐Rumann CS, Kemp KB, Higuera PE, Harvey BJ, Rother MT, Donato DC, et al. Evidence for declining forest resilience to wildfires under climate change. Lloret F, editor. Ecol Lett. 2017;21: 243–252. pmid:29230936
- 19. Johnston FH, Henderson SB, Chen Y, Randerson JT, Marlier M, DeFries RS, et al. Estimated global mortality attributable to smoke from landscape fires. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120: 695–701. pmid:22456494
- 20. Heil A, Goldammer JG. Smoke-haze pollution: a review of the 1997 episode in Southeast Asia. Reg Environ Chang. 2001;2: 24–37.
- 21. Gaveau DLA, Salim MA, Hergoualc’H K, Locatelli B, Sloan S, Wooster M, et al. Major atmospheric emissions from peat fires in Southeast Asia during non-drought years: Evidence from the 2013 Sumatran fires. Sci Rep. 2014;4: 1–7. pmid:25135165
- 22. Medrilzam M, Dargusch P, Herbohn J, Smith C. The socio-ecological drivers of forest degradation in part of the tropical peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. For An Int J For Res. 2013;87: 335–345.
- 23. Reid JS, Hyer EJ, Johnson RS, Holben BN, Yokelson RJ, Zhang J, et al. Observing and understanding the Southeast Asian aerosol system by remote sensing: An initial review and analysis for the Seven Southeast Asian Studies (7SEAS) program. Atmos Res. 2013;122: 403–468.
- 24. Wooster MJ, Perry GLW, Zoumas A. Fire, drought and El Niño relationships on Borneo (Southeast Asia) in the pre-MODIS era (1980–2000). Biogeosciences. 2012;9: 317–340.
- 25. Page SE, Hooijer A. In the line of fire: the peatlands of Southeast Asia. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016;371: 20150176. pmid:27216508
- 26. Reddington CL, Yoshioka M, Balasubramanian R, Ridley D, Toh YY, Arnold SR, et al. Contribution of vegetation and peat fires to particulate air pollution in Southeast Asia. Environ Res Lett. 2014;9: 094006.
- 27. Fujii Y, Tohno S, Ikeda K, Mahmud M, Takenaka N. A preliminary study on humic-like substances in particulate matter in Malaysia influenced by Indonesian peatland fires. Sci Total Environ. 2021;753: 142009. pmid:32890879
- 28. Abas MR Bin, Rahman NA, Omar NYMJ, Maah MJ, Samah AA, Oros DR, et al. Organic composition of aerosol particulate matter during a haze episode in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Atmos Environ. 2004;38: 4223–4241.
- 29. Sulong NA, Latif MT, Khan MF, Amil N, Ashfold MJ, Wahab MIA, et al. Source apportionment and health risk assessment among specific age groups during haze and non-haze episodes in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Sci Total Environ. 2017;601–602: 556–570. pmid:28575833
- 30. Afroz R, Hassan MN, Ibrahim NA. Review of air pollution and health impacts in Malaysia. Environ Res. 2003;92: 71–77. pmid:12854685
- 31. Takami K, Shimadera H, Uranishi K, Kondo A. Impacts of biomass burning emission inventories and atmospheric reanalyses on simulated PM10 over Indochina. Atmosphere (Basel). 2020;11: 160.
- 32. Uttajug A, Ueda K, Oyoshi K, Honda A, Takano H. Association between PM10 from vegetation fire events and hospital visits by children in upper northern Thailand. Sci Total Environ. 2021;764: 142923. pmid:33121762
- 33. Naeher LP, Brauer M, Lipsett M, Zelikoff JT, Simpson CD, Koenig JQ, et al. Woodsmoke health effects: A review. Inhal Toxicol. 2007;19: 67–106. pmid:17127644
- 34. Jayarathne T, Stockwell CE, Bhave P V., Praveen PS, Rathnayake CM, Islam MR, et al. Nepal Ambient Monitoring and Source Testing Experiment (NAMaSTE): Emissions of particulate matter from wood- and dung-fueled cooking fires, garbage and crop residue burning, brick kilns, and other sources. Atmos Chem Phys. 2018;18: 2259–2286.
