1. Introduction
Air pollution is a substantial environmental issue with profound implications for public wellbeing, particularly respiratory health. Industrial air pollution is a significant concern, with numerous studies highlighting its adverse effects on respiratory health [
1,
2,
3]. Industrial activities, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, emit a wide range of pollutants, among which fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is prominent. These pollutants have been found to possess detrimental effects on respiratory health, contributing to the development of symptoms, exacerbating asthma, and increasing the risk of chronic respiratory diseases [
4,
5]. Moreover, long-term exposure to air pollution increases the risk of respiratory infections, cardiovascular diseases, and premature mortality [
6,
7,
8]. It is noteworthy that living near industrial complexes auguments exposure to air pollutants, elevating the risk of respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and lung cancer [
9,
10].
Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition globally affecting individuals of all ages. It is characterized by an airway inflammation, bronchial hyperresponsiveness, and recurring episodes of airflow obstruction [
11]. Worldwide, asthma affects 339 million people with approximately 5-10% experiencing severe symptoms that corresponds to around 17-34 million individuals. More than half of those face the challenges of an uncontrolled disease [
12,
13]. Severe asthma poses a significant burden due to its unpredictable symptoms and potential for life-threatening exacerbations [
14]. It leads to substantial morbidity and mortality, resulting in a premature death and a reduced quality of life [
15]. Lately, in 2019 asthma claimed over 461,000 lives, predominantly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) [
16,
17]. The challenges of timely diagnosis and effective treatment in these regions highlight the urgent need for exceptional management and prevention strategies. Oman ranks intermediate in asthma prevalence, with a 2009 study revealing high hospitalization rates, low use of preventive medications 5%, and a significant reliance on rescue medications 92% [
18,
19]. In Oman, asthma prevalence is 7.3% among adults and 12.7% among children [
20]. 95% of asthma patients rely on government healthcare services. Inpatient visits account for 55% of direct costs, followed by emergency room and outpatient visits, 25% and 20%, respectively [
20]. Older children have higher prevalence rates of asthma, allergic rhinitis, and eczema compared to younger children (20.7%, 10.5%, and 14.4% vs. 10.5%, 7.4%, and 7.5% respectively) [
21]. Asthma control in Oman falls below the standard and falls short of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines for long-term management [
18]. Asthma management in Oman is poor, with high dependence on rescue medications and low utilization of preventive medications. Additionally, there is a lack of awareness about asthma severity, limited education, and low rates of lung function testing [
18]. In 2009, the total direct cost of managing asthma in the country was estimated to exceed Omani rial 61,500,294, which is equivalent to approximately 160 million United States dollars [
20]. This substantial economic impact underscores the need for effective strategies to manage asthma and reduce its associated costs.
Asthma is a multifactorial disorder influenced by both genetic and environmental factors which drastically contribute to its development and progression [
22]. Even though genetic susceptibility plays a crucial role, the development and the progression of asthma also depend profoundly on numerous interactions with various environmental triggers [
23]. Several issues including, family history of asthma, specific genetic variants related to the immune system function and airway responsiveness have been identified as risk factors [
24]. In the same vein, epigenetic factors such as DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNAs are also important contributors to the development and progression of asthma [
25,
26]. However, the increasing prevalence of asthma is primarily attributed to environmental changes as genetic and epigenetic factors alone are unlikely to undergo significant alterations within a short timeframe [
27,
28]. Extensive epidemiological and clinical experimental investigations consistently demonstrate a compelling association between air pollution exposure and the increased risk of exacerbating asthma symptoms. These studies have consistently shown a clear link between poor air quality and increased asthma incidence in both children and adults [
29,
30,
31]. Furthermore, long-term exposure to various types of ambient air pollution, such as Traffic-related air pollution (TRAP) and indoor pollutants, has been identified as a significant factor in asthma development [
32,
33]. Furthermore, growing evidence suggests that air pollution not only triggers asthma exacerbations but also contributes to the development of new-onset asthma cases [
10,
34].
Several previous studies have emphasized the growing prevalence of asthma in low- and middle-income countries experiencing transitions, notably China, India, Brazil, and Oman. These studies highlight the importance of multiple factors, including rapid urbanization, changing lifestyle habits, and increased exposure to environmental allergens, as key contributors to the escalating burden of asthma in these regions [
35,
36,
37,
38].
The rapid industrialization and urbanization in Oman have led to a significant escalation in air pollution levels, primarily driven by industries such as oil refineries and manufacturing facilities [
19]. The Sohar Industrial Port, one of the largest in the Middle East, has witnessed rapid industrial development, resulting in the emission of several harmful substances like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds [
39,
40]. These contaminants contribute to poor air quality in the surrounding area, posing potential risks to both the environment and human health [
39,
41].
Despite substantial industrial growth at Sohar Industrial Port, research on asthma severity in nearby residents is scarce. Existing studies mainly focus on asthma development, not severity. Moreover, the combined impact of air pollution from Sohar Industrial Port (SIP), Sohar Industrial Zone (SIZ), and Majan Industrial Zone (MIZ) has not been explored. Furthermore, the influence of wind direction on the port’s surroundings has not been studied. Therefore, this study aims to assess the relationship between air pollution and the severity of asthma symptoms among residents near the port to bridge the knowledge gap and understand the potential consequences of cumulative air pollution on asthma severity within major industrial complexes. The findings of this study shall enable policymakers, regulators, and public health authorities to develop targeted interventions to mitigate the detrimental effects of air pollution on respiratory health.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Population
The current study was carried out in the rapidly growing Sohar Industrial Port (SIP) area, a densely populated region in the Sultanate of Oman. Residents living in close proximity to the major industrial complex were considered the study population; it is estimated at about 108,274 people, according to the latest census. A sample of 410 asthma patients (46.1% males and 53.9% females, with the majority, ~73.2% under 50 years old) from 17 different areas surrounding the SIP was selected based on specific criteria that ensure representation and homogeneity. Medical data of the asthma patients was obtained from the national Al-Shifa electronic health recording system, authorized by the Omani Ministry of Health (MoH). Data collection occurred in three healthcare centers located in Nabr, Falaj Al Qabail, and Liwa, chosen for their proximity to the industrial complex and for the presence of a significant number of asthma patients in their records. Inclusion criteria ensured that participants had a confirmed diagnosis of asthma, excluding individuals with other respiratory diseases or comorbidities that could potentially confound the study results. Additionally, the study specifically included patients who had resided near the port for at least one year. The analysis did not include people with important missing data.
2.2. Asthma Severity Assessment
Qualified physicians conducted a thorough evaluation of the participants showing asthma symptoms to determine the severity classification and the assessment was in adherence to the standardized criteria established by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) [
42]. By considering the type and frequency of reported asthma symptoms, the physicians categorized the severity into three distinct levels: severe, moderate, and mild. This classification framework provided a comprehensive understanding of the range of asthma severity experienced by the studied participants, enabling a meaningful analysis of the impact of air pollution on their asthma symptoms.
2.3. Exposure Zones
Asthma patients were categorized into three exposure zones based on their closeness to the Sohar industrial port; High exposure zone: Within <6 kilometer radius of the port, residents endure high levels of air pollutants associated with asthma exacerbations [
32,
43]. They experience increased asthma symptoms, hospital admissions, and emergency department visits [
43]. Middle exposure zone: Located between 6 and 12 kilometers from the port, this zone still poses significant health impacts, including increased asthma symptoms, decreased lung function, and a higher prevalence of asthma [
44]. Low exposure zone: Areas beyond 12 kilometers from the port have comparatively lower levels of air pollution, but may still experience health effects during periods of elevated pollution from industrial activities or weather-related events [
45].
2.4. Sample Size Determination
Sample size in this study (N. 410) was larger than estimated (N. 246) using standard sample size equation, based on the estimated asthmatic population in Sohar (~16000 patient) and the proportion of severe asthma among asthma patients (20%), desired confidence (95%), and the margin of errors (5%) levels.
2.5. Data Collection
Data for this study was collected from three state health centers located in the study provinces, utilizing the national Al-Shifa electronic health recording system. The system provided extensive data from 2014 to 2022, ensuring a broad temporal scope. Data security and patient privacy were of utmost importance, and the research team strictly adhered to relevant regulations, approvals, and data sharing agreements throughout the data collection process to ensure integrity and confidentiality.
Medical records were utilized to gather clinical data related to asthma severity, medical history and demographic information (gender, marital status, place of residence, number of years of residency, smoking status).
2.6. Statistical Analysis
Comparisons between groups were performed using chi-squared test in categorical outcomes and Mann–Whitney U-test between categorical and nonparametric numerical data. Risk ratios (RR) and the 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated for the different exposure zones and factors in the study. Descriptive statistics, data analysis and artificial neural network (ANN) fitting model were carried out with SPSS v22 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), and the graphs were done using GraphPad Prism® 7 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) and the level of two-sided significance of P-value was < 0.05.
2.7. Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval and data sharing agreements were obtained from the appropriate authorities, including both Ministry of Health and the Ethics and biosafety committee at the college of medicine & Health Sciences at National university of Science and Technology. All data were de-identified and handled in compliance with data protection regulations to ensure patient confidentiality and privacy.
Given the retrospective nature of the study and the utilization of de-identified data from the Shefa system, where patient identities were rigorously safeguarded, the acquisition of individual consent was considered unnecessary.
4. Discussion
The fast industrialization and expansion of Oman’s Sohar Industrial Port have led to a continuous growth in industries, resulting in an increased air pollution. Addressing this pressing issue necessitates the undertaking of a comprehensive study. The contemporary cross-sectional study aims to investigate the association between industrial air pollution from Sohar Industrial Port in Oman and respiratory health outcomes among individuals visiting health centers located in close vicinity to the port. Thus, our objective was to assess the prevalence and severity of asthma among a sample of 410 Omani asthma patients (46.1% males, 53.9% females). Most patients were under 50 years old (73.2%). Asthma severity distribution was as follows: moderate (53.2%), severe (20.5%), and mild (26.3%). Proximity to the port significantly influenced severity, with 51.2% residing within 6 km (high exposure zone). Severe asthma rates increased closer to the port, while the lowest severity was observed in the low exposure zone (>12 km). The middle (6-12 km) and high exposure zones had similar severity levels.
Results of this study show a close relationship between exposure to air pollution from Sohar Industrial Port and other industrial areas and the severity of asthma among patients living nearby. The percentage of severe asthma cases was higher among patients living closer to the port (<6 km), and decreased as the distance from the port increased. This indicates that proximity to the port is a critical risk factor for developing severe asthma. These findings align with previous studies. Al-Wahaibi and Zeka [
47] also found that living closer to Sohar Industrial Zone increased the risk of asthma and other respiratory conditions. Other studies have linked industrial air pollution to worsen asthma symptoms due to irritants in the emissions [
48,
49]. Moreover, Mock et al. highlighted the significant impact of city industrial zoning on pediatric asthma outcomes in communities with limited access to air monitoring [
50].
The current study’s findings are also in agreements with various international studies that found a strong association between living near ports or industrial sites and bad asthma outcomes [
51,
52]. For instance, a study by Guarnieri and Balmes [
10] revealed that exposure to air pollutants, such as particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, was associated with exacerbated asthma symptoms. Similarly, a study by Orellano et al. [
53] found that exposure to traffic-related air pollution increased the risk of asthma exacerbation in children. This supports the notion that industrial pollution can play a vital role in exacerbating asthma and highlights the importance of considering the impact of proximity to industrial ports when examining asthma prevalence and severity.
Our study’s findings provide further support to the body of evidence that establishes a clear link between industrial exposure and heightened occurrences of severe asthma. Specifically, we observed that areas in close proximity to the Majan Industrial Area and Sohar Industrial Port, characterized by significant exposure, exhibited notably increased rates of severe asthma. The risk ratios associated with these high exposure zones were found to be 2.88 and 2.97 respectively. These results align with previous research conducted across diverse global regions, reinforcing the well-documented association between environmental pollution and respiratory diseases such as asthma.
Several research studies have shed light on the detrimental effects of air pollution on human health. Notably, a study conducted in China in 2016 revealed a strong correlation between air pollution resulting from industrial activities and the prevalence of asthma in children [
54]. Similarly, a study conducted in the United States demonstrated that individuals residing in close proximity to industrial zones had elevated risks of developing respiratory diseases, including asthma [
55].
Despite the lack of specific data from Oman, these international studies provide a comparative perspective. The current findings fill a significant gap in the literature by providing localized data from Oman. These results highlight the importance of addressing industrial pollution in Oman, particularly near high-exposure zones such as the Majan Industrial Area and Sohar Industrial Port, to mitigate the health risks associated with such exposure.
However, the southern region exhibits a comparatively lower risk ratio of 2.55, albeit still elevated, warranting a comprehensive inquiry. This divergence may be attributed to variations in industrial activities, wind patterns, or other environmental and demographic factors that could potentially modulate the dissemination and impacts of pollutants, necessitating thorough examination. These findings add to the growing body of evidence substantiating the link between industrial pollution and severe asthma. They underscore the need for effective environmental regulations and public health measures, especially in high-risk areas.
The finding of higher risks in the central region closest to the Sohar Industrial Port also aligns with the results of Raaschou-Nielsen et al. [
56], who found the strongest associations between traffic-related air pollution exposure and childhood asthma hospital admissions within the first 500 m from major roads. The fact that the southern region further from the sources still experienced an increased risk ratio of 2.55 compared to the reference population suggests that the impact of industrial emissions may extend over a wider area, though risks do appear to reduce with distance from the source.
Notably, among male patients, the high-exposure zone showed a slightly lower average of severity compared to the middle-exposure zone. Conversely, female patients demonstrated a lower average of severity in the low-exposure zone. Severe asthma patients lived closer to the port (average 6.25 km) than moderate/mild patients (average 7.88 km). This was more significant for males (severe: 5.33 km, moderate/mild: 7.8 km). To provide further details, we compared our findings with results from studies conducted in the vicinity of Sohar Industrial Port, as well as in other countries. Our findings were compared with the results of previous studies carried out in the vicinity of Sohar Industrial Port, as well as in other countries [
7,
47,
50,
57,
58,
59,
60,
61].
Our results showed a clear decrease in the average of asthma severity in the low-exposure zone compared to the other two zones, which had similar averages of severity and margins of error. These findings are consistent with previous studies conducted near Sohar Industrial Port, where low-exposure areas exhibited lower asthma severity compared to high-exposure areas [
47].
Furthermore, our examination of gender-specific differences revealed that, within the middle exposure zone, the average of asthma severity was similar for male and female patients. However, in the high exposure zone (within 6 km from the port), females exhibited slightly higher asthma severity compared to males. It is important to note that our study did not establish a general trend of men having more severe asthma than women. These gender-related findings align with previous international studies that have reported similar patterns of asthma severity based on gender and exposure levels which could be due to variations in occupational exposures, horizontal segregation in the workforce, and diverse behaviors within the workplace which can impact the level of exposure and subsequent health outcomes [
62,
63,
64].
In addition, although the risk ratio for severe asthma was high for males across all three exposure zones, there was no universally established consensus that men had more severe asthma than women living away from industrial areas. Various lifestyle factors influence the severity of asthma. Men working in occupations with higher exposure to irritants or allergens may be more prone to asthma symptoms. Population-based studies in South Finland have shown a link between occupational exposures and prevalent asthma. Clinical evidence suggests that females experience increased asthma symptoms during puberty due to hormonal changes. Estrogen increases airway inflammation, while testosterone decreases it, as demonstrated in animal studies [
65]. Occupational and lifestyle exposures contribute to the observed differences in asthma severity between men and women [
66,
67]. Additionally, individual sensitivity and the amount of irritants present can vary, leading to varying degrees of asthma symptoms [
68].
In our study, severe asthma prevalence, compared to other levels of the disease, was the highest in patients aged 25-50 years (27.3%, 2.05 risk ratio). Furthermore, this middle age group had the highst percentage of sever asthma patients (48.8%) and the average of asthma severity (2.1) compared to other age groups. Studies have shown that around half of middle-aged asthma patients developed the condition in adulthood rather than during childhood [
69] [
70]. The annual incidence of asthma among adults is estimated to be 0.5%, similar to childhood incidence, but it remains uncertain whether adult-onset asthma is the same as childhood-onset asthma [
71]. Interestingly, previous studies demonstrated that asthma in adults is progressing at a faster rate than in childhood. This could be due to the complexity of adult-onset asthma, which is characterized by a diverse range of symptoms and outcomes. Unlike childhood asthma, which often enters a period of remission, asthma in adulthood tends to be more severe and progressive [
72,
73].
Furthermore, our findings revealed that the elder group (>50 years) exhibited a lower level of severe asthma compared to the mentioned age range. Moreover, in areas with high pollution exposure, the risk decreased even further. A study on the natural history of asthma supported our findings, indicating that atopy is not a risk factor in the elderly age group [
74]. Interestingly, older patients who develop asthma have a similar incidence rate to younger individuals (100 per 100,000) [
75]. However, the severity of asthma tends to be more pronounced in the older age group due to poor lung function and fixed airway obstruction [
76]. In contrast, a study by Al-wahaibi suggested that living near the exposure source increased the risk of asthma in individuals over 50, indicating greater vulnerability within this age group [
47].
Our study revealed a high prevalence of incense use among both male and female asthma patients (33.4%), regardless of asthma severity or proximity to the source of indoor pollution (SIP). However, it is noteworthy that incense showed the lowest risk ratio (0.96 risk ratio). among the pollutants examined, indicating a weaker association with severe asthma [
77]. These findings are consistent with previous research conducted on Omani children from two regions with varying asthma prevalence. The studies demonstrated that exposure to incense triggers asthma symptoms but does not have a significant association with the prevalence of current asthma [
57]. In contrast, smoke emerged as the most significant risk factor for the development of severe asthma. In the present study, 5.4% of patients were smokers, mostly males (10.1% of all patients). Moreover, smokers had a higher risk to develop severe asthma (1.7 risk ratio) compared to non-smokers with mild asthma. Average of asthma severity was the highest in smokers, followed by passive smokers then non-smokers. This trend was less prominent near the port. This finding aligns with previous studies that have observed the detrimental effects of smoke originating from various sources, including environmental tobacco smoke, air pollution (such as wood smoke and particulate matter), industrial pollution, and vehicle emissions, on asthma symptoms and asthma risk [
61]. The results of our study emphasize the importance of reducing exposure to smoke and implementing measures to mitigate its adverse effects on individuals with asthma [
77].
A multilayer perceptron neural network was used to construct a predictive model for the risk of developing asthma. The model achieved an overall accuracy of 94.8% for the training dataset and 90.3% for the testing dataset. The areas under the ROC curve for all predicted risk levels exceeded a threshold of 0.98, indicating highly acceptable results. The analysis of predictor variables revealed that proximity to the SIP industrial zone exerted the greatest influence on asthma risk, followed by proximity to other industrial zones, age, and regions. However, smoking and gender had minimal impact on the neural network model. These findings are consistent with previous studies that demonstrated the effectiveness of various neural network models in accurately predicting asthma-related outcomes [
78,
79]. These studies consistently highlight the pivotal role of air pollution and meteorological variables as influential factors in asthma prediction. However, it is worth noting that the present study found that smoking and gender had minimal impact on the constructed neural network model, which is different from some previous research. For example, a study by Ho et al. [
80] found that smoking status and gender were significant predictors of asthma risk. This discrepancy may be due to differences in the study population, especially the low percentage of smokers in Omani society, or the specific neural network architecture employed. In addition, our statistical analyzes did not show a direct relationship between asthma severity and gender, which makes our network’s prediction model more reasonable. Future research could explore the use of alternative neural network architectures or additional predictors to further improve the accuracy of these models.
Figure 1.
Asthma severity percentages in the population and gender distribution. Percentages (%) of patients by asthma severity level (Severe, Moderate, and Mild) in all the population or clustered by gender.
Figure 1.
Asthma severity percentages in the population and gender distribution. Percentages (%) of patients by asthma severity level (Severe, Moderate, and Mild) in all the population or clustered by gender.
Figure 2.
The relationship between exposure zones and the average of asthma severity. The average of asthma severity of the studied population is depicted in relation to the exposure zones that were categorized as follow: High (<6 km), Middle (6-12 km), and Low (>12 km). To calculate the averages, asthma severity levels were represented by numerical values: Severe = 3, Moderate = 2, and Mild = 1. Error bars indicate the standard error of the means (SEM) and the number of patients is shown above each column. The average of distances (km) for the locations of these patients within each of the three exposure zones were shown.
Figure 2.
The relationship between exposure zones and the average of asthma severity. The average of asthma severity of the studied population is depicted in relation to the exposure zones that were categorized as follow: High (<6 km), Middle (6-12 km), and Low (>12 km). To calculate the averages, asthma severity levels were represented by numerical values: Severe = 3, Moderate = 2, and Mild = 1. Error bars indicate the standard error of the means (SEM) and the number of patients is shown above each column. The average of distances (km) for the locations of these patients within each of the three exposure zones were shown.
Figure 3.
The relationship between the severity of asthma and the average of distances of patients residences from SIP. Average of distances (km) was calculated for male, female, and all the population and categorized by different levels of asthma severity (Severe, Moderate/Mild) with SEM error bars. and the number of patients above each bar. The statistical differences were determined by Mann–Whitney U-test at P<0.05*.
Figure 3.
The relationship between the severity of asthma and the average of distances of patients residences from SIP. Average of distances (km) was calculated for male, female, and all the population and categorized by different levels of asthma severity (Severe, Moderate/Mild) with SEM error bars. and the number of patients above each bar. The statistical differences were determined by Mann–Whitney U-test at P<0.05*.
Figure 4.
Comprehensive map representing the dispersion of asthma patients around SIP. The map illustrates various regions where the patients reside. Each region is portrayed by a circle which size corresponds to either the total number of patients (A) or the percentage of severe asthma cases (B) within that particular region. Additionally, the map highlights the placement of Majan Industrial Area (MIA) and Sohar Industrial Zone (SIZ).
Figure 4.
Comprehensive map representing the dispersion of asthma patients around SIP. The map illustrates various regions where the patients reside. Each region is portrayed by a circle which size corresponds to either the total number of patients (A) or the percentage of severe asthma cases (B) within that particular region. Additionally, the map highlights the placement of Majan Industrial Area (MIA) and Sohar Industrial Zone (SIZ).
Figure 5.
The relationship between the age ranges and the average of asthma severity. Average of asthma severity (Severe = 3, Moderate = 2 and Mild = 1) was calculated in the studied population (All, Male and Female) in two location conditions (total and high exposure zone <6 Km from SIP) after clustering according to ages (<25, 25-50 and >50 years). Error bars represent the standard error of the means (SEM) and numbers of patients in each group are shown above the bars. The significance of the differences is determined by Mann–Whitney U-test at P<0.05* and P<0.005**.
Figure 5.
The relationship between the age ranges and the average of asthma severity. Average of asthma severity (Severe = 3, Moderate = 2 and Mild = 1) was calculated in the studied population (All, Male and Female) in two location conditions (total and high exposure zone <6 Km from SIP) after clustering according to ages (<25, 25-50 and >50 years). Error bars represent the standard error of the means (SEM) and numbers of patients in each group are shown above the bars. The significance of the differences is determined by Mann–Whitney U-test at P<0.05* and P<0.005**.
Figure 6.
The relationship between Asthma types and the average of patients ages. Average of patients ages in the studied population (All, Male and Female) in two locations (total and high exposure zone <6 km from SIP) clustered according to asthma level (severe, moderate and mild). Error bars represent the standard error of the means (SEM) and number of patients in each group are shown above the bars. The significance of the differences is determined by Mann–Whitney U-test at P<0.05* and P<0.005**.
Figure 6.
The relationship between Asthma types and the average of patients ages. Average of patients ages in the studied population (All, Male and Female) in two locations (total and high exposure zone <6 km from SIP) clustered according to asthma level (severe, moderate and mild). Error bars represent the standard error of the means (SEM) and number of patients in each group are shown above the bars. The significance of the differences is determined by Mann–Whitney U-test at P<0.05* and P<0.005**.
Figure 7.
The relationship between patients gender, smoking status, and the average of asthma severity. The average of asthma severity, categorized as severe (3), moderate (2), and mild (1), was calculated for male and female patients based on their smoking status: smokers, passive smokers, and non-smokers in the household. Error bars represent the standard error of the means (SEM), and the number of patients in each group is indicated above the respective bars.
Figure 7.
The relationship between patients gender, smoking status, and the average of asthma severity. The average of asthma severity, categorized as severe (3), moderate (2), and mild (1), was calculated for male and female patients based on their smoking status: smokers, passive smokers, and non-smokers in the household. Error bars represent the standard error of the means (SEM), and the number of patients in each group is indicated above the respective bars.
Figure 8.
Relationship Between Contaminant Exposure, Asthma, and Port Proximity. Comparison of the percentages of “Yes” responses from the survey conducted on exposure to contaminants, particularly dust, incense, perfume, and smoke. It explores the link between these percentages, gender (males and females), and their correlation with the severity of asthma and proximity to the port. The analysis is conducted for three groups: all patients (A), those with severe asthma (B), and those with severe asthma living within a 6-kilometer radius of the port (C).
Figure 8.
Relationship Between Contaminant Exposure, Asthma, and Port Proximity. Comparison of the percentages of “Yes” responses from the survey conducted on exposure to contaminants, particularly dust, incense, perfume, and smoke. It explores the link between these percentages, gender (males and females), and their correlation with the severity of asthma and proximity to the port. The analysis is conducted for three groups: all patients (A), those with severe asthma (B), and those with severe asthma living within a 6-kilometer radius of the port (C).
Figure 9.
Multilayer Perceptron – Architecture of Neural Network.
Figure 9.
Multilayer Perceptron – Architecture of Neural Network.
Figure 10.
Normalized Importance Analysis of Input Vectors. Normalized importance analysis of each predictor variable. The inset table provides a comprehensive overview of the importance and corresponding normalized importance values for different indicators.
Figure 10.
Normalized Importance Analysis of Input Vectors. Normalized importance analysis of each predictor variable. The inset table provides a comprehensive overview of the importance and corresponding normalized importance values for different indicators.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of the relationship between exposure zones and asthma severity. Characteristics of asthma severity levels (severe, moderate, and mild) in the studied population across exposure zones near SIP. Cases numbers and their percentages among asthma severity levels and among different exposure zones are shown.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics of the relationship between exposure zones and asthma severity. Characteristics of asthma severity levels (severe, moderate, and mild) in the studied population across exposure zones near SIP. Cases numbers and their percentages among asthma severity levels and among different exposure zones are shown.
|
Exposure Zone |
Total |
Severe |
Moderate |
Mild |
(Exposure Zones %) |
Cases Number (Asthma severity % - Exposure zones %) |
All |
High (<6 km) |
210 (51.2%) |
56 (26.7%-51.9%) |
107 (51%-49.1%) |
47 (22.4%-56%) |
Middle (6 - 12 km) |
146 (35.6%) |
38 (26%-35.2%) |
76 (52.1%-34.9%) |
32 (21.9%-38.1%) |
Low (>12 km) |
54 (13.2%) |
14 (25.9%-13%) |
35 (64.8%-16.1%) |
5 (9.3%-6%) |
Male |
High (<6 km) |
105 (55.6%) |
31 (29.5%-63.3%) |
52 (49.5%-49.5%) |
22 (21%-62.9%) |
Middle (6 - 12 km) |
61 (32.3%) |
14 (23%-28.6%) |
35 (57.4%-33.3%) |
12 (19.7%-34.3%) |
Low (>12 km) |
23 (12.2%) |
4 (17.4%-8.2%) |
18 (78.3%-17.1%) |
1 (4.3%-2.9%) |
Female |
High (<6 km) |
105 (47.5%) |
25 (23.8%-42.4%) |
55 (52.4%-48.7%) |
25 (23.8%-51%) |
Middle (6 - 12 km) |
85 (38.5%) |
24 (28.2%-40.7%) |
41 (48.2%-36.3%) |
20 (23.5%-40.8%) |
Low (>12 km) |
31 (14%) |
10 (32.3%-16.9%) |
17 (54.8%-15%) |
4 (12.9%-8.2%) |
Table 2.
The association between severe asthma cases and different industrial zones in the north of Sohar city. Asthma patients were categorized into three exposure zones based on their proximity to the pollution areas: Sohar Industrial Port (SIP), Sohar Industrial Zone (SIZ), and Majan Industrial Area (MIA). A control area (CA) was selected as a reference group. The table displays estimated risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI95%) and Chi-square test values (X2) for the high exposure zone, comparing the development of severe asthma symptoms to patients with moderate and mild asthma in the low exposure zone. The total number of cases and the number of cases compared between the different industrial zones are shown.
Table 2.
The association between severe asthma cases and different industrial zones in the north of Sohar city. Asthma patients were categorized into three exposure zones based on their proximity to the pollution areas: