Occupational exposure to air pollutants: particulate matter and respiratory symptoms affecting traffic-police in Bogota/Exposicion ocupacional a contaminantes atmosfericos: material particulado y sintomas respiratorios en policias de transito de Bogota.
Study population and design
This was a cross-sectional study which lasted one year on a sample of 574 police officers working in the metropolitan area of Bogota. Traffic-police were defined as being the exposed group, regarding their operational duties (477 police officers), and police having administrative functions (97 office police) formed the less exposed or control group. The sample was based on the prevalence for respiratory symptoms (cough) for individuals who were occupationally exposed to PM, according to previous studies (10). These police agents were working in twelve operational areas and formed five special groups: environmental control, bus and airport terminal control, road construction group, mass transit system control and police officers working at the tolls on the city's limits. Inclusion criteria required the officers to be volunteers and that they had signed the informed consent form. The study complied with international and national ethical health research standards and was granted approval by the Universidad Nacional de Colombia's the School of Medicine's ethics committee and the Colombian Police Health Department's equivalent body.
Sampling [PM.sub.10] levels
Personal [PM.sub.10] measurement and sampling strategy involved using the methodology recommended by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (11). Calibrated and certified battery-operated pumps were used for personal sampling (MSA Escort ELF and Apex Pro Casella). The devices were carried during working hours and flow-rate sampling was checked with a flow-meter at the beginning and end of each shift. PM10 concentrations, obtained from the city's network of air quality monitoring stations, were calculated by applying correction factors for environmental variables (humidity and barometric pressure)for the day and area where the respective sampling was made. The measurements were compared with [PM.sub.10] occupational exposure limits established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).
An amended version of the American Thoracic Society's Division of Lung Disease (ATS-DLD-78) health status questionnaire was used; this requests data concerning demographic variables, the presence of respiratory symptoms, family medical history, occupational exposure to substances causing respiratory disorders, smoking index, exposure to indoor sources of pollution, the use of respiratory protection devices and current employment history.
Toxicological medical evaluation
The participants' clinical status was individually assessed regarding vital signs, anthropometric measurement, otorhinolaryngology and a review of the officers' rib cages, emphasizing cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Clinical signs of ocular and nasal irritation were also evaluated.
Lung function test
A portable spirometer (Jaeger) was used by qualified personnel at the end of the workday, following ATS spirometry criteria and standardization procedures; vital capacity (VC), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and the CVF/VEF1 ratio were evaluated. These volumes were evaluated at baseline and after bronchodilator administration. Spirometric measurements were interpreted by blinded assessment by an expert on the subject (pulmonologist) for the final report.
Respiratory disorder diagnosis
A diagnosis of lower respiratory tract disorder was defined as being a report of a respiratory symptom (cough, expectoration, wheezing or dyspnea) and/or the presence of clinical signs of impaired breathing (stridor, wheezing, crackles) and/or the presence of spirometric impairment. A diagnosis of upper respiratory tract impairment was defined as being a reported upper respiratory symptom (runny nose, nasal itching, throat clearing, facial pain, etc.) and/or presence of clinical signs of upper respiratory tract disorder (nasal mucosa hyperaemia, profuserhinorrhoea, turbinate hypertrophy, nasal bleeding or stigmata of bleeding, pale nasal mucosa, facial pain on palpation of sinuses, runny posterior epistaxis, oropharynx failure).
SPSS 18.0 for Windows (Chicago, IL, USA) and STATA 9.0.) was used for analyzing the data; Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests were used for finding differences between categorical characteristics' frequency between groups. The F test was used to find differences between the groups' average values. Bivariate analysis involved finding differences between exposed and control groups concerning respiratory symptoms using stratified analysis by estimating and comparing odds ratio (OR), with the respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Multivariate analysis (logistic regression model) weighed each factor regarding the outcome or degree of association. A p-value below 0,05 was considered statistically significant.