- 35. Liu JC, Pereira G, Uhl SA, Bravo MA, Bell ML. A systematic review of the physical health impacts from non-occupational exposure to wildfire smoke. Environ Res. 2015;136: 120–132. pmid:25460628
- 36. Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124: 1334–1343. pmid:27082891
- 37. Youssouf H, Liousse C, Roblou L, Assamoi EM, Salonen RO, Maesano C, et al. Non-accidental health impacts of wildfire smoke. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11: 11772–11804. pmid:25405597
- 38. Cheong KH, Ngiam NJ, Morgan GG, Pek PP, Tan BYQ, Lai JW, et al. Acute health impacts of the Southeast Asian transboundary haze problem—A review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16: 3286. pmid:31500215
- 39. Ramakreshnan L, Aghamohammadi N, Fong CS, Bulgiba A, Zaki RA, Wong LP, et al. Haze and health impacts in ASEAN countries: a systematic review. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2018;25: 2096–2111. pmid:29209970
- 40. Marlier ME, Liu T, Yu K, Buonocore JJ, Koplitz SN, DeFries RS, et al. Fires, smoke exposure, and public health: An integrative framework to maximize health benefits from peatland restoration. GeoHealth. 2019;3: 178–189. pmid:32159040
- 41. Kiely L, Spracklen D V., Arnold SR, Papargyropoulou E, Conibear L, Wiedinmyer C, et al. Assessing costs of Indonesian fires and the benefits of restoring peatland. Nat Commun. 2021;12: 7044. pmid:34857766
- 42.
Human Health Risk Assessment | US EPA. In: US EPA [Internet]. 2016. Available: https://www.epa.gov/risk/human-health-risk-assessment
- 43. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Angew Chemie Int Ed 6(11), 951–952. 1967.
- 44. Aditama TY. Impact of haze from forest fire to respiratory health: Indonesian experience. Respirology. 2000;5: 169–174. pmid:10894107
- 45. Jalaludin B, Garden FL, Chrzanowska A, Haryanto B, Cowie CT, Lestari F, et al. Associations between ambient particulate air pollution and cognitive function in Indonesian children living in forest fire–prone provinces. Asia Pacific J Public Heal. 2022;34: 96–105. pmid:34243677
- 46. Siregar S, Idiawati N, Pan WC, Yu KP. Association between satellite-based estimates of long-term PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular disease: evidence from the Indonesian Family Life Survey. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022;29: 21156–21165. pmid:34750763
- 47. Uda SK, Hein L, Atmoko D. Assessing the health impacts of peatland fires: a case study for Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2019;26: 31315–31327. pmid:31471850
- 48. Betha R, Pradani M, Lestari P, Joshi UM, Reid JS, Balasubramanian R. Chemical speciation of trace metals emitted from Indonesian peat fires for health risk assessment. Atmos Res. 2013;122: 571–578.
- 49. Syam AF, Elina A, Hapsari FCP, Rahardja C, Makmun D. Relation between exposure of rainforest fire smoke and clinical complaints during Indonesia rainforest fire in September-October 2015. Adv Sci Lett. 2017;23: 6739–6742.
- 50. Kunii O, Kanagawa S, Ismail ITS, Kunii O, Yajima I, Hisamatsu Y, et al. The 1997 haze disaster in indonesia: Its air quality and health effects. Arch Environ Health. 2002;57: 16–22. pmid:12071356
- 51. Frankenberg E, McKee D, Thomas D. Health consequences of forest fires in Indonesia. Demography. 2005;42: 109–129. pmid:15782898
- 52. Jayachandran S. Air quality and early-life mortality: Evidence from Indonesia’s wildfires. J Hum Resour. 2009;44: 916–954.
