You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 14, Issue 3
  • Health risks of exposure to air pollution in areas where coal-fired power plants are located: protocol for a scoping review

Article Text

Article menu
Public health
Protocol
Health risks of exposure to air pollution in areas where coal-fired power plants are located: protocol for a scoping review
  1. Nomfundo Mahlangeni1,2,
  2. Thandi Kapwata3,2,
  3. Tracey Laban4,2,
  4. Caradee Yael Wright4,5
  1. 1Environment and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
  2. 2Department of Environmental Health, University of Johannesburg - Doornfontein Campus, Johannesburg, South Africa
  3. 3Environment and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Johannesburg, South Africa
  4. 4Environment and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa
  5. 5Department of Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nomfundo Mahlangeni; nomfundo.mahlangeni{at}mrc.ac.za

Abstract

Introduction Coal-fired power plants are major sources of air pollution which impact human health. Coal combustion byproducts released into the air include particulate matter, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide. Exposure to fine particulate matter is associated with increased risk of mortality. This scoping review will examine and summarise the current literature on the health risks of exposure to air pollution in areas in which coal-fired power plants exist.

Methods and analysis This scoping review will be conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodological framework and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Five electronic databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar) will be searched for relevant articles. Studies will be included up until 31 January 2024. There will be no restriction on geographical area. The searches will be limited to studies published in English. Title, abstract, full-text screening and data extraction of relevant articles will be done by two independent reviewers. Discrepancies will be resolved by group discussion. The findings will be presented in tables with a narrative summary. This review will consider epidemiological studies and grey literature that report on the health risks of exposure to air pollution in areas where coal-fired power plants exist.

Ethics and dissemination All data will be collected from published and grey literature. Ethics approval is therefore not required. We will submit our findings for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

  • PUBLIC HEALTH
  • Respiratory Function Test
  • Cardiovascular Disease
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084074

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • A comprehensive and systematic search of the databases and grey literature will ensure that all available evidence on the topic is retrieved.

    • The scoping review will strictly follow the methodological framework of the Joanna Briggs Institute and adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines.

    • Only studies published in the English language will be included.

    • No risk of bias assessment will be performed given the broad nature of the topic and the use of a scoping review methodology; therefore, some studies of poor quality may be included.

    Introduction

    Coal supplies approximately 36% of the world’s electricity.1 According to the International Energy Agency, the global coal-fired power generation was about 10 400 terawatts-hours (Twh) in 2022.1 There are more than 2400 coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) in operation worldwide. The process of coal combustion for electricity generation releases sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM) and fly ash into the atmosphere. Other emissions include arsenic, mercury, lead, selenium and other toxic elements. The release of the pollutants in the air has negative environmental and health impacts.

    Previous research has shown residential proximity to CFPPs has adverse effects on human health. Yang et al observed that pregnant women living 32 km to 48 km away from a coal power plant are at greater risks of low birth weight in New Jersey, USA.2 There is growing evidence of maternal exposure to particulate matter with a diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5) and adverse birth outcomes.3–5 Research suggests that air pollutants can significantly affect the neurocognitive development of children.6 Short-term exposure to air pollution in asthmatic children resulted in respiratory symptoms and school absence.7 Young children exposed to air pollution were at higher risk for hospital admission for respiratory diseases in Wuhan, China.8 A report on data from 22 European cohort studies showed that long-term exposure to PM2.5 was associated with natural-cause mortality.9 PM2.5 has the potential to enter the bloodstream and can travel to the brain. Exposure to air pollution from CFPPs was associated with increased hospitalisation, respiratory effects, heart diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, lung cancer and mortality.10–16

    Residents living in proximity to CFPPs and neighbouring communities are at high risk of poor health outcomes and premature deaths attributable to emissions from CFPPs.17 Previous work observed that premature deaths were concentrated in districts where national CFPPs are located.18 A recent study on the effects of the closure of three CFPPs in Chicago reported a decline in school absenteeism and emergency visits in areas.19 Other studies reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution and lung function development in children living near CFPPs in Israel.20 21 Air pollutants from coal combustion can travel long distances therefore communities living far from CFPPs can also be affected.22

    As the world transitions to clean energy, regions with limited resource regions are left behind. During the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) more than 40 nations committed to phase out coal by 2040. According to the Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy report, China, India, USA, Japan and South Africa are among the top five countries with the highest coal consumption in 2022.23 Previous reviews focused on the impact of air pollutants from coal combustion on human health in high-income countries.24 25 Few studies have investigated the health effects of air pollution in areas where CFPPs are located among children and adults particularly in low/middle-income countries.10 26–29 These were epidemiological observational studies with either an ecologic or cross-sectional study design. Although CFPPs are not the only source of air pollution, however, contribute significantly to poor air quality. There are currently no reviews on the proximity of CFPPs to communities and health effects. This scoping review will examine and summarise the current literature on the health risks of exposure to air pollution from CFPPs.