Most of the 574 individuals evaluated were male (average age = 29.9 years-old);there were statistically significant differences between groups regarding gender and educational level (i.e. categorical variables). Higher average age, length of time residing in Bogota and seniority were found in the police office-based group.
The exposed group had greater prevalence regarding a record of respiratory disease (bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma and tuberculosis) (15.5% cf 10.5%) and higher frequency concerning a history of occupational exposure to dust, gases and smoke (40.2% cf 31.2%) compared to office-based police. Natural gas was the most widely used fuel in the agents' homes. The use of personal respiratory protection devices was very low in both study groups (Table 1).
Respiratory symptoms and diagnosis
Regarding respiratory symptoms, the traffic-police group had a higher prevalence of cough (18.% cf 6.2%; OR 3.4: 1.5-8.2 95% CI) and expectoration (19.9% cf 8.2%; OR 2.8:1.3-5.9 95% CI). Reports of lower respiratory tract symptoms were higher in the traffic-police group compared to the office group (37.1% cf 30.9%; OR 1.3: 0.8-2.1 95% CI). The traffic-police group had more prevalent diagnosis of lower (58.7% cf 48.5%; OR 1.5: 0.9-2.3 95% CI) and higher respiratory disorder (79.7% cf 72.2%; OR 1.5: 0.9-2.5 95% CI); however, no statistically significant differences were found (Table 2).
Toxicological medical assessment
The exposed group had a high prevalence of ocular irritation (32.9%; OR 6.3: 2.8-13.9 95% CI) and signs of nasal irritation (62.3%; OR3.7: 2.3-5.9 95% CI) compared to controls (Table 2).
Lung function test
The exposed group suffered more spirometric changes (8.4%; OR1.5: 0.92.4 95% CI), this being the most common obstructive pattern for both groups. Post-bronchodilator spirometry pattern suggested airway irritability syndrome in 29.4% of the exposed group and 29.9% of the control group (OR 0.97:0.6-1.6 95% CI) (Table 2). There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups regarding mean values for lung function parameters (FVC, FEV1, CVF/VEF1, CV) during pre-or-post-bronchodilator spirometry (Table 1).
Average [PM.sub.10] value was higher in the exposed group (139.4 [+ or -] 76.5 [micro]g/ [m.sup.3]) than in the control group (86.0 [+ or -] 29.8 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]), the difference being statistically significant (Table 1). None of the measurements exceeded the permissible occupational exposure limit proposed by the ACGIH (3 mg/ [m.sup.3]). [PM.sub.10] monitoring of work areas revealed the highest concentrations in area 8 (242.9 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]), the road construction group (180.1 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]), those working at the bus terminal (161.3 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]) and in area 7 (176.6 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]). The average overall exposure values regarding work shift were higher for afternoon working hours (139.4 mg/[m.sup.3]), followed by the morning (136.1 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]) and night (111.2 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]) (Table 4).
Analysis of smoking. Smoking prevalence was higher in the exposed group (42.3% cf 36.1%). The results were included in multivariate analysis for adjusting the degree of association regarding other variables to enable studying this factor's influence.
Smoking was associated as a risk factor regarding a diagnosis of lower respiratory tract disorder (OR1.4: 0.8-2.4 95% CI); however, there was no statistical significance. Belonging to the exposed group, being male, having a history of lung disease and being a smoker were also statistically associated with symptoms and diagnosis. [PM.sub.10] concentration was not significantly associated with outcome in the multivariate model. Seniority and age were significantly associated with symptoms such as cough and dyspnoea in multivariate analysis.
The study's findings were consistent with reports in the pertinent literature concerning the negative effect of environmental exposure at work to air pollutants, thereby validating the present results. Traffic police had a higher prevalence of respiratory symptoms, such as cough and expectoration, these being similar findings to those reported by Karita in 2001 who contrasted occupational exposure to different levels of [PM.sub.10] in three police groups in Bangkok (10). It was found that the prevalence of cough (12.8%), expectoration (24.4%) and wheezing (3.8%) was higher in individuals having traffic duties, but their differences were not statistically significant given the small number of subjects in the study groups. Dyspnoea was more prevalent in the control group; this symptom had the same association in our study. Another study in Bangkok by the same authors in 2004 reported a higher prevalence of cough, expectoration, wheezing and dyspnoea in traffic-police compared to the control group and a significant association between smoking and the area where an officer was working (12). A study carried out in 2005 by Ingle in Jalga on (India) found even larger symptom prevalence than the present study, reporting that cough (40%), dyspnoea (10%) and upper respiratory tract irritation symptoms (29%) were the most frequently occurring, compared to a group of healthy workers having different PM10 exposure levels; the strength of symptom association with the highest PM10 levels (traffic-police group) was significant (OR>1) (13). Smoking was deliberately controlled by this study's design as smokers were not included; the association obtained did not relate to this factor. Our study was controlled for smoking in the analysis, a significant association only being obtained with the presence of lower respiratory tract symptoms but not each specific symptom (cough, expectoration, etc.).
A study of traffic policemen in Ankara (Turkey) reported 48% smoking prevalence (higher than ours) and 53% lower respiratory tract symptom frequency, such as chest tightness, dyspnoea, cough and chronic cough in the traffic-police group (14). Thippanna conducted a study in Hyderabad (India) in 1999 involving 665 traffic-police; the study reported that respiratory symptoms were correlated with the number of years of exposure to air pollution. Individuals having at least 5 years of exposure primarily reported coughing and chest tightness. Symptoms such as allergies, respiratory distress, increased coughing and tightness appeared as age and exposure increased (more than 5 years) (15). The above was seen in our study's multivariate analysis, in which being in the traffic police and being older were significantly associated with symptoms such as cough and dyspnoea. Altered nasal signs were significantly associated with working in the traffic-police. Multivariate analysis suggested that this group had a greater risk of symptoms, such as cough, sputum production and lower respiratory tract symptoms, as well as diagnosis of upper and lower respiratory tract disorders. Such associations corroborated reports in the literature (10,12,13) and revealed that working in the traffic police created risks regarding the aforementioned symptoms. Information bias should be taken into account regarding the results of our study because some people experienced side-effects which they ignored or tried to hide such situation because they expected negative consequences regarding their career chances (16,17). This may have been reflected in the low prevalence for some respiratory symptoms in the highest exposure group. Another aspect concerned healthy-worker bias because such population was subject to a rigorous selection process (ipso facto their income) and their respiratory response physiological mechanisms were better able to adapt to a hostile work environment (18,19). It should be noted that cross-sectional studies tend to underestimate the prevalence of events, particularly regarding acute symptoms, as outcomes are evaluated during a single moment of time (16,17).
No significant differences were found in our study regarding mean pulmonary function values; this contrasted with that reported by other authors who have evaluated traffic-police as they have found decreased lung function compared to control groups (10,13,15). Low prevalence regarding spirometric changes in populations occupationally exposed to particulate matter has been reported, i.e. Colombian studies on cement workers in 1999 where Giraldo found 92% normal spirometry (20). The FEV1 pulmonary function and 25% peak expiratory flow rate regarding vital capacity (V25) were significantly lower in traffic-police compared to officers in rural areas in a study conducted in Bangkok in 2001(10). Multiple regression analysis showed that age and job-site were significant factors in explaining variations in FEV1 and V25 (smoking making no significant contribution to such variation) (10). A study in Jalga on (India) fixed samplers in high traffic density roads, average224 [micro]g/[m.sup.3] values being obtained which exceeded that country's [PM.sub.10] air quality standards (120 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]) (13). Monitoring in our study involved using personal samplers and reflected lower average concentrations than those found by another study in India. Although the two studies evaluated similar occupational groups (traffic-police), the parameters for determining whether exposure levels came within permissible ranges were different, as were the measurement methodologies. Exposure levels in our study came within the permissible occupational limits proposed by the ACIGH. However, Colombian air quality standards for the general population regarding [PM.sub.10] (150 [micro]g/[m.sup.3]) were exceeded in some areas, and the scientific evidence has shown toxic effects even with particulate levels below air quality standards, including those set by the World Health Organization.
It is worth noting the approach of other studies, such as that by Watts in 1995, which have highlighted monitoring personnel's crucial role in determining health effects attributed to different air pollutants (8). The personal measuring [PM.sub.10] in traffic-police for two weeks in this study reported higher concentrations than those provided by fixed monitoring stations, this being consistent with that found by other studies, such as that by Violante (2006) or Lioy (1990) (7,21). The concentrations obtained by Watts in 1995 were similar to those found in our study, although not comparable, given the conditions in each work environment which may have altered [PM.sub.10] chemical composition and its toxic effect on health (14,22).
Personal monitoring is a valuable and reliable tool when quantifying the concentration of [PM.sub.10] or the dose to which an individual has been exposed during their workday, and relating it to the presence of respiratory outcomes, regarding many environmental factors and an individual's type of activity leading to variability between and within work areas (micro) and different days. Regarding domestic risk factor, natural gas was used most frequently in the agents' kitchens; this fuel represents a low source of PM production. However, households lacking adequate technical conditions concerning their gas appliances can be sources for other pollutants being produced, such as carbon monoxide, which can cause neurological and cardiovascular injury. Factors such as a high prevalence of smoking, personal pulmonary history, combined with chronic exposure to doses above permissible [PM.sub.10] limits are multi-causal risk factors for developing respiratory health disorders in such an occupationally-exposed population. Ideally, the [PM.sub.10] sampled here should be characterised to determine each monitored environments' chemical components. This leads to debate about the adequacy of air-quality standards for protecting public health and, equally, assessment of populations occupationally-exposed to air pollutants, not only in such work-related environment, but also to settings outside their work. List of abbreviations: PM, particulate matter; RSP, respirable particle; VC vital capacity; FVC, forced vital capacity; FEV1, forced expiratory volume in one second; GDP, gross domestic product
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the Colombian Police's Health Department and Traffic and Transport Department, Bogota's Metropolitan Police Traffic Commanders and Occupational Health Group for their collaboration during the study. We would like to thank the Universidad Nacional de Colombia's Research Office (Bogota) and Bogota's Environmental Protection Agency (Secretaria de Ambiente de Bogota) for their funding and we would also like to thank Universidad Nacional de Colombia Toxicology Department staff (in Bogota) for their support.
Competing interest: None
(1.) Bell M, Davis D, Gouveia N, Borja-Aburto V, Cifuentes L. The avoidable health effects of air pollution in three Latin American cities: Santiago, Sao Paulo, and Mexico City. Environmental research. 2006; 100(3):431-440.
(2.) Onursal B, Gautam S. Vehicular air pollution: experiences from seven Latin American urban centers. The World Bank Latin American and the Caribbean Region Technical Department; 1997.
(3.) Ramgolam K, Chevaillier S, Marano F, Baeza-Squiban A, Martinon L. Proinflammatory effect of fine and ultrafine particulate matter using size-resolved urban aerosols from Paris. Chemosphere. 2008; 72(9):1340-1346.
(4.) Baulig A, Garlatti M, Bonvallot V, Marchand A, Barouki R, Marano F, et al. Involvement of reactive oxygen species in the metabolic pathways triggered by diesel exhaust particles in human airway epithelial cells. American Journal of Physiology-Lung Cellular and Molecular Physiology. 2003; 285(3):L671-L679.
(5.) Larsen B. Colombia, Cost of Environmental Damage: A socio economic and environmental risk assessment. Bogota, Colombia. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial; 2004.
(6.) Behrentz E, Sanchez N, Rodriguez P. Definicion de elementos tecnicos para la formulacion de politicas distritales encaminadas al mejoramiento de la calidad del aire en Bogota. Reporte Final. Parte B. Inventario de Emisiones Provenientes de Fuentes Vehiculares. Secretaria Distrital de Ambiente, Bogota DC, Colombia; 2009. p.1-120.
(7.) Lioy PJ, Waldman J, Buckley T, Butler J, Pietarinen C. The personal, indoor and outdoor concentrations of PM10 measured in an industrial community during the winter. Atmospheric Environment. 1990; 24:57-66.
(8.) Watt M, Godden D, Cherrie J, Seaton A. Individual exposure to particulate air pollution and its relevance to thresholds for health effects: a study of traffic wardens. Occup Environ Med. 1995; 52:790-792.
(9.) Baulig A, Poirault J, Ausset P, Schins R, Shi T, Baralle D. et al. Physicochemical characteristics and biological activities of seasonal atmospheric particulate matter sampling in two locations of Paris. Environ Sci. Technol. 2004; 38(22):5985-5992.
(10.) Karita K, Yano E, Jinsart W, Boudoung D, Tamura K. Respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function among traffic police in Bangkok, Thailand. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal. 2001; 56(5):467-470.
(11.) McCammon C. Manual of Analytical Methods. General Considerations for Sampling Airbone Contaminants.4th edition. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); 1998.
(12.) Karita K, Yano E, Tamura K, Jinsart W. Effects of working and residential location areas on air pollution related respiratory symptoms in policemen and their wives in Bangkok, Thailand. European Journal of Public Health. 2004; 14:24-26.
(13.) Ingle S., Pachpande B, Wagh N., Patel V., Attarde S. Exposure to vehicular pollution and respiratory impairment to traffic policemen in Jalgaon city, India. Industrial Health. 2005; 43:656-662.
(14.) Atimtay A, Emri S, Bagci T, Demir A. Urban CO exposure and its health effects on traffic policemen in Ankara. Environmental Research Section. 2000; 82:222-230.
(15.) Thippanna G, Lakhtakia S. Spirometric Evaluation of Traffic Police Personnel Exposed to Automobile Pollution in Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. Ind J Tub. 1999; 46:129-132.
(16.) Hulley S. Designing clinical research. 3th edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
(17.) Kestenbaum B. Cross-Sectional Studies. Epidemiology and Biostatistics: an introduction to clinical research. Springer. 2009; p 29-31.
(18.) Checkoway H, Pearce N, Kriebel D. Research methods in Occupational epidemiology. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004; p:211-241.
(19.) Simkhovich B, Kleinman M, Kloner R. Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Injury: Epidemiology, Toxicology, and Mechanisms. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 52(9):719-726.
(20.) Giraldo L, Bouzas M. Prevalencia de sintomas respiratorios en trabajadores expuestos a material particulado. Colombia Medica. 1997; 28(2):62-66.
(21.) Violante F, Barbieri A, Curti S, Sanguinetti G, Graziosi F, Mattioli S. Urban atmospheric pollution: Personal exposure versus fixed monitoring station measurements. Chemosphere. 2006; 64(10):1722-1729.
(22.) Bono R, Piccioni P, Traversi D, Degan R, Grosa M, Bosello G, et al. Urban air quality and carboxyhemoglobin levels in a group of traffic policemen. Science of the Total Environment. 2007; 376:109-115.
Jesus A. Estevez-Garcia , Nestor Y. Rojas-Roa  y Alba I. Rodriguez-Pulido 
 InstitutoNacional de Salud, Bogota, Colombia. email@example.com
 Department, Engineering Faculty. Universidad Nacional de Colombia. firstname.lastname@example.org
 Toxicology Department, Medicine Faculty. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota. email@example.com
Received 19th February 2013/Sent for Modification 20th March 2013/Accepted 22th April 2013
Table 1. A description of the study groups as categorical and continuous variables General characteristics Exposed prevalence Unexposed prevalence N (%) N (%) Group Gender: Male 574 (83.1) 97 (16.9) Female 458 (96) 59 (60.8) Educational level: High school 366 (76.7) 61 (62.9) Technical 85 (17.8) 23 (23.7) University 24 (5.03) 13 (13.4) A background of lung disease 50 (10.5) 15 (15.5) Past exposure to PM, gases and fumes 150 (31.4) 39 (40.2) Cooking fuel used: Gas 456 (95.9) 91 (93.8) Electricity 14 (2.9) 6 (6.2) Another type of fuel 7 (1.5) 0 Personal protection device used 18 (3.2) 4 (4.1) Being a smoker 202 (42.3) 35 (36.1) Dwelling having a kitchen separate room 467 (97.9) 96 (99) Demographic/work- Exposed Unexposed related characteristics X [+ or -] SD X [+ or -] SD Age (in years) 28.1 [+ or -] 5.1 35.1 [+ or -] 7.1 Length of time residing in Bogota (months) 186.5 [+ or -] 123.1 243.3 [+ or -] 178.6 Time of service (in years) 6.8 [+ or -] 4.5 11.5 [+ or -] 7.1 Time average workday (in hours) 11 [+ or -] 2.4 11.1 [+ or -] 2.3 Average pm10 concentration (in gg/m3) 139.4 [+ or -] 76.5 86 [+ or -] 39.8 Lung function parameters Forced vital capacity (FVC--in litres) 4.8 [+ or -] 0.8 4.6 [+ or -] 0.8 Post-bronchodilator forced vital capacity (PBFVC--in litres) 4.9 [+ or -] 0.8 4.6 [+ or -] 0.8 Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1--in litres) 3.9 [+ or -] 0.7 4.8 [+ or -] 0.7 Post-broncho dilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (PBFEV1--in litres) 4.1 [+ or -] 0.7 3.8 [+ or -] 0.7 Vital capacity (VC--in litres) 4.8 [+ or -] 0.8 3.9 [+ or -] 0.7 Post-bronchodilator vital capacity (PBVC--in litres) 4.8 [+ or -] 0.8 4.6 [+ or -] 0.9 General characteristics Overall prevalence p-value N (%) Group Gender: Male 574 (100) Female 517 (90.1) 0 Educational level: High school 427 (74.4) 0.01 Technical 108 (18.8) University 37 (6.5) A background of lung disease 65 (11.3) 0.2 Past exposure to PM, gases and fumes 189 (32.9) 0.1 Cooking fuel used: 0.1 Gas 547 (95.3) Electricity 20 (3.5) Another type of fuel 7 (1.2) Personal protection device used 22 (3.8) 0.9 Being a smoker 237 (41.3) 0.3 Dwelling having a kitchen separate room 563 (98.1) 0.5 Demographic/work- Overall p-value related characteristics X [+ or -] SD Age (in years) 29.3 [+ or -] 6.1 0 Length of time residing in Bogota (months) 196.2 [+ or -] 135.6 0 Time of service (in years) 7.6 [+ or -] 5.3 0 Time average workday (in hours) 11.1 [+ or -] 2.3 9.9 Average pm10 concentration (in gg/m3) 124.6 [+ or -] 40.2 0.01 Lung function parameters Forced vital capacity (FVC--in litres) 4.8 [+ or -] 0.8 0.5 Post-bronchodilator forced vital capacity (PBFVC--in litres) 4.8 [+ or -] 0.8 0.6 Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1--in litres) 3.9 [+ or -] 0.7 0.7 Post-broncho dilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (PBFEV1--in litres) 4.0 [+ or -] 0.7 0.4 Vital capacity (VC--in litres) 4.7 [+ or -] 0.8 0.4 Post-bronchodilator vital capacity (PBVC--in litres) 4.8 [+ or -] 0.8 0.5 X = average; SD = standard deviation Table 2. The prevalence of symptoms, signs and diagnosis with their measurements of association as study groups Prevalence Prevalence Overall exposed unexposed prevalence group (%) qroup (%) (%) Reported symptoms Cough 18.6 6.2 16.6 Expectoration 19.9 8.2 17.9 Wheezing 19.5 21.6 19.9 Dyspnoea on medium and large efforts 5.5 11.3 6.4 Lower respiratory tract symptoms 37.1 30.9 36.1 Rhinosinusitis symptoms 59.4 55.7 58.5 Rhinitis symptoms 24.3 35.1 26.1 Conjunctivitis symptoms 54.5 47.4 53.3 Present clinical signs Ocular irritation 32.9 7.2 28.6 Nasal irritation 62.3 30.9 57 Lung function test Spirometry alteration 8.6 6.2 8.2 Bronchial hyper-reactivity 29.4 29.9 29.4 Diagnosis Upper respiratory tract alteration 79.7 72.2 78.4 Lower respiratory tract alteration 58.7 48.5 57 OR (95%CI) Reported symptoms Cough 3.8 (1.5-8.2) Expectoration 2.8 (1.3-5.9) Wheezing 0.9 (0.5-1.5) Dyspnoea on medium and large efforts 0.5 (0.2-0.9) Lower respiratory tract symptoms 1.3 (0.8-2.1) Rhinosinusitis symptoms 1.2 (0.7-1.8) Rhinitis symptoms 0.6 (0.4-0.9) Conjunctivitis symptoms 1.3 (0.9-2.1) Present clinical signs Ocular irritation 6.3 (2.8-13.9) Nasal irritation 3.7 (2.3-5.9) Lung function test Spirometry alteration 1.5 (0.9-2.4) Bronchial hyper-reactivity 0.9 (0.6-1.6) Diagnosis Upper respiratory tract alteration 1.5 (0.9-2.5) Lower respiratory tract alteration 1.5 (0.9-2.3) Table 3. A multivariate analysis of factors related to symptoms and diagnosis of respiratory alteration Symptom Cough Expectoration Variable Adjusted OR Adjusted OR 95%CI 95%CI Age (in months) 1.0 (0.9-1.1) 1.0 (0.9-1.1) Gender: Female 1 1 Male 0.5 (0.2-1.10) 0.6 (0.3-1.4) Group: Indoor police office jobs 1 1 Traffic police 5.4 (2.2-13.2) 3.8 (1.7-8.4) Time residing in Bogota (in months) 0.9 (0.9-1) 0.9 (0.9-1) Having a background of respiratory disease: No 1 1 Yes 1.0 (0.5-2.1) 1.5 (0.8-2.8) Previous work-related exposure to PM: No 1 1 Yes 0.9 (0.6-1.5) 1.3 (0.8-2) Time of service (in years) 1.0 (1-1.1) 1.0 (1-1.1) Average workday (in hours) 1.0 (0.9-1.1) 1.0 (0.9-1.1) Cooking fuel used: Electricity 1 1 Natural gas 2.8 (0.3-21.8) 3.4 (0.4-25.7) Other type of fuel 2.1 (0.1-39.4) 2.2 (0.1-41.8) Average concentration of exposure PM10 ([micro]g/ [m.sup.3]) 0.9 (0.9-1) 0.9 (0.9-0.9) Smokier: No 1 1 Yes 1.3 (0.9-2.11) 1.34 (0.9-2.1) Personal protection device used: No 1 1 Yes 1.3 (0.4-4.2) 1.5 (0.5-4.4) Dwelling having a kitchen as a separate room: No 1 1 Yes 2.2 (0.3-17.8) 0.61 (0.2-2.4) Symptom Wheezing Dyspnoea Variable Adjusted OR Adjusted OR 95%CI 95%CI Age (in months) 0.9 (0.9-1.0) 1.0 (0.9-1.1) Gender: Female 1 1 Male 0.7 (0.3-1.4) 1.2 (0.4-3.8) Group: Indoor police office jobs 1 1 Traffic police 1.1 (0.6-2) 0.7 (0.3-1.8) Time residing in Bogota (in months) 0.9 (0.9-1) 0.9 (0.9-1) Having a background of respiratory disease: No 1 1 Yes 2.1 (1.2-3.7) 1.1 (0.4-3) Previous work-related exposure to PM: No 1 1 Yes 1.0 (0.7-1.6) 1.5 (0.7-2.9) Time of service (in years) 1.0 (1-1.1) 0.9 (0.8-1.0) Average workday (in hours) 0.9 (0.9-1.1) 0.9 (0.8-1.1) Cooking fuel used: Electricity 1 1 Natural gas 2.1 (0.5-9.1) 1.3 (0.2-10.2) Other type of fuel N.C. N.C. Average concentration of exposure PM10 ([micro]g/ [m.sup.3]) 0.9 (0.9-1) 0.9 (0.9-1) Smokier: No 1 1 Yes 1.2 (0.8-1.8) 1.2 (0.6-2.4) Personal protection device used: No 1 1 Yes 1.6 (0.6-4.3) 0 Dwelling having a kitchen as a separate room: No 1 1 Yes 2.2 (0.3-18.2) 0.6 (0.1-5.2) Symptom Lower respiratory tract symptom Variable Adjusted OR 95%CI Age (in months) 1. (0.96-1.0) Gender: Female 1 Male 0.7 (0.4-1.3) Group: Indoor police office jobs 1 Traffic police 1.82 (1.1-3.1) Time residing in Bogota (in months) 0.9 (0.9-1) Having a background of respiratory disease: No 1 Yes 1.1 (0.6-1.9) Previous work-related exposure to PM: No 1 Yes 1.1 (0.7-1.5) Time of service (in years) 0.9 (0.8-1.0) Average workday (in hours) 1.1 (0.9-1.1) Cooking fuel used: Electricity 1 Natural gas 2.8 (0.8-9.7) Other type of fuel 0.8 (0.1-8.8) Average concentration of exposure PM10 ([micro]g/ [m.sup.3]) 0.9 (0.9-0.9) Smokier: No 1 Yes 1.5 (1.1-2.1) Personal protection device used: No 1 Yes 0.9 (0.4-2.3) Dwelling having a kitchen as a separate room: No 1 Yes 1.5 (1-2.1) Table 4. Ranges of personal exposure to PM10 by traffic police areas of work in Bogota, Colombia PM10 concentration ([micro]G/[M.sup.3]) Area/location Average N Standard Minimum Maximum deviation value value Area 1: Usaquen 85.9 22 56.8 11.4 249.0 Area 2: Chapinero 95.3 22 51.8 17.5 200.8 Area 3: Suba 117.8 22 47.9 23.1 201.2 Area 4: Barrios UnidosandTeusaquillo 103.1 20 46.6 16.5 193.4 Area 5: FontibonandEngativa 85.2 20 39.8 24.4 167.7 Area 6: Kennedy 134.7 22 43.9 77.4 240.5 Area 7. Bosa 147.6 26 65.0 47.2 261.4 Area 8: Ciudad Bolivar and Usme 197.3 24 72.7 26.9 289.1 Area 9: Martires, Candelaria, Santa Fe, Puente Aranda 129.1 20 62.3 26.9 270.9 Area 10: Rafael Uribe, Antonio Narino, San CristobalandTunjuelito 118.8 24 56.8 21.3 218.0 Area 11: AvenidaNorte Quito Sur 130.4 18 61.4 40.0 281.6 Area 12: AutopistaNorte 89.6 20 51.4 11.0 190.4 Ecology 121.7 13 53.3 29.6 206.4 Trafficpolice 135.7 25 63.8 46.2 273.6 Airport police 114.5 9 55.3 13.1 190.1 Bus terminal police 153.4 8 52.1 43.3 200.4 Sanitation office Z workers (control group) 115.0 22 61.5 35.3 254.9 The road work group 156.4 11 64.5 30.0 244.0 Total 123.4 348 62.5 11.0 289.1