Abstract
Background:
Air pollution may impair male fertility, but it remains controversial whether air pollution affects semen quality until now.
Objectives:
We undertake a meta-analysis to explore potential impacts of six pollutants exposure during the entire window (0–90 days prior to ejaculation) and critical windows (0–9, 10–14, and 70–90 days prior to ejaculation) on semen quality.
Methods:
Seven databases were retrieved for original studies on the effects of six pollutants exposure for 90 days prior to ejaculation on semen quality. The search process does not limit the language and search date. We only included original studies that reported regression coefficients (β) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The β and 95% CIs were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect models.
Results:
PM2.5 exposure was related with decreased total sperm number (10–14 lag days) and total motility (10–14, 70–90, and 0–90 lag days). PM10 exposure was related with reduced total sperm number (70–90 and 0–90 lag days) and total motility (0–90 lag days). NO2 exposure was related with reduced total sperm number (70–90 and 0–90 lag days). SO2 exposure was related with declined total motility (0–9, 10–14, 0–90 lag days) and total sperm number (0–90 lag days).
Conclusion:
Air pollution affects semen quality making it necessary to limit exposure to air pollution for Chinese men. When implementing protective measures, it is necessary to consider the key period of sperm development.
Introduction
8–12% of reproductive-age couples are infertile in the world and its prevalence may be increasing (1). Male factors cause 40–50% of infertile couples (2). Total sperm number, sperm concentration, progressive and total motility are commonly adopted to evaluate male reproductive potential. Sperm quality of sperm donors in China’s Henan Province showed a decreasing trend from 2009 to b2019 (3). Although the exact cause remains unclear, air pollution might be a hazard factor for declining semen quality (4).
Particulate matter (PM) pollution included PM ≤ 10 μm (PM10) as well as PM ≤2.5 μm (PM2.5). Gaseous pollutants included sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3). Due to different economic growth levels and economic development patterns, air pollution varies greatly from place to place (5–9). Air pollution was serious in China due to rapid industrialization (10–13). Air pollution could cause respiratory symptoms (14–16), cardiovascular disease (17–20), kidney disease (21–23), adverse prenatal outcomes (24), and impaired neurodevelopment (25, 26). It remains controversial whether air pollution exposure during the whole sperm development window has an influence on sperm quality (27–47). A meta-analysis of relevant research data is needed.
The growth period of mature sperm is approximately 90 days, including three critical windows: 0–9 days prior to ejaculation (epididymal storage), 10–14 days prior to ejaculation (development of sperm motility), and 70–90 days prior to ejaculation (spermatogenesis) (48). There are fewer studies on which stage of sperm development is most vulnerable to air pollution, but the findings remain controversial (27, 29, 33, 34, 36–40, 42–44, 47). A meta-analysis of relevant research data is needed.
Although there are five systematic review and meta-analyses on whether semen quality is affected by air contaminants (49–53), the measured indicators of the four systematic review and meta-analyses were the mean differences and the exposure periods were not 90 days (49–52). The four systematic review and meta-analyses compare semen quality between men exposed to high levels of air pollution and men exposed to low levels of air pollution and were not standardized when merging the effects of air pollution from different studies (49–52). The main distinction between the reported four meta-analyses and the present work is that we have studied the association air pollution exposure during the whole 90 day period as well as the three critical windows of sperm development. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Xu et al. reported the effect of air pollution exposure during lag 0–90 days or 0–12 weeks on semen quality based on exposure-response relationships but did not report the effect of air pollution exposure during the three critical windows of sperm development (53). The included articles did not include those published in Chinese and those published recently in 2023, and subgroup or sensitivity analyses were also not performed (53). There is still no systematic review on whether semen quality is affected by air pollution exposure during the three critical windows of sperm development.
Therefore, the first meta-analysis was done for analyzing the relation of air pollution exposure during the whole and three critical windows of sperm development and sperm quality in China.
Methods
The present meta-analysis was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (54) as well as PRISMA 2020 checklist had been provided in Supplementary Materials A. This meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO website (No. CRD42022374712). Literature search.
We retrieved the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) as well as Wanfang databases for articles. The search process does not limit the language and search date. Only epidemiological observational studies published in Chinese or English would be included. The applied search words and detailed search strategies are shown in Supplementary Table S1; Supplementary Materials B, respectively. Searches were performed independently by RL and JY Disagreement was resolved by a third author (JL)
Outcomes
Outcomes included total sperm number, sperm concentration, total and progressive motility.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria were: (a) reporting the effect of at least one air pollutant exposure during the whole window and/or critical stages of sperm development on sperm quality; (b) cross-sectional or cohort studies; (c) reporting regression coefficients (β) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); (d) Chinese males; and (e) English and Chinese articles. The measured indicators of case-control studies were the means and standard deviations (SDs) rather than β and 95% CIs.
The following exclusion criteria were adopted: (a) animal studies, case reports, commentaries, reviews, protocols, editorials, conference abstracts, letters, or book chapters; (b) case-control studies; (c) studies in countries other than China; (d) reported shorter or longer exposure period; (e) focused on indoor air pollution; and (f) multivariate logistic regression.
Study selection
Two authors (RL and JY) conducted the literature selection independently. If any disagreement arose during the selection process, it would be resolved by discussing with the third author (JL).
Data extraction
Using a standardized form, the following information was extracted independently from eligible publications by two authors (RL and JY): publication year, first author, design of study, region, setting, research period, study subjects, size of the sample, pollutants exposure measurement, outcome, exposure period, statistical model, adjusted confounding factors, adjusted β with their corresponding 95% CIs. Through discussion with the third author (JL), any disagreement in the data extraction was resolved. The missing information of the original study was requested by contacting the corresponding author.