- 53. Kim Y, Knowles S, Manley J, Radoias V. Long-run health consequences of air pollution: Evidence from Indonesia’s forest fires of 1997. Econ Hum Biol. 2017;26: 186–198. pmid:28460366
- 54. Suyanto S, Geater A, Chongsuvivatwong V. The effect of treatment during a haze/post-haze year on subsequent respiratory morbidity status among successful treatment tuberculosis cases. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16: 4669. pmid:31771136
- 55. Tan-Soo JS, Pattanayak SK. Seeking natural capital projects: Forest fires, haze, and early-life exposure in Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116: 5239–5245. pmid:30782799
- 56. Zaini J, Susanto AD, Samoedro E, Bionika VC, Antariksa B. Health consequences of thick forest fire smoke to healthy residents in Riau, Indonesia: A cross-sectional study. Med J Indones. 2020;29: 58–63.
- 57. Astuti Y, Permana I, Bayu R, Rahmawati H. Distribution pattern of children with acute respiratory infection during forest fire at Central Kalimantan Indonesia. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2022;21: 171–174.
- 58. Sastry N. Forest fires, air pollution, and mortality in Southeast Asia. Demography. 2002. pp. 1–23. pmid:11852832
- 59. Khan MF, Latif MT, Saw WH, Amil N, Nadzir MSM, Sahani M, et al. Fine particulate matter in the tropical environment: monsoonal effects, source apportionment, and health risk assessment. Atmos Chem Phys. 2016;16: 597–617.
- 60. Sulong NA, Latif MT, Sahani M, Khan MF, Fadzil MF, Tahir NM, et al. Distribution, sources and potential health risks of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in PM2.5 collected during different monsoon seasons and haze episode in Kuala Lumpur. Chemosphere. 2019;219: 1–14. pmid:30528968
- 61. Mott JA, Mannino DM, Alverson CJ, Kiyu A, Hashim J, Lee T, et al. Cardiorespiratory hospitalizations associated with smoke exposure during the 1997 Southeast Asian forest fires. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2005;208: 75–85. pmid:15881981
- 62. Othman J, Sahani M, Mahmud M, Sheikh Ahmad MK. Transboundary smoke haze pollution in Malaysia: Inpatient health impacts and economic valuation. Environ Pollut. 2014;189: 194–201. pmid:24682070
- 63. Sahani M, Zainon NA, Wan Mahiyuddin WR, Latif MT, Hod R, Khan MF, et al. A case-crossover analysis of forest fire haze events and mortality in Malaysia. Atmos Environ. 2014;96: 257–265.
- 64. Hassan A, Latif MT, Soo CI, Faisal AH, Roslina AM, Andrea YLB, et al. Short communication: Diagnosis of lung cancer increases during the annual southeast Asian haze periods. Lung Cancer. 2017;113: 1–3. pmid:29110834
- 65. Ming CR, Ban Yu-Lin A, Abdul Hamid MF, Latif MT, Mohammad N, Hassan T. Annual Southeast Asia haze increases respiratory admissions: A 2-year large single institution experience. Respirology. 2018;23: 914–920. pmid:29923364
- 66. Jaafar H, Azzeri A, Isahak M, Dahlui M. The impact of haze on healthcare utilizations for acute respiratory diseases: Evidence from Malaysia. Front Ecol Evol. 2021;9: 764300.
- 67. Phung VLH, Ueda K, Sahani M, Seposo XT, Wan Mahiyuddin WR, Honda A, et al. Investigation of association between smoke haze and under-five mortality in Malaysia, accounting for time lag, duration and intensity. Int J Epidemiol. 2022;51: 155–165. pmid:34148080
- 68. Omar NYMJ, Mon TC, Rahman NA, Abas MR Bin. Distributions and health risks of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in atmospheric aerosols of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Sci Total Environ. 2006;369: 76–81. pmid:16766020
- 69. Emmanuel SC. Impact to lung health of haze from forest fires: The Singapore experience. Respirology. 2000;5: 175–182. pmid:10894108
- 70. Tan WC, Qiu DW, Liam BL, Ng TP, Lee SH, van Eeden SF, et al. The human bone marrow response to acute air pollution caused by forest fires. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;161: 1213–1217. pmid:10764314
- 71. Betha R, Behera SN, Balasubramanian R. 2013 Southeast Asian smoke haze: Fractionation of particulate-bound elements and associated health risk. Environ Sci Technol. 2014;48: 4327–4335. pmid:24646334
- 72. Huang X, Betha R, Tan LY, Balasubramanian R. Risk assessment of bioaccessible trace elements in smoke haze aerosols versus urban aerosols using simulated lung fluids. Atmos Environ. 2016;125: 505–511.
- 73. Urbančok D, Payne AJR, Webster RD. Regional transport, source apportionment and health impact of PM10 bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Singapore’s atmosphere. Environ Pollut. 2017;229: 984–993. pmid:28781182
- 74. Sharma R, Balasubramanian R. Size-fractionated particulate matter in indoor and outdoor environments during the 2015 haze in Singapore: Potential human health risk assessment. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2018;18: 904–917.
- 75. Ho RC, Zhang MW, Ho CS, Pan F, Lu Y, Sharma VK. Impact of 2013 South Asian haze crisis: Study of physical and psychological symptoms and perceived dangerousness of pollution level. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14: 81. pmid:24642046
- 76. Yeo B, Liew CF, Oon HH. Clinical experience and impact of a community-led volunteer atmospheric haze clinic in Singapore. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2014;45: 1448–53. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26466431 pmid:26466431
- 77. Sheldon TL, Sankaran C. The impact of Indonesian forest fires on Singaporean pollution and health. Am Econ Rev. 2017;107: 526–529. pmid:29558063
- 78. Ho AFW, Wah W, Earnest A, Ng YY, Xie Z, Shahidah N, et al. Health impacts of the Southeast Asian haze problem–A time-stratified case crossover study of the relationship between ambient air pollution and sudden cardiac deaths in Singapore. Int J Cardiol. 2018;271: 352–358. pmid:30223374
- 79. Ho AFW, Zheng H, De Silva DA, Wah W, Earnest A, Pang YH, et al. The relationship between ambient air pollution and acute ischemic stroke: A time-stratified case-crossover study in a city-state with seasonal exposure to the Southeast Asian haze problem. Ann Emerg Med. 2018;72: 591–601. pmid:30172448
- 80. Ho AFW, Zheng H, Earnest A, Cheong KH, Pek PP, Seok JY, et al. Time-stratified case crossover study of the association of outdoor ambient air pollution with the risk of acute myocardial infarction in the context of seasonal exposure to the Southeast Asian haze problem. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8: e011272. pmid:31112443
- 81. Aik J, Chua R, Jamali N, Chee E. The burden of acute conjunctivitis attributable to ambient particulate matter pollution in Singapore and its exacerbation during South-East Asian haze episodes. Sci Total Environ. 2020;740: 140129. pmid:32562998
- 82. Ho AFW, Zheng H, Cheong KH, En WL. The relationship between air pollution and all-cause mortality in Singapore. Atmosphere (Basel). 2020;11: 9.
- 83. Odihi JO. Haze and Health in Brunei Darussalam: The Case of the 1997‐98 Episodes. Singap J Trop Geogr. 2001;22: 38–51.
- 84. Anaman KA, Ibrahim N. Statistical estimation of dose-response functions of respiratory diseases and societal costs of haze-related air pollution in Brunei Darussalam. Pure Appl Geophys. 2003;160: 279–293.
- 85. Brauer M, Hisham-Hashim J. Fires in Indonesia: Crisis and reaction. Environ Sci Technol. 1998;32: 13–16. pmid:21650839
- 86. Crippa P, Castruccio S, Archer-Nicholls S, Lebron GB, Kuwata M, Thota A, et al. Population exposure to hazardous air quality due to the 2015 fires in Equatorial Asia. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 1–9. pmid:27848989
- 87. Koplitz SN, Mickley LJ, Marlier ME, Buonocore JJ, Kim PS, Liu T, et al. Public health impacts of the severe haze in Equatorial Asia in September-October 2015: Demonstration of a new framework for informing fire management strategies to reduce downwind smoke exposure. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11.
- 88. Bruni Zani N, Lonati G, Mead MI, Latif MT, Crippa P. Long-term satellite-based estimates of air quality and premature mortality in Equatorial Asia through deep neural networks. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15.
- 89. Kiely L, Spracklen D V., Wiedinmyer C, Conibear L, Reddington CL, Arnold SR, et al. Air quality and health impacts of vegetation and peat fires in Equatorial Asia during 2004–2015. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15.
- 90. Wiwatanadate P, Liwsrisakun C. Acute effects of air pollution on peak expiratory flow rates and symptoms among asthmatic patients in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2011;214: 251–257. pmid:21530391
- 91. Wiriya W, Prapamontol T, Chantara S. PM10-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Chiang Mai (Thailand): Seasonal variations, source identification, health risk assessment and their relationship to air-mass movement. Atmos Res. 2013;124: 109–122.
- 92. Pongpiachan S, Tipmanee D, Khumsup C, Kittikoon I, Hirunyatrakul P. Assessing risks to adults and preschool children posed by PM2.5-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) during a biomass burning episode in Northern Thailand. Sci Total Environ. 2015;508: 435–444. pmid:25506906
- 93. Pani SK, Wang SH, Lin NH, Chantara S, Lee C Te, Thepnuan D. Black carbon over an urban atmosphere in Northern Peninsular Southeast Asia: Characteristics, source apportionment, and associated health risks. Environ Pollut. 2020;259: 113871. pmid:31918141
- 94. Thepnuan D, Yabueng N, Chantara S, Prapamontol T, Tsai YI. Simultaneous determination of carcinogenic PAHs and levoglucosan bound to PM2.5 for assessment of health risk and pollution sources during a smoke haze period. Chemosphere. 2020;257. pmid:32512328
- 95. Yabueng N, Wiriya W, Chantara S. Influence of zero-burning policy and climate phenomena on ambient PM2.5 patterns and PAHs inhalation cancer risk during episodes of smoke haze in Northern Thailand. Atmos Environ. 2020;232: 117485.
- 96. Insian W, Yabueng N, Wiriya W, Chantara S. Size-fractionated PM-bound PAHs in urban and rural atmospheres of northern Thailand for respiratory health risk assessment. Environ Pollut. 2022;293: 118488. pmid:34793907
- 97. Pothirat C, Tosukhowong A, Chaiwong W, Liwsrisakun C, Inchai J. Effects of seasonal smog on asthma and COPD exacerbations requiring emergency visits in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Asian Pacific J Allergy Immunol. 2016;34: 284–289. pmid:27362400
- 98. Pothirat C, Chaiwong W, Liwsrisakun C, Bumroongkit C, Deesomchok A, Theerakittikul T, et al. Influence of particulate matter during seasonal smog on quality of life and lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16: 106. pmid:30609775
- 99. Mueller W, Loh M, Vardoulakis S, Johnston HJ, Steinle S, Precha N, et al. Ambient particulate matter and biomass burning: an ecological time series study of respiratory and cardiovascular hospital visits in northern Thailand. Environ Heal. 2020;19: 77. pmid:32620124
- 100. Ontawong A, Saokaew S, Jamroendararasame B, Duangjai A. Impact of long-term exposure wildfire smog on respiratory health outcomes. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2020;14: 527–531. pmid:32156169
- 101. Vajanapoom N, Kooncumchoo P, Thach TQ. Acute effects of air pollution on all-cause mortality: A natural experiment from haze control measures in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. PeerJ. 2020;2020: 1–15. pmid:32518729
- 102. Mueller W, Tantrakarnapa K, Johnston HJ, Loh M, Steinle S, Vardoulakis S, et al. Exposure to ambient particulate matter and biomass burning during pregnancy: associations with birth weight in Thailand. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021;31: 672–682. pmid:33603098
- 103. Pothirat C, Chaiwong W, Liwsrisakun C, Bumroongkit C, Deesomchok A, Theerakittikul T, et al. The short-term associations of particular matters on non-accidental mortality and causes of death in Chiang Mai, Thailand: a time series analysis study between 2016–2018. Int J Environ Health Res. 2021;31: 538–547. pmid:31569960
- 104. Punsompong P, Pani SK, Wang SH, Bich Pham TT. Assessment of biomass-burning types and transport over Thailand and the associated health risks. Atmos Environ. 2021;247: 118176.
- 105. Reddington CL, Conibear L, Robinson S, Knote C, Arnold SR, Spracklen D V. Air pollution from forest and vegetation fires in Southeast Asia disproportionately impacts the poor. GeoHealth. 2021;5. pmid:34485798
- 106. Marlier ME, Defries RS, Voulgarakis A, Kinney PL, Randerson JT, Shindell DT, et al. El Niño and health risks from landscape fire emissions in Southeast Asia. Nat Clim Chang. 2013;3: 131–136. pmid:25379058
- 107. Chen G, Guo Y, Yue X, Tong S, Gasparrini A, Bell ML, et al. Mortality risk attributable to wildfire-related PM2·5 pollution: a global time series study in 749 locations. Lancet Planet Heal. 2021;5: e579–e587. pmid:34508679
- 108. Xue T, Geng G, Li J, Han Y, Guo Q, Kelly FJ, et al. Associations between exposure to landscape fire smoke and child mortality in low-income and middle-income countries: a matched case-control study. Lancet Planet Heal. 2021;5: e588–e598. pmid:34508680
- 109.
Air Quality Index (AQI) Basics. In: AirNow [Internet]. 2018 [cited 22 Apr 2022]. Available: https://www.airnow.gov/aqi/aqi-basics/
- 110.
GADM. GADM maps and data. [cited 7 Jul 2022]. Available: https://gadm.org/index.html
- 111. Gumbricht T, Román-Cuesta RM, Verchot L V, Herold M, Wittmann F, Householder E, et al. Tropical and Subtropical Wetlands Distribution. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR);
- 112. Ibie BF, Yulianti N, Rumbang N, Ibie E. Central Kalimantan High Conservation Value Provincial Assessment. Central Kalimantan, Indonesia; 2016. Available: https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/central-kalimantan-high-conservation-value-provincial-assessment/
- 113. Yulianti N. The influence of precipitation patterns on recent peatland fires in Indonesia. Hokkaido University. 2013.
- 114. Chen H, Kwong JC, Copes R, Hystad P, van Donkelaar A, Tu K, et al. Exposure to ambient air pollution and the incidence of dementia: A population-based cohort study. Environ Int. 2017;108: 271–277. pmid:28917207
- 115. Choi H, Rauh V, Garfinkel R, Tu Y, Perera FP. Prenatal exposure to airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and risk of intrauterine growth restriction. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116: 658–665. pmid:18470316
- 116. He D, Wu S, Zhao H, Qiu H, Fu Y, Li X, et al. Association between particulate matter 2.5 and diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Diabetes Investig. 2017;8: 687–696. pmid:28122165
- 117. Liu C, Wang B, Liu S, Li S, Zhang K, Luo B, et al. Type 2 diabetes attributable to PM2.5: A global burden study from 1990 to 2019. Environ Int. 2021;156: 106725. pmid:34171589
- 118. Shi L, Wu X, Danesh Yazdi M, Braun D, Abu Awad Y, Wei Y, et al. Long-term effects of PM2.5 on neurological disorders in the American Medicare population: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Planet Heal. 2020;4: e557–e565. pmid:33091388
- 119. Rappold AG, Stone SL, Cascio WE, Neas LM, Kilaru VJ, Carraway MS, et al. Peat bog wildfire smoke exposure in rural North Carolina is associated with cardiopulmonary emergency department visits assessed through syndromic surveillance. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119: 1415–1420. pmid:21705297
- 120. Pechony O, Shindell DT. Driving forces of global wildfires over the past millennium and the forthcoming century. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107: 19167–19170. pmid:20974914