    Objectives

    The objectives of this scoping review are:

    1. To assess the effects of exposure to air pollution in areas where CFPPs are located on health.

    2. To identify studies that estimate the health burden associated with this exposure.

    Methods and analysis

    This scoping review protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist (online supplemental table 1).30 31 The proposed scoping review will be carried out following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodological framework and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.32 33 The study is planned to begin in March 2024 and end in June 2024. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework.34

    Stage 1: identifying the research questions

    In line with the objectives, the following research questions are posed:

    1. What is the current evidence on the health risks associated with exposure to air pollution in areas where CFPPs exist?

    2. What is the relationship between health outcomes and proximity to CFPPs?

    3. What is the estimated mortality or morbidity risks of exposure to air pollution in areas where CFPPs exist?

    Stage 2: identifying relevant studies

    The databases to be searched include Google Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus and Web of Science. Sources of grey literature will include environment organisation reports such as Centre for Environmental Rights and Environmental Defence Fund. Other forms of grey literature such as newspaper articles, magazines and blogs will be excluded. Studies will be restricted to the English language. We will include studies published until 31 January 2024. Books, conference proceedings and letters to editors will be excluded. Reviews articles will not be included but the list of references will be examined to identify relevant studies.

    Stage 3: study selection

    The study selection will follow a two-part screening process: step 1: screening of title and abstract; and step 2: reviewing of full text. In both steps, two independent reviewers will screen the articles and disagreements will be discussed with a third reviewer. We will follow the PECOS framework (Population, Exposure, Context, Outcome, Study design) to identify eligible studies.35 The inclusion criteria include:

    1. Population: studies reporting on individuals or groups of all ages (ie, in utero, infants, children and adolescents, adults and the elderly) near CFPPs (as reported in the article, no km restriction).

    2. Exposure: studies that include exposure to air pollution in areas where coal-fired power plants exist such as SO2, PM, NOx, mercury and other toxic elements.

    3. Context: studies from all geographical areas will be considered. Figure 1 shows the distribution of CFPPs in operation as of January 2024.36 China and India are among the countries with the highest number of CFPPs.

    4. Outcome: studies on health outcomes of communities located near to CFPPs such as respiratory illnesses and lung disease. Where possible, dose-response functions will be extracted. The health effects may be directly measured or estimated using models. All-cause or disease-specific mortality, hospital and emergency visits will be considered. Studies on health risk assessment will also be considered.

    5. Study design: this review will include human epidemiological research articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Observational studies including cohort studies, case–control studies, time-series, ecological and cross-sectional studies will be considered for inclusion. Experimental studies on humans on the health effects of air pollution in areas where coal-fired power plants exist will be included. Reports that include health impacts from air pollution in areas where coal-fired power plants exist will also be included.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Global distribution of coal-fired power plants in operation as of January 2024.

    The exclusion criteria include:

    1. Population: studies on animal models or in vitro will be excluded.

    2. Exposure: studies not related to exposure to air pollution in areas where coal-fired power plants exist.

    3. Context: there will be no restriction on geographical area.

    4. Outcome: health outcomes not associated with exposure to air pollution in areas where CFPPs exist.

    5. Study design: non-human studies (in vitro and in vivo) will be excluded. Studies on occupational exposure will also be excluded.

    The search strategy will aim to find and identify published and unpublished literature. An initial search of PubMed will be undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the title and abstracts of relevant articles will be used to develop a full search strategy. The specific search terms include air pollutant*, coal-fired power plant* OR coal-fired power station* and health (full search strategy for PubMed is shown in online supplemental table 2). Additional relevant documents will be identified by checking the reference lists of included documents. The full search strategy will be adapted for each database and information source.

    Stage 4: charting, collating and reporting

    All citations will be collated and uploaded into Rayyan software and duplicates will be removed. Rayyan is a free web application that facilitates abstract and full-text screening of studies. A pilot test of the screening process will be undertaken by two or more independent reviewers with a test sample of 50 abstracts. After completing the pilot test, two or more independent reviewers will screen the title and abstracts of all citation records against the inclusion criteria. Full-text articles will be retrieved of all included records and will be screened against the inclusion criteria by two or more independent reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of sources of evidence at full text that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the scoping review. Any discrepancies will be resolved through discussion, or with an additional reviewer. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in full in the final scoping review and presented in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram (online supplemental figure 1).32 37

    A data extraction tool will be developed by the reviewers where data from included articles will be populated (table 1). The draft data extraction tool will be modified and revised as necessary during the process of extracting data from each included evidence source. Modifications will be detailed in the scoping review.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Data extraction tool

    A narrative report on the outcomes of the selected studies will be presented in the scoping review. This will include the country of origin, type of pollutant, distance of coal-fired power plant to the community and health outcomes. The results will be described in relation to the review objectives and questions.

    Patient and public involvement

    None.

    Ethics and dissemination

    All data will be collected from published and grey literature. Ethics approval is therefore not required. We will submit our findings for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    References

    1. ↵
      1. International Energy Agency
      . Coal [Internet]. 2023. Available: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/fossil-fuels/coal
    2. ↵
      1. Yang M,
      2. Bhatta RA,
      3. Chou S-Y, et al
      . The impact of prenatal exposure to power plant emissions on birth weight: evidence from a Pennsylvania power plant located upwind of New Jersey. J Policy Anal Manage 2017;36:557–83. doi:10.1002/pam.21989
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      1. Stieb DM,
      2. Chen L,
      3. Eshoul M, et al
      . Ambient air pollution, birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res 2012;117:100–11. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2012.05.007
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Pedersen M,
      2. Giorgis-Allemand L,
      3. Bernard C, et al
      . Ambient air pollution and low birthweight: a European cohort study (ESCAPE). Lancet Respir Med 2013;1:695–704. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(13)70192-9
      OpenUrl
    5. ↵
      1. Chen G,
      2. Guo Y,
      3. Abramson MJ, et al
      . Exposure to low concentrations of air pollutants and adverse birth outcomes in Brisbane, Australia, 2003–2013. Sci Total Environ 2018;622–623:721–6. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.050
      OpenUrl
    6. ↵
      1. Sears CG,
      2. Sears L,
      3. Zierold KM
      . Sex differences in the association between exposure to indoor particulate matter and cognitive control among children (age 6-14 years) living near coal-fired power plants. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2020;78:106855. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2020.106855
      OpenUrl
    7. ↵
      1. Peters A,
      2. Dockery DW,
      3. Heinrich J, et al
      . Short-term effects of particulate air pollution on respiratory morbidity in asthmatic children. Eur Respir J 1997;10:872–9. doi:10.1183/09031936.97.10040872
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Huang Z-H,
      2. Liu X-Y,
      3. Zhao T, et al
      . Short-term effects of air pollution on respiratory diseases among young children in Wuhan city, China. World J Pediatr 2022;18:333–42. doi:10.1007/s12519-022-00533-5
      OpenUrl
    9. ↵
      1. Beelen R,
      2. Raaschou-Nielsen O,
      3. Stafoggia M, et al
      . Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project. Lancet 2014;383:785–95. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62158-3
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. ↵
      1. Chio C-P,
      2. Lo W-C,
      3. Tsuang B-J, et al
      . Health impact assessment of Pm2.5 from a planned coal-fired power plant in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc 2019;118:1494–503. doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2019.08.016
      OpenUrl
    11. ↵
      1. Karavuş M,
      2. Aker A,
      3. Cebeci D, et al
      . Respiratory complaints and spirometric parameters of the villagers living around the seyitomer coal-fired thermal power plant in Kütahya, Turkey. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2002;52:214–20. doi:10.1006/eesa.2002.2158
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Lin C-K,
      2. Lin R-T,
      3. Chen T, et al
      . A global perspective on coal-fired power plants and burden of lung cancer. Environ Health 2019;18:9. doi:10.1186/s12940-019-0448-8
    13. ↵
      1. Hagemeyer AN,
      2. Sears CG,
      3. Zierold KM
      . Respiratory health in adults residing near a coal-burning power plant with coal ash storage facilities: a cross-sectional epidemiological study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:3642. doi:10.3390/ijerph16193642
    14. ↵
      1. Zierold KM,
      2. Hagemeyer AN,
      3. Sears CG
      . Health symptoms among adults living near a coal-burning power plant. Arch Environ Occup Health 2020;75:289–96. doi:10.1080/19338244.2019.1633992
      OpenUrl
    15. ↵
      1. Kuo P-H,
      2. Tsuang B-J,
      3. Chen C-J, et al
      . Risk assessment of mortality for all-cause, ischemic heart disease, cardiopulmonary disease, and lung cancer due to the operation of the world's largest coal-fired power plant. Atmospheric Environment 2014;96:117–24. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.07.024
      OpenUrl
    16. ↵
      1. Minichilli F,
      2. Gorini F,
      3. Bustaffa E, et al
      . Mortality and hospitalization associated to emissions of a coal power plant: a population-based cohort study. Sci Total Environ 2019;694:133757. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133757
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      1. Hii M,
      2. Beyer K,
      3. Namin S, et al
      . Respiratory diseases, racial disparities, and residential proximity to coal power plants in Wisconsin, USA: a cross-sectional study. The Lancet Global Health 2021;9:S19. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(21)00127-3
    18. ↵
      1. Barbhaya D,
      2. Hejjaji V,
      3. Vijayaprakash A, et al
      . The burden of premature mortality from coal-fired power plants in India is high and inequitable. Environ Res Lett 2022;17:104022. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac91e3
      OpenUrl
    19. ↵
      1. Komisarow S,
      2. Pakhtigian EL
      . Are power plant closures a breath of fresh air? Local air quality and school absences. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2022;112:102569. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102569
    20. ↵
      1. Yogev-Baggio T,
      2. Bibi H,
      3. Dubnov J, et al
      . Who is affected more by air pollution-sick or healthy? Some evidence from a health survey of schoolchildren living in the vicinity of a coal-fired power plant in northern Israel. Health Place 2010;16:399–408. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.11.013
      OpenUrlPubMed
    21. ↵
      1. Dubnov J,
      2. Barchana M,
      3. Rishpon S, et al
      . Estimating the effect of air pollution from a coal-fired power station on the development of children's pulmonary function. Environ Res 2007;103:87–98. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2006.02.009
      OpenUrlPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Buchanan S,
      2. Burt E,
      3. Orris P
      . Beyond black lung: scientific evidence of health effects from coal use in electricity generation. J Public Health Policy 2014;35:266–77. doi:10.1057/jphp.2014.16
      OpenUrl
    23. ↵
      1. Energy Institute
      . Statistical review of world energy 2023 [Internet]. 2023. Available: https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review/resources-and-data-downloads [Accessed 4 Oct 2023].
    24. ↵
      1. Amster E
      . Public health impact of coal-fired power plants: a critical systematic review of the epidemiological literature. Int J Environ Health Res 2021;31:558–80. doi:10.1080/09603123.2019.1674256
      OpenUrl
    25. ↵
      1. Munawer ME
      . Human health and environmental impacts of coal combustion and post-combustion wastes. Journal of Sustainable Mining 2018;17:87–96. doi:10.1016/j.jsm.2017.12.007
      OpenUrl
    26. ↵
      1. Simelane SP,
      2. Langerman KE
      . The sensitivity of health impact assessments of Pm2.5 from South African coal-fired power stations. Air Qual Atmos Health 2024;17:325–40. doi:10.1007/s11869-023-01447-5
      OpenUrl
    27. ↵
      1. Koplitz SN,
      2. Jacob DJ,
      3. Sulprizio MP, et al
      . Burden of disease from rising coal-fired power plant emissions in Southeast Asia. Environ Sci Technol 2017;51:1467–76. doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b03731
      OpenUrl
    28. ↵
      1. Cropper ML,
      2. Gamkhar S,
      3. Malik K, et al
      . The health effects of coal electricity generation in India. SSRN Journal 2012. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2093610
    29. ↵
      1. Adappa S,
      2. Tiwari R,
      3. Kamath R, et al
      . Health effects and environmental issues in residents around coal fired thermal power plant, Padubidri: a cross sectional study. J Environ Occup Sci 2017;6:8. doi:10.5455/jeos.20170215104352
      OpenUrl
    30. ↵
      1. Moher D,
      2. Shamseer L,
      3. Clarke M, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
    31. ↵
      1. Shamseer L,
      2. Moher D,
      3. Clarke M, et al
      . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
    32. ↵
      1. Tricco AC,
      2. Lillie E,
      3. Zarin W, et al
      . PRISMA extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467–73. doi:10.7326/M18-0850
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Aromataris E,
      2. Munn Z
      . JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [Internet]. JBI, 2020. doi:10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
    34. ↵
      1. Mahlangeni N,
      2. Kapwata T,
      3. Laban T, et al
      . Health risks among children from exposure to air pollution in areas where coal-fired power plants are located: a Scoping review protocol [Internet] [OSF]. 2023. Available: https://osf.io/a8q3j
    35. ↵
      1. Higgins J,
      2. Green S
      . Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available: www.handbook.cochrane.org
    36. ↵
      1. Global Energy Monitor
      . Global coal plant Tracker [Internet]. 2024. Available: https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/
    37. ↵
      1. Page MJ,
      2. McKenzie JE,
      3. Bossuyt PM, et al
      . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @NomieM1678330, @caradeeyael

    • Contributors NM prepared the original draft of the protocol. CYW supervised the preparation of the protocol. TK, TL and CYW reviewed and edited the protocol draft. All authors have read and agreed on the final version of the manuscript.

    • Funding This project has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government, grant/award number: 301523-404; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.

    • Map disclaimer The inclusion of any map (including the depiction of any boundaries therein), or of any geographic or locational reference, does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. Any such expression remains solely that of the relevant source and is not endorsed by BMJ. Maps are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.