Quality assessment
Quality assessments of eligible publications were executed independently by two researchers (QW and LW). If there was any inconsistent opinion, it would be resolved by discussing with the third researcher (YD). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist was adopted for evaluating the quality of retrospective as well as prospective cohort studies (55). The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist was adopted for evaluating the quality of cross-sectional studies (56). Based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines (57), the certainty of evidence was started with moderate and further downgraded based on the following items: publication bias, directness, study limitations, consistency, and precision (58, 59), and upgraded for dose-response gradient, strong effect size as well as plausible confounding effect (60).
Data analyses
If the articles did not give interquartile range (IQR) values or original incremental units of pollutant exposure, we would contact the authors by email. For parts per billion (ppb) units, the following equations were used to convert to μg/m3: 1 ppb = 48/22.4 μg/m3 (O3); 1 ppb = 46/22.4 μg/m3 (NO2). It was assumed that the standard ratio of 24 h average, 8 h max, and 1 h max was 8:15:20, which was widely used for O3 conversion (61–63). To improve comparability, we converted all estimates to 24-h average. The standardized increment was 10 μg/m3 in this study, otherwise it would be converted using the following formula (64, 65):
Statistical analyses were conducted with Stata v12.1 (Stata Corp., United States). The β and 95% CIs were combined using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect models. Chi-squared test and I2 statistics were used to quantify the heterogeneity. Heterogeneity existed when p < 0.05 or I2 > 50% (66). In order to find sources of heterogeneity, we conducted sub-group analyses based on design of the study (cross-sectional and cohort), location (northern and southern China), and exposure assessment approaches (estimating models or monitoring station). Egger’s test as well as funnel plots were adopted for assessing publication bias. Stability of the findings was judged with the help of sensitivity analysis. p < 0.05 was statistical significance.
Results
Study characteristics
As depicted in Figure 1, 3,952 publications were retrieved from the seven databases, and 34 articles remained after duplicate literature, abstracts and titles exclusion. After reading the full article, 14 articles were further excluded and detailed exclusion reasons were given in Supplementary Table S2. The remaining 21 eligible publications were eventually included in this meta-analysis. Missing data of original articles were requested by contacting the authors via email or WeChat. Studies with missing information were excluded if multiple contacts with the corresponding author remained unanswered. Table 1 illustrates the primary characteristics of the eligible publications. Table 2 demonstrates the original incremental units, outcomes, statistical models used and adjusted confounding factors of all the eligible studies. If the increment unit of the original study was not 10 μg/m3, effect sizes were converted. The credibility of the evidence was categorized as very low or low (Supplementary Table S3).
Figure 1
Table 1
| Author publication year | Study design | Location | Setting | Study period | Subjects | Sample size | Exposure measurement | Qualitya,b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dai et al. (2022) | Cohort | East China | Urban | 2014–2019 | Male partners of infertile couples | 1,494 men | Air monitoring station | 6 (NOS) |
| Guan et al. (2020) | Cohort | East China | Urban and rural | 2015–2017 | Male partners of infertile couples | 1955 men with 2073 semen samples | Inverse distance weighting model | 7 (NOS) |
| Huang et al. (2019) | Cohort | Central China | Urban | 2014–2015 | Male partners of infertile Couples | 1,081 with 1,278 semen samples | Air monitoring station | 7 (NOS) |
| Huang et al. (2020) | Cohort | South China | Urban | 2018–2019 | Sperm donors | 1,168 men with 3,797 semen samples | Inverse distance weighting model | 8 (NOS) |
| Lao et al. (2018) | Cross-sectional | East China | Urban and rural | 2001–2014 | Men from the general population | 6,475 men | Hybrid spatiotemporal model | 8 (JBI) |
| Liu et al. (2017) | Cohort | Central China | Urban | 2013–2015 | Male partners of infertile couples | 1759 men with 2,184 semen samples | Inverse distance weighting model | 8 (NOS) |
| Ma et al. (2022) | Cohort | Central China | Urban and rural | 2015–2020 | Male partners of infertile couples | 15,112 men with 28,267 semen samples | Inverse distance weighting model | 8 (NOS) |
| Ma et al. (2023) | Cohort | Central China | Urban and rural | 2015–2020 | Male partners of infertile couples | 15,112 men with 28,267 semen samples | Inverse distance weighting model | 8 (NOS) |
| Qiu et al. (2020) | Cohort | Southwest China | Urban | 2013–2018 | Sperm donors | 686 men with 4,841 semen samples | Air monitoring station | 7 (NOS) |
| Tian et al. (2017) | Cohort | Central China | Urban | 2013–2015 | Male partners of infertile couples | 1780 men | Air monitoring station | 7 (NOS) |
| Wang et al. (2018) | Cross-sectional | Central China | Urban | 2013–2015 | Male partners of infertile couples | 1827 men | Air monitoring station | 7 (JBI) |
| Wang et al. (2020) | Cross-sectional | Central China | Urban and rural | 2013–2015 | Male partners of infertile couples | 1852 men | Air monitoring station | 7 (JBI) |
| Wu et al. (2017) | Cohort | Central China | Urban | 2013–2015 | Male partners of infertile couples | 1759 men with 2,184 semen samples | Inverse distance weighting model | 8 (NOS) |
| Wu et al. (2022) | Cohort | East China | Urban | 2014–2016 | Fertile men from NUM-LIFE study | 1,554 men | Inverse distance weighting model | 8 (NOS) |
| Yu et al. (2022) | Cohort | South China | Urban | 2019 | Sperm donors | 1,310 men with 4,912 semen samples | Land-use random forest model | 8 (NOS) |
| Zhang et al. (2019) | Cohort | North China | Urban | 2015–2018 | Sperm donors | 1,116 men with 8,945 semen samples | Air monitoring station | 7 (NOS) |
| Zhang et al. (2023) | Cohort | East China | Urban | 2019–2021 | Sperm donors | 1,515 men | Inverse distance weighting model | 8 (NOS) |
| Zhao et al. (2022) | Cohort | East China | Urban and rural | 2013–2019 | Male partners of infertile couples | 33,876 men | Air monitoring station | 7 (NOS) |
| Zhou et al. (2014) | Cohort | Southwest China | Urban and rural | 2007–2013 | Healthy fertile men | 1,346 men | Air monitoring station | 8 (NOS) |
| Zhou et al. (2018) | Cohort | Southwest China | Urban | 2014–2015 | General college students | 796 men | Air monitoring station | 7 (NOS) |
| Zhou et al. (2021) | Cross-sectional | North China | Urban and rural | 2018–2019 | Male partners of infertile couples | 423 men | Ordinary Kringing model | 8 (JBI) |
Characteristics of the included studies in this meta-analysis.