- 121. Matz CJ, Egyed M, Xi G, Racine J, Pavlovic R, Rittmaster R, et al. Health impact analysis of PM2.5 from wildfire smoke in Canada (2013–2015, 2017–2018). Sci Total Environ. 2020;725: 138506. pmid:32302851
- 122. Delfino R. J, Brummel S, Wu J, Stern H, Ostro B, Lipsett M, et al. The relationship of respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions to the southern California wildfires of 2003. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66: 189–197. pmid:19017694
- 123. Künzli N, Avol E, Wu J, Gauderman WJ, Rappaport E, Millstein J, et al. Health effects of the 2003 Southern California wildfires on children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;174: 1221–1228. pmid:16946126
- 124. Jalaludin B, Smith M, O’Toole B, Leeder S. Acute effects of bushfires on peak expiratory flow rates in children with wheeze: A time series analysis. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24: 174–177. pmid:10790937
- 125. Morgan G, Sheppeard V, Khalaj B, Ayyar A, Lincoln D, Jalaludin B, et al. Effects of bushfire smoke on daily mortality and hospital admissions in Sydney, Australia. Epidemiology. 2010;21: 47–55. pmid:19907335
- 126. Johnston F, Hanigan I, Henderson S, Morgan G, Bowman D. Extreme air pollution events from bushfires and dust storms and their association with mortality in Sydney, Australia 1994–2007. Environ Res. 2011;111: 811–816. pmid:21601845
- 127. Black C, Tesfaigzi Y, Bassein JA, Miller LA. Wildfire smoke exposure and human health: Significant gaps in research for a growing public health issue. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2017;55: 186–195. pmid:28892756
- 128. Lipner EM, O’Dell K, Brey SJ, Ford B, Pierce JR, Fischer E V., et al. The associations between clinical respiratory outcomes and ambient wildfire smoke exposure among pediatric asthma patients at National Jewish Health, 2012–2015. GeoHealth. 2019;3: 146–159. pmid:32159037
- 129. Johnston FH, Purdie S, Jalaludin B, Martin KL, Henderson SB, Morgan GG. Air pollution events from forest fires and emergency department attendances in Sydney, Australia 1996–2007: A case-crossover analysis. Environ Heal A Glob Access Sci Source. 2014;13: 105. pmid:25491235
- 130. Roberts G, Wooster MJ. Global impact of landscape fire emissions on surface level PM2.5 concentrations, air quality exposure and population mortality. Atmos Environ. 2021;252: 118210.
- 131. Pongpiachan S, Choochuay C, Chonchalar J, Kanchai P, Phonpiboon T, Wongsuesat S, et al. Chemical characterisation of organic functional group compositions in PM 2.5 collected at nine administrative provinces in Northern Thailand during the haze episode in 2013. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2013;14: 3653–3661. pmid:23886161
- 132. Kusumaningtyas SDA, Aldrian E. Impact of the June 2013 Riau province Sumatera smoke haze event on regional air pollution. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11: 075007.
- 133. Jones DS. ASEAN and transboundary haze pollution in Southeast Asia. Asia Eur J. 2006;4: 431–446.
- 134. Behera SN, Betha R, Huang X, Balasubramanian R. Characterization and estimation of human airway deposition of size-resolved particulate-bound trace elements during a recent haze episode in Southeast Asia. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22: 4265–4280. pmid:25292299
- 135. Latif MT, Othman M, Idris N, Juneng L, Abdullah AM, Hamzah WP, et al. Impact of regional haze towards air quality in Malaysia: A review. Atmos Environ. 2018;177: 28–44.
- 136. Xu P, Chen Y, Ye X. Haze, air pollution, and health in China. Lancet. 2013;382: 2067. pmid:24360386
- 137. An Z, Huang R-J, Zhang R, Tie X, Li G, Cao J, et al. Severe haze in northern China: A synergy of anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116: 8657–8666. pmid:30988177
- 138. Park J, Lim MN, Hong Y, Kim WJ. The influence of Asian Dust, haze, mist, and fog on hospital visits for airway diseases. Tuberc Respir Dis (Seoul). 2015;78: 326. pmid:26508919
- 139. Han S-B, Song S-K, Shon Z-H, Kang Y-H, Bang J-H, Oh I. Comprehensive study of a long-lasting severe haze in Seoul megacity and its impacts on fine particulate matter and health. Chemosphere. 2021;268: 129369. pmid:33387943
- 140.
ASMC. ASEAN Specialised Meteorological Center (ASMC). 2021 [cited 10 Apr 2021]. Available: http://asmc.asean.org/home
- 141.
ASEAN. ASEAN Haze Action Online. 2021 [cited 25 Feb 2021]. Available: https://haze.asean.org/asean-agreement-on-transboundary-haze-pollution-2/
- 142.
AATHP. ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution. 2002. Available: http://environment.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ASEANAgreementonTransboundaryHazePollution.pdf
- 143. Turetsky MR, Benscoter B, Page S, Rein G, van der Werf GR, Watts A. Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nat Geosci. 2015;8: 11–14.
- 144. Fedak KM, Bernal A, Capshaw ZA, Gross S. Applying the Bradford Hill criteria in the 21st century: How data integration has changed causal inference in molecular epidemiology. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2015;12: 1–9. pmid:26425136
- 145. Seposo X, Kondo M, Ueda K, Honda Y, Michikawa T, Yamazaki S, et al. Health impact assessment of PM2.5-related mitigation scenarios using local risk coefficient estimates in 9 Japanese cities. Environ Int. 2018;120: 525–534. pmid:30153646
- 146. Hu Y, Fernandez-Anez N, Smith TEL, Rein G. Review of emissions from smouldering peat fires and their contribution to regional haze episodes. Int J Wildl Fire. 2018;27: 293–312.
- 147. Borchers-Arriagada N, Palmer AJ, Bowman DMJS, Williamson GJ, Johnston FH. Health impacts of ambient biomass smoke in Tasmania, Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17: 3264. pmid:32392847
- 148. Urbanski SP. Combustion efficiency and emission factors for wildfire-season fires in mixed conifer forests of the northern Rocky Mountains, US. Atmos Chem Phys. 2013;13: 7241–7262.
- 149. Huijnen V, Wooster MJ, Kaiser JW, Gaveau DLA, Flemming J, Parrington M, et al. Fire carbon emissions over maritime Southeast Asia in 2015 largest since 1997. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 26886. pmid:27241616
- 150. Nechita-Banda N, Krol M, van der Werf GR, Kaiser JW, Pandey S, Huijnen V, et al. Monitoring emissions from the 2015 Indonesian fires using CO satellite data. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2018;373: 20170307. pmid:30297466
- 151. Rajab JM, Tan KC, Lim HS, MatJafri MZ. Investigation on the carbon monoxide pollution over Peninsular Malaysia caused by Indonesia forest fires from AIRS daily measurement. Advanced Air Pollution. InTech; 2011.
- 152. Zhang X, Liu J, Han H, Zhang Y, Jiang Z, Wang H, et al. Satellite-observed variations and trends in carbon monoxide over Asia and their sensitivities to biomass burning. Remote Sens. 2020;12: 830.
- 153. Battye W, Battye R. Development of emissions inventory methods for wildland fire. US Environ Prot Agency. 2002;27713.
- 154. Shiraiwa M, Ueda K, Pozzer A, Lammel G, Kampf CJ, Fushimi A, et al. Aerosol health effects from molecular to global scales. Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51: 13545–13567. pmid:29111690