Additional file 1 of Does fine particulate matter (PM2.5) affect the benefits of habitual physical activity on lung function in adults: a longitudinal cohort study
Creators: name: Guo, Cui
name: Yacong Bo
name: Ta-Chien Chan
name: Zilong Zhang
name: Changqing Lin
name: Tam, Tony
name: Lau, Alexis K. H.
name: Ly-Yun Chang
name: Hoek, Gerard
name: Lao, Xiang Qian
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2020
Subjects: subject: Medicine
subject: Biotechnology
subject: 59999 Environmental Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences
subject: FOS: Earth and related environmental sciences
subject: 69999 Biological Sciences not elsewhere classified
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: FOS: Biological sciences
subject: Science Policy

description: Additional file 1: Figure S1. The flow chart of participants selection. Table S1. Comparison on lung function at baseline with different levels of physical activity and PM2.5 exposures (N=278,065). Abbreviations: PA, physical activity; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; MMEF, maximum mid-expiratory flow. Lung function was logarithmically transformed to normalise the data for analysis and then the original scale was transformed back to present the effects as percentage (%) difference in lung function parameters with 95% confidence interval. Results were fully adjusted for age, sex, educational level, body mass index, season, year, physical labour at work, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake, fruit intake, occupational exposure to dust &amp; organic solvent, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, self-reported cardiovascular disease and self-reported cancer. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartile of PM2.5 was &lt;21.59, 21.59-24.00, 24.00-29.39 and ≥29.39 μg/m3 respectively. Table S2. Comparison on lung function with different levels of physical activity and PM2.5 exposures in the participants with more than one medical examinations (N=405,451). Abbreviations: PA, physical activity; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; MMEF, maximum mid-expiratory flow. Lung function was logarithmically transformed to normalise the data for analysis and then the original scale was transformed back to present the effects as percentage (%) difference in lung function parameters with 95% confidence interval. Results were fully adjusted for age, sex, educational level, body mass index, season, year, physical labour at work, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake, fruit intake, occupational exposure to dust &amp; organic solvent, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, self-reported cardiovascular disease and self-reported cancer. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartile of PM2.5 was &lt;21.70, 21.70-24.16, 24.16-28.57 and ≥28.57 μg/m3 respectively. Table S3. Comparison on lung function with different levels of physical activity and PM2.5 exposures for the healthy participants without prior lung-related diseases (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, and cancer) (N=538,678). Abbreviations: PA, physical activity; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; MMEF, maximum mid-expiratory flow. Lung function was logarithmically transformed to normalise the data for analysis and then the original scale was transformed back to present the effects as percentage (%) difference in lung function parameters with 95% confidence interval. Results were fully adjusted for age, sex, educational level, body mass index, season, year, physical labour at work, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake, fruit intake, occupational exposure to dust &amp; organic solvent, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, self-reported cardiovascular disease and self-reported cancer. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartile of PM2.5 was &lt;21.68, 21.68-24.16, 24.16-28.96 and ≥28.96 μg/m3 respectively. Table S4. Comparison on lung function of healthy Taiwanese adults older than 25 years old with different levels of physical activity and PM2.5 exposures (N=548,811). Abbreviations: PA, physical activity; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; MMEF, maximum mid-expiratory flow. Lung function was logarithmically transformed to normalise the data for analysis and then the original scale was transformed back to present the effects as percentage (%) difference in lung function parameters with 95% confidence interval. Results were fully adjusted for age, sex, educational level, body mass index, season, year, physical labour at work, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake, fruit intake, occupational exposure to dust &amp; organic solvent, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, self-reported cardiovascular disease and self-reported cancer. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartile of PM2.5 was &lt;21.68, 21.68-24.14, 24.14-28.76 and ≥28.76 μg/m3 respectively. Table S5. Comparison on lung function with different levels of physical activity and PM2.5 exposures for the participants providing only residential addresses (N=567,557). Abbreviations: PA, physical activity; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; MMEF, maximum mid-expiratory flow. Lung function was logarithmically transformed to normalise the data for analysis and then the original scale was transformed back to present the effects as percentage (%) difference in lung function parameters with 95% confidence interval. Results were fully adjusted for age, sex, educational level, body mass index, season, year, physical labour at work, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake, fruit intake, occupational exposure to dust &amp; organic solvent, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, self-reported cardiovascular disease and self-reported cancer. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartile of PM2.5 was &lt;21.56, 21.56-24.03, 24.03-29.76 and ≥29.76 μg/m3 respectively. Table S6. Comparison on lung function of non-smokers with different levels of physical activity and PM2.5 exposures (N=423,491). Abbreviations: PA, physical activity; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; MMEF, maximum mid-expiratory flow. Lung function was logarithmically transformed to normalise the data for analysis and then the original scale was transformed back to present the effects as percentage (%) difference in lung function parameters with 95% confidence interval. Results were fully adjusted for age, sex, educational level, body mass index, season, year, physical labour at work, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake, fruit intake, occupational exposure to dust &amp; organic solvent, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, self-reported cardiovascular disease and self-reported cancer. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartile of PM2.5 was &lt;21.70, 21.70-24.17, 24.17-29.22 and ≥29.22 μg/m3 respectively. Table S7. Associations of lung function with habitual physical activity and PM2.5 exposure in Taiwanese adults (N=567,557). Abbreviations: PA, physical activity; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second; MMEF, maximum mid-expiratory flow. Lung function was logarithmically transformed to normalise the data for analysis and then the original scale was transformed back to present the effects as percentage (%) difference in lung function parameters with 95% confidence interval. The effects were presented as % difference in lung function with 95% confidence level. Participants who were in inactive-PA category or in the 1st quartile of PM2.5 comprised the reference group. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quartile of PM2.5 was &lt;21.67, 21.67-24.14, 24.14-28.81 and ≥28.81 μg/m3, respectively. a Model 1: adjusted for age, sex, educational level, body mass index, season, year, physical labour at work, smoking, drinking, vegetable intake and fruit intake; Model 2 further adjusted for occupational exposure to dust &amp; organic solvent.