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist was adopted for evaluating the quality of retrospective as well as prospective cohort studies and the maximum score is 9.
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist was adopted for evaluating the quality of cross-sectional studies and the maximum score is 8.
NUM-LIFE, Nanjing Medical University Longitudinal Investigation of Fertility and the Environment; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; JBI, Joanna Briggs Institute.
Table 2
| Author publication year | Outcome | Exposure period (day) | Pollutants (Original incremental unit) | Statistical mode | Adjusted confounding factors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dai et al. (2022) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (IQR) PM10 (IQR) | Multivariate linear regression models | Age, abstinence days, education level, occupation, average ambient temperature, seasons, and gaseous air pollutants |
| Guan et al. (2020) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (IQR) PM10 (IQR) | Multivariate linear regression models | Age, abstinence days, semen volume |
| Huang et al. (2019) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (IQR) | Multivariate linear mixed models | Age, BMI, race, education, smoking, alcohol consumption, abstinence period, and season |
| Huang et al. (2020) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3) SO2 (μg/m3) NO2 (μg/m3) CO (mg/m3) | Linear mixed-effect models | Age, BMI, percent body fat, ethnic, marital status, childbearing history, career, smoking, alcohol consumption, abstinence period, season, a natural cubic spline function of time, a natural cubic spline function of temperature during exposure period |
| Lao et al. (2018) | Sperm concentration Progressive motility Total motility Percentage of normal morphology | 90 | PM2.5 (5 μg/m3) | Multivariate linear regression models | Age, education level, smoking status, alcohol drinking, exercise and occupational exposure to asbestos and organic solvent, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, fasting blood glucose and total cholesterol levels, season, year of medical examination |
| Liu et al. (2017) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility Total motile sperm count | 90 | SO2 (IQR) NO2 (IQR) CO (IQR) O3 (IQR) | Multiple linear regression analysis | Age, BMI, race, education, smoking amount, alcohol consumption, and abstinence period, temperature, season |
| Ma et al. (2022) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility Progressively motile sperm count Total motile sperm count | 90 | PM2.5 (IQR) PM10 (IQR) | Linear mixed-effects models | Age, BMI, smoking, drinking, occupation, abstinence period, month (at the date of semen collection) and temperature (average temperature of contemporary period) |
| Ma et al. (2023) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility Progressively motile sperm count Total motile sperm count | 90 | SO2 (IQR) NO2 (IQR) CO (IQR) O3 (IQR) | Linear mixed-effects models | Age, BMI, smoking, drinking, occupation, abstinence period, month (at the date of semen collection) and temperature (average temperature of contemporary period) |
| Qiu et al. (2020) | Semen volume Sperm concentration Progressive motility | 90 | PM2.5 (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3) SO2 (μg/m3) NO2 (μg/m3) CO (mg/m3) O3 (1ppb) | Linear mixed-effects models | Abstinence days, age, BMI, education level, year of sample collection, relative humidity (current day, 90-day preceding), temperature (current day, 90-day preceding) |
| Tian et al. (2017) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count | 90 | O3 (μg/m3) | Multivariate linear mixed models | Age, BMI, education level, smoking status, seasons of semen collection, abstinence days, average temperature, average relative humidity |
| Wang et al. (2018) | Semen volume Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM10 (10 μg/m3) | Multiple linear regression analysis | Age, BMI, education level, smoking status, abstinence days, seasons of semen collection, average temperature, average relative humidity |
| Wang et al. (2020) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility | 90 | SO2 (IQR) NO2 (IQR) | Multivariate linear regression models | BMI, education level, smoking, age, and abstinence period, temperature, humidity, season, and PM2.5 |
| Wu et al., (2017) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (IQR) PM10 (IQR) | Multivariate linear regression models | Age, BMI, ethnic, education, smoking, alcohol consumption, abstinence period, season and temperature |
| Wu et al. (2022) | Semen volume Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (10 μg/m3) | Multivariate linear regression models | Age, BMI, ethnicity, education, smoking status, drinking status, family income, abstinence period, season, and temperature |
| Yu et al. (2022) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (IQR) PM10 (IQR) | Linear mixed-effect models | Age. BMI, percent body fat, education, ethnic, martial status, childbearing history, career, smoking, drinking, abstinence period, month, a natural cubic spline function of temperature during exposure period |
| Zhang et al. (2019) | Sperm concentration Progressive motility | 90 | PM2.5 (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3) SO2 (μg/m3) NO2 (μg/m3) CO (mg/m3) O3 (μg/m3) | Linear mixed-effect models | Age, abstinence duration, month, average temperature |
| Zhang et al. (2023) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3) SO2 (μg/m3) NO2 (μg/m3) CO (μg/m3) O3 (μg/m3) | Multivariate linear regression models | Age, ethnicity, season of semen collection, abstinence period and temperature. |
| Zhao et al. (2022) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (IQR) PM10 (IQR) | Linear mixed-effect models | Ethnicity, age, educational level, body mass index, smoking, alcohol consumption, season of semen collection, abstinence period, temperature, relative humidity, and gaseous pollutants |
| Zhou et al. (2014) | Semen volume Sperm concentration Progressive motility Total motility Percentage of normal morphology | 90 | PM10 (μg/m3) SO2 (μg/m3) NO2 (μg/m3) | Multiple linear regression analysis | Age, education, smoking, BMI, alcohol use, abstinence time period and season |
| Zhou et al. (2018) | Semen volume Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Percentage of normal morphology | 90 | PM2.5 (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3) | Multiple linear regression analysis | Age, smoking, alcohol use, BMI and abstinence time |
| Zhou et al. (2021) | Sperm concentration Total sperm count Progressive motility Total motility | 90 | PM2.5 (μg/m3) PM10 (μg/m3) SO2 (μg/m3) NO2 (μg/m3) CO (mg/m3) O3 (μg/m3) | Multiple linear regression models | Abstinence, age, BMI, socioeconomic status, smoking status, alcohol consumption, psychological stress, exposures to heat, metals or solvents, average ambient air temperature, multi-time windows and multi-pollutants |
Pollutants, outcomes, and statistical information of the 19 included studies.
PM2.5, particulate matter with the diameter ≤ 2.5 μm; PM10, particulate matter with diameter ≤ 10 μm; SO2, sulfur dioxide; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; CO, carbon monoxide; O3, ozone; BMI, body mass index; IQR, inter-quartile rages (IQR).
Air pollutants and sperm quality
Six air pollutants exposure during the whole window did not affect sperm concentration (Supplementary Table S4; Figure 2). PM10, SO2, and NO2 exposure during the whole window were related with decreased total sperm number, while such association was not found for PM2.5, CO, and O3 exposure (Supplementary Table S4; Figure 2). PM2.5, PM10 as well as SO2 exposure during the entire window were negatively related with total motility, while such association was not found for other pollutants.
Figure 2
In order to find sources of heterogeneity, we conducted sub-group analyses based on design of the study (cohort and cross-sectional), location (northern China and southern China), and exposure assessment approaches (monitoring station or estimating models). The majority of sub-group results were consistent with the pooled results (Supplementary Table S5; Figure 3).
Figure 3
During 0–9 lag days, only SO2 exposure was related with declined total motility (Supplementary Table S5; Figure 3). During 10–14 lag days, PM.2.5 exposure was adversely related with total sperm number and total motility, SO2 with total motility (Supplementary Table S5; Figure 3). During 70–90 lag days, PM10 and NO2 exposure were adversely related with total sperm number, PM2.5 with total motility (Supplementary Table S5; Figure 3).
Sensitivity analysis
In the sensitivity analyses for six pollutants exposure during the whole window and sperm quality, pooled effect sizes did not change significantly by omitting one study from each analysis, thus indicating that our findings were stable (Supplementary Table S4; Supplementary Figure S1). However, when the study of Wu et al. (40) was omitted from sensitivity analyses of PM2.5 exposure and progressive motility, a significant association disappeared (p = 0.081; Supplementary Table S4; Supplementary Figure S1A). When the study of (34) was omitted from sensitivity analyses of PM10 exposure and sperm concentration, a significant association disappeared (p = 0.119; Supplementary Table S4; Supplementary Figure S1B). When the study by Ma et al. (33) was omitted from the sensitivity analysis of O3 exposure and total motility, a significant association disappeared (p = 0.104; Supplementary Table S4; Supplementary Figure S1F).
In the sensitivity analyses of six pollutants exposure during critical windows and sperm quality, the pooled effect sizes did not change significantly by omitting one study from each analysis, thus indicating that our findings were stable. However, when the study of Ma et al. (33) was omitted from the sensitivity analyses of O3 (70–90 lag days) exposure and total motility, a significant association disappeared (p = 0.197) with heterogeneity decreasing from 51 to 0% (Supplementary Table S5).
Discussion
Summary of study results
China has a population of more than 1.4 billion and covers a land area of approximately 9.6 million km2. Due to the vast territory of China, it varies greatly in climate conditions, landforms, geography, population density, and economic development level in different regions. Based on economic development levels and climatic conditions, China is generally grouped into seven geographic regions (67–69). Detailed geographic location is presented in Supplementary Figure S2. China is roughly classified as southern and northern China (70–72). Distribution of southern and northern China is shown in Figure 4. As a result of the limited sample size, we performed sub-group analysis by location (northern China and southern China). Air quality is closely related with climatic conditions and economic development levels. Air quality is better in western China than in eastern China (67). Economic development levels in western and eastern regions result in different chemical compositions of pollutants (73, 74). In the eastern and central regions, industry and traffic are the primary causes of air pollution (75). Biomass burning and soil dust are the primary reasons of air pollution in the western region. Different sources of air pollution in different regions result in different toxicity, concentrations, and chemical compositions. This may explain, to some extent, the inconsistent results.
Figure 4
Different individual exposure assessment approaches can partially explain the controversial results. Lao et al. estimated individual exposure levels of PM2.5 using a high-resolution (1 × 1 km) spatiotemporal model (31). Zhou et al. (44) adopted the ordinary Kriging model to measure individual exposure concentrations. Some studies used the land-use random forest model (41) or inverse distance weighting model (28, 29, 32, 34, 39, 40) to assess the actual individual exposure levels. Some other studies used the averaged levels of the city-wide or the nearest monitoring station to assess actual individual pollutant exposure concentrations (27, 30, 35–38, 42, 43, 45, 46).
This is the first meta-analysis to analyze potential impacts of ambient air pollution exposure during the whole window and three critical windows on semen quality in China. Sperm motility, a conventional semen parameter, is one of the common indicators of fertility assessment. Sperm motility is commonly used as one of the most important sperm functions to determine whether female partners can successfully conceive without any assisted reproductive technology (ART). Sperm motility parameters are also sensitive indicators of male reproductive toxicity (76). PM10, PM2.5 as well as SO2 exposure were adversely related with total motility during 0–90 days prior to ejaculation. PM2.5, CO as well as O3 exposure were adversely related with total sperm number during 0–90 lag days.
In order to find sources of heterogeneity, we conducted sub-group analyses based on design of the study (cohort and cross-sectional), location (northern China and southern China), and exposure assessment approaches (monitoring station or estimating models). Although subgroup analysis reduced heterogeneity to some extent, heterogeneity remained high level in some subgroups, and it was necessary to continue to explore potential sources of between-studies heterogeneity.
In addition, the possible exposure susceptibility window was also investigated. PM2.5 exposure affected total motility (10–14 and 70–90 lag days) and total sperm number (10–14 lag days). PM10 affected total sperm number (70–90 lag days). SO2 influenced total sperm number (0–9 and 10–14 lag days). NO2 affected total sperm number (70–90 lag days). The findings suggested that pollutants exposure might affect total motility and total sperm number.
Biological mechanisms
The biological mechanisms that environmental pollutant exposure may damage the development of total motility have not been elucidated. PM10, PM2.5, and O3 exposure can lead to elevated concentrations of reactive oxygen species (77, 78), which may disrupt the blood-testis barrier, detriment spermatogenesis and result in declined sperm motility (79–82). PM exposure can also cause systemic inflammatory reactions by elevating tumor necrosis factor (TNF) as well as interleukin-1β (IL-1β) levels (83–86). Higher concentrations of IL-1β and TNF are related with impaired total sperm motility (87–89). Significant reduction in air pollutants emissions was accompanied by improvements in people’s markers of inflammatory conditions, thrombosis as well as oxidation stress (90). We hypothesized that environmental pollutant exposure would elevate oxidative stress levels and inflammatory reactions, which could lead to decreased total sperm motility. This hypothesis requires further toxicological studies to elucidate the detailed mechanism of reduced sperm motility caused by environmental pollutant exposure.
Strengths and limitations
This present meta-analysis has three advantages. First, it is the first meta-analysis to analyze whether semen quality is affected by air pollution exposure during the whole and critical windows. Second, the findings are relatively new as a result of most eligible studies being published within recent 4 years. Third, results of different original studies were difficult to compare since the exposure increment units were different in most cases. Therefore, the comparability of the results was improved by standardizing the data through transformation.
However, the present meta-analysis still has four limitations. First, a high degree of heterogeneity for some pollutants was found, which may be explained by differences in pollutant concentrations, types of air pollutants, chemical components of particulate matter, individual exposure assessment approaches, design of the study, study setting, sample size, study regions, selection bias, and adjustment confounding factors. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, caution should be given when interpreting some pooled effects. A high degree of heterogeneity may also hinder the detection of publication bias. Second, selective bias may occur due to some of the included studies selecting patients from infertility clinics. Third, subgroup analysis by exposure assessment approaches was not performed as a result of the insufficient sample size. Fourth, the sample size is still inadequate, with only 2 articles from northern China being included. Insufficient data might lead to inescapable errors, and the original researches need to be further supplemented. Fifth, many of the included studies obtained estimates of air pollution exposure from ecological data or modeling and did not examine individual exposure to air pollution.
Conclusion
This evidence suggested that ambient air pollution could reduce semen quality in Chinese men and may even lead to infertility. For Chinese men, there is a need to reduce the duration of exposure. Further studies should be conducted to explore the possible biological mechanisms behind the findings observed in this study.
Funding
The present study was funded by the Henan Provincial Science and Technology Research Project (No. LHGJ20190389).
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Author contributions
JL and YD proposed the idea and designed the present study, interpreted the findings, and were responsible for statistical analysis and manuscript writing. RL and JY performed literature retrieval, study selection, and data extraction. QW and LW performed the quality assessment. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
We thank authors of the included eligible studies for their timely responses to our questions.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1219340/full#supplementary-material
References
1.
InhornMCPatrizioP. Infertility around the globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. (2015) 21:411–26. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmv016
2.
OdishoAYNangiaAKKatzPPSmithJF. Temporal and geospatial trends in male factor infertility with assisted reproductive technology in the United States from 1999-2010. Fertil Steril. (2018) 110:5–11. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.008
3.
LiuJDaiYLiYYuanEWangQWangXet al. A longitudinal study of semen quality among Chinese sperm donor candidates during the past 11 years. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:10771. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67707-x
4.
KrzastekSCFarhiJGrayMSmithRP. Impact of environmental toxin exposure on male fertility potential. Transl Androl Urol. (2020) 9:2797–813. doi: 10.21037/tau-20-685
5.
JonesMRDiez-RouxAVHajatAKershawKNO'NeillMSGuallarEet al. Race/ethnicity, residential segregation, and exposure to ambient air pollution: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA). Am J Public Health. (2014) 104:2130–7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302135
6.
SuJGJerrettMde NazelleAWolchJ. Does exposure to air pollution in urban parks have socioeconomic, racial or ethnic gradients?Environ Res. (2011) 111:319–28. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2011.01.002
7.
ZhangYZhangHFuYWangLWangT. Effects of industrial agglomeration and environmental regulation on urban ecological efficiency: evidence from 269 cities in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. (2021) 28:66389–408. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15467-0
8.
JiangMKimEWooY. The relationship between economic growth and air pollution-a regional comparison between China and South Korea. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:17. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082761
9.
LiYChiuYHLinTY. The impact of economic growth and air pollution on public health in 31 Chinese cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:393. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16030393
10.
LiuLYangXLiuHWangMWellesSMárquezSet al. Spatial-temporal analysis of air pollution, climate change, and Total mortality in 120 cities of China, 2012-2013. Front Public Health. (2016) 4:143. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00143
11.
ZengYCaoYQiaoXSeylerBCTangY. Air pollution reduction in China: recent success but great challenge for the future. Sci Total Environ. (2019) 663:329–37. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134180
12.
SongCWuLXieYHeJChenXWangTet al. Air pollution in China: status and spatiotemporal variations. Environ Pollut. (2017) 227:334–47. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.075
13.
GuoPUmarovaABLuanY. The spatiotemporal characteristics of the air pollutants in China from 2015 to 2019. PLoS One. (2020) 15:e0227469. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227469
14.
CollacoJMAoyamaBCRiceJLMcGrath-MorrowSA. Influences of environmental exposures on preterm lung disease. Expert Rev Respir Med. (2021) 15:1271–9. doi: 10.1080/17476348.2021.1941886
15.
GuanWJZhengXYChungKFZhongNS. Impact of air pollution on the burden of chronic respiratory diseases in China: time for urgent action. Lancet. (2016) 388:1939–51. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31597-5
16.
DuttaAJinsartW. Air pollution in Delhi, India: It's status and association with respiratory diseases. PLoS One. (2022) 17:e0274444. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274444
17.
CosselmanKENavas-AcienAKaufmanJD. Environmental factors in cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol. (2015) 12:627–42. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2015.152
18.
HayesRBLimCZhangYCromarKShaoYReynoldsHRet al. PM2.5 air pollution and cause-specific cardiovascular disease mortality. Int J Epidemiol. (2020) 49:25–35. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz114
19.
JoshiSSMillerMRNewbyDE. Air pollution and cardiovascular disease: the Paul wood lecture, British cardiovascular society 2021. Heart. (2022) 108:1267–73. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2021-319844
20.
FranklinBABrookRArden PopeC. Air pollution and cardiovascular disease. Curr Probl Cardiol. (2015) 40:207–38. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2015.01.003
21.
ChenYCaoFXiaoJPFangXYWangXRDingLHet al. Emerging role of air pollution in chronic kidney disease. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. (2021) 28:52610–24. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16031-6
22.
XuXNieSDingHHouFF. Environmental pollution and kidney diseases. Nat Rev Nephrol. (2018) 14:313–24. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2018.11
23.
OkoyeOCCarnegieEMoraL. Air pollution and chronic kidney disease risk in oil and gas-situated communities: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Int J Public Health. (2022) 67:1604522. doi: 10.3389/ijph.2022.1604522
24.
GhoshRCauseyKBurkartKWozniakSCohenABrauerM. Ambient and household PM2.5 pollution and adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-regression and analysis of attributable global burden for 204 countries and territories. PLoS Med. (2021) 18:e1003718. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003718
25.
MorrisRHCounsellSJMcGonnellIMThorntonC. Early life exposure to air pollution impacts neuronal and glial cell function leading to impaired neurodevelopment. BioEssays. (2021) 43:e2000288. doi: 10.1002/bies.202000288
26.
LevyRJ. Carbon monoxide pollution and neurodevelopment: a public health concern. Neurotoxicol Teratol. (2015) 49:31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ntt.2015.03.001
27.
DaiXChenGZhangMMeiKLiuYDingCet al. Exposure to ambient particulate matter affects semen quality: a case study in Wenzhou, China. J Androl. (2023) 11:444–55. doi: 10.1111/andr.13326
28.
GuanQChenSWangBDouXLuYLiangJet al. Effects of particulate matter exposure on semen quality: a retrospective cohort study. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. (2020) 193:110319:110319. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110319
29.
HuangGZhangQWuHWangQChenYGuoPet al. Sperm quality and ambient air pollution exposure: a retrospective, cohort study in a southern province of China. Environ Res. (2020) 188:109756. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109756
30.
HuangXZhangBWuLZhouYLiYMaoXet al. Association of Exposure to ambient fine particulate matter constituents with semen quality among men attending a fertility Center in China. Environ Sci Technol. (2019) 53:5957–65. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b06942
31.
LaoXQZhangZLauAKHChanTCChuangYCChanJet al. Exposure to ambient fine particulate matter and semen quality in Taiwan. Occup Environ Med. (2018) 75:148–54. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2017-104529
32.
LiuYZhouYMaJBaoWLiJZhouTet al. Inverse association between ambient Sulfur dioxide exposure and semen quality in Wuhan, China. Environmental Buyers' Guide. (2017) 51:12806–14. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b03289
33.
MaYPengXPanZHuCXiaQCaiGet al. Linear and non-linear relationships between sulfur dioxide and semen quality: a longitudinal study in Anhui. China Environ Res. (2023) 216:114731. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.114731
34.
MaYZhangJCaiGXiaQXuSHuCet al. Inverse association between ambient particulate matter and semen quality in Central China: evidence from a prospective cohort study of 15,112 participants. Sci Total Environ. (2022) 833:155252. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155252
35.
QiuYYangTSeylerBCWangXWangYJiangMet al. Ambient air pollution and male fecundity: a retrospective analysis of longitudinal data from a Chinese human sperm bank (2013-2018). Environ Res. (2020) 186:109528. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109528
36.
TianXJWangXCYeBLiCLZhangYMaL. The effects of exposure to ozone on sperm quality in Wuhan. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. (2017) 51:197–202. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2017.03.002
37.
WangXTianXYeBZhangYLiCLiaoJet al. Gaseous pollutant exposure affects semen quality in Central China: a cross-sectional study. Andrology. (2020) 8:117–24. doi: 10.1111/andr.12655
38.
WangXCTianXJYeBMaLZhangYYangJ. The effect of ambient PM(10) on sperm quality in Wuhan. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. (2018) 52:73–8. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2018.01.014
39.
WuLJinLShiTZhangBZhouYZhouTet al. Association between ambient particulate matter exposure and semen quality in Wuhan, China. Environ Int. (2017) 98:219–28. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.013
40.
WuWChenYChengYTangQPanFTangNet al. Association between ambient particulate matter exposure and semen quality in fertile men. Environ Health. (2022) 21:16. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00831-5
41.
YuXWangQWeiJZengQXiaoLNiHet al. Impacts of traffic-related particulate matter pollution on semen quality: a retrospective cohort study relying on the random forest model in a megacity of South China. Sci Total Environ. (2022) 851:158387. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158387
42.
ZhangHTZhangZCaoJTangWHZhangHLHongKet al. Ambient ozone pollution is associated with decreased semen quality: longitudinal analysis of 8945 semen samples from 2015 to 2018 and during pollution-control period in Beijing, China. AJA. (2019) 21:501–7. doi: 10.4103/aja.aja_116_18
43.
ZhaoYZhuQLinJCaiJ. Association of Exposure to particulate matter air pollution with semen quality among men in China. JAMA Netw Open. (2022) 5:e2148684. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48684
44.
ZhouLLiLHaoGLiBYangSWangNet al. Sperm mtDNA copy number, telomere length, and seminal spermatogenic cells in relation to ambient air pollution: results of a cross-sectional study in Jing-Jin-Ji region of China. J Hazard Mater. (2021) 406:124308–124308. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124308
45.
ZhouNCuiZYangSHanXChenGZhouZet al. Air pollution and decreased semen quality: a comparative study of Chongqing urban and rural areas. Environ Pollut (2014) 187:145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.12.030
46.
ZhouNJiangCChenQYangHWangXZouPet al. Exposures to atmospheric PM10 and PM10-2.5 affect male semen quality: results of MARHCS study. Environ Sci Technol. (2018) 52:1571–81. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.7b05206
47.
ZhangFLiHXuWSongGWangZMaoXet al. Sulfur dioxide may predominate in the adverse effects of ambient air pollutants on semen quality among the general population in Hefei, China. Sci Total Environ. (2023):165681. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165681
48.
IngNHCurleyKOWelshTHJohnsonLStaubC. Anatomy and Physiology of the Male Reproductive System and Potential Targets of Toxicants. Comprehensive Toxicology. Amsterdam: Elsevier; (2018). 2–63.
49.
DengZChenFZhangMLanLQiaoZCuiYet al. Association between air pollution and sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Pollut. (2016) 208:663–9. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.10.044
50.
QianHXuQYanWFanYLiZTaoCet al. Association between exposure to ambient air pollution and semen quality in adults: a meta-analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. (2022) 29:10792–801. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16484-9
51.
ZhangJCaiZMaCXiongJLiH. Impacts of outdoor air pollution on human semen quality: a Meta-analysis and systematic review. Biomed Res Int. (2020) 2020:7528901. doi: 10.1155/2020/7528901
52.
Fathi NajafiTLatifnejad RoudsariRNamvarFGhavami GhanbarabadiVHadizadeh TalasazZEsmaeliM. Air pollution and quality of sperm: a meta-analysis. Iran Red Crescent Med J. (2015) 17:e26930. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.17(4)2015.26930
53.
XuRZhongYLiRLiYZhongZLiuTet al. Association between exposure to ambient air pollution and semen quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ. (2023) 870:161892. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161892
54.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPMBoutronIHoffmannTCMulrowCDet al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. (2021) 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
55.
StangA. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. (2010) 25:603–5. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z
56.
MoolaSMunnZTufanaruCAromatarisESearsKSfeticRet al. Chapter 7: systematic reviews of etiology and risk. JBI Reviewer's Manual. (2019). doi: 10.46658/JBIRM-17-06
57.
MorganRLThayerKABeroLBruceNFalck-YtterYGhersiDet al. GRADE: assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health. Environ Int. (2016) 92-93:611–6. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.004
58.
BalshemHHelfandMSchünemannHJOxmanADKunzRBrozekJet al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. (2011) 64:401–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
59.
GuyattGHOxmanADKunzRBrozekJAlonso-CoelloPRindDet al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. J Clin Epidemiol. (2011) 64:1283–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012
60.
RavindraKChananaNMorS. Exposure to air pollutants and risk of congenital anomalies: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Sci Total Environ. (2021) 765:142772. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142772
61.
BellMLDominiciFSametJM. A meta-analysis of time-series studies of ozone and mortality with comparison to the national morbidity, mortality, and air pollution study. Epidemiology. (2005) 16:436–45. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000165817.40152.85
62.
WongCMVichit-VadakanNKanHQianZ. Public health and air pollution in Asia (PAPA): a multicity study of short-term effects of air pollution on mortality. Environ Health Perspect. (2008) 116:1195–202. doi: 10.1289/ehp.11257
63.
YinPChenRWangLMengXLiuCNiuYet al. Ambient ozone pollution and daily mortality: a Nationwide study in 272 Chinese cities. Environ Health Perspect. (2017) 125:117006. doi: 10.1289/EHP1849
64.
HuangSZhangXHuangJLuXLiuFGuD. Ambient air pollution and body weight status in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Pollut. (2020) 265:114999. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114999
65.
YangBYQianZHowardSWVaughnMGFanSJLiuKKet al. Global association between ambient air pollution and blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Pollut. (2018) 235:576–88. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.01.001
66.
HigginsJPThompsonSDeeksJJJjDAltmanDGAltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. (2003) 327:557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
67.
HaoYNiuXWangJ. Impacts of haze pollution on China's tourism industry: a system of economic loss analysis. J Environ Manag. (2021) 295:113051. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113051
68.
TangHZhangSChenW. Assessing representative CCUS layouts for China's power sector toward carbon neutrality. Environ Sci Technol. (2021) 55:11225–35. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.1c03401
69.
LiJHuangYZhangBNFanJHHuangRZhangPet al. Body mass index and breast cancer defined by biological receptor status in pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women: a multicenter study in China. PLoS One. (2014) 9:e87224. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087224
70.
HuYChenJWangRLiMYunCLiWet al. Vitamin D nutritional status and its related factors for Chinese children and adolescents in 2010-2012. Nutrients. (2017) 9:1024. doi: 10.3390/nu9091024
71.
LvMQGePZhangJYangYQZhouLZhouDX. Temporal trends in semen concentration and count among 327 373 Chinese healthy men from 1981 to 2019: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. (2021) 36:1751–75. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deab124
72.
WangXDYangXXuHBCaoPGaoPLiangJ. Exposure status and health risk assessment of deoxynivalenol from cereals in Chinese population in different regions. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi. (2019) 53:394–7. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-9624.2019.04.012
73.
ZhengJYangXHuSWangYLiuJ. Association between short-term exposure to air pollution and respiratory diseases among children in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Health Res. (2022) 32:2512–32. doi: 10.1080/09603123.2021.1974822
74.
LiuYXieSYuQHuoXMingXWangJet al. Short-term effects of ambient air pollution on pediatric outpatient visits for respiratory diseases in Yichang city, China, Environ Pollut B (2017); 227:116–124. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.04.029
75.
ChaiGHeHShaYZhaiGZongS. Effect of PM2.5 on daily outpatient visits for respiratory diseases in Lanzhou, China. Sci Total Environ. (2019) 649:1563–72. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.384
76.
KwackSJLeeBM. Comparative cytotoxicity and sperm motility using a computer-aided sperm analysis system (CASA) for isomers of phthalic acid, a common final metabolite of phthalates. J Toxicol Environ Health A. (2015) 78:1038–50. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2015.1067503
77.
KellyFJ. Oxidative stress: its role in air pollution and adverse health effects. Occup Environ Med. (2003) 60:612–6. doi: 10.1136/oem.60.8.612
78.
SaffariADaherNShaferMMSchauerJJSioutasC. Global perspective on the oxidative potential of airborne particulate matter: a synthesis of research findings. Environ Sci Technol. (2014) 48:7576–83. doi: 10.1021/es500937x
79.
GuthrieHDWelchGR. Effects of reactive oxygen species on sperm function. Theriogenology. (2012) 78:1700–8. doi: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.05.002
80.
TakeshimaTYumuraYYasudaKSanjoHKurodaSYamanakaHet al. Inverse correlation between reactive oxygen species in unwashed semen and sperm motion parameters as measured by a computer-assisted semen analyzer. Asian J Androl. (2017) 19:350–4. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.173933
81.
WeiYCaoXNTangXLShenLJLinTHeDWet al. Urban fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure destroys blood-testis barrier (BTB) integrity through excessive ROS-mediated autophagy. Toxicol Mech Methods. (2018) 28:302–19. doi: 10.1080/15376516.2017.1410743
82.
GurelCKuscuGCBuhurADagdevirenMOltuluFKarabay YavasogluNUet al. Fluvastatin attenuates doxorubicin-induced testicular toxicity in rats by reducing oxidative stress and regulating the blood-testis barrier via mTOR signaling pathway. Hum Exp Toxicol. (2019) 38:1329–43. doi: 10.1177/0960327119862006
83.
GuanLGengXStoneCCoskyEEPJiYduHet al. PM2.5exposure induces systemic inflammation and oxidative stress in an intracranial atherosclerosis rat model. Environ Toxicol. (2019) 34:530–8. doi: 10.1002/tox.22707
84.
XuFShiXQiuXJiangXFangYWangJet al. Investigation of the chemical components of ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) associated with in vitro cellular responses to oxidative stress and inflammation. Environ Int (2020) 136:105475. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105475
85.
CaoWWangXLiJYanMChangCHKimJet al. NLRP3 inflammasome activation determines the fibrogenic potential of PM(2.5) air pollution particles in the lung. J Environ Sci (China). (2022) 111:429–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jes.2021.04.021
86.
LiuCFonkenLKWangAMaiseyeuABaiYWangTYet al. Central IKKβ inhibition prevents air pollution mediated peripheral inflammation and exaggeration of type II diabetes. Part Fibre Toxicol. (2014) 11:53. doi: 10.1186/s12989-014-0053-5
87.
Eggert-KruseWKieferIBeckCDemirakcaTStrowitzkiT. Role for tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin 1-beta (IL-1β) determination in seminal plasma during infertility investigation. Fertil Steril. (2007) 87:810–23. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.08.103
88.
ZhouLSuXLiBChuCSunHZhangNet al. PM2.5 exposure impairs sperm quality through testicular damage dependent on NALP3 inflammasome and miR-183/96/182 cluster targeting FOXO1 in mouse. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. (2019) 169:551–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.10.108
89.
MorettiECosciISpreaficoASerchiTCupponeAMCollodelG. Semen characteristics and inflammatory mediators in infertile men with different clinical diagnoses. Int J Androl. (2009) 32:637–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2008.00911.x
90.
LinWZhuTXueTPengWBrunekreefBGehringUet al. Association between changes in exposure to air pollution and biomarkers of oxidative stress in children before and during the Beijing Olympics. Am J Epidemiol. (2015) 181:575–83. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu327
Summary
Keywords
semen analysis, air pollution, particulate matter, meta-analysis, systematic review
Citation
Liu J, Dai Y, Li R, Yuan J, Wang Q and Wang L (2023) Does air pollution exposure affect semen quality? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 93,996 Chinese men. Front. Public Health 11:1219340. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1219340
Received
09 May 2023
Accepted
21 July 2023
Published
03 August 2023
Volume
11 - 2023
Edited by
Barbara Piekarska, Medical University of Warsaw, Poland
Reviewed by
Gennaro Lettieri, University Language Center, University of Naples Federico II, Italy; Nitya Kumar, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (Bahrain), Bahrain
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Liu, Dai, Li, Yuan, Wang and Wang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Junjie Liu, zdsfyljj@zzu.edu.cn
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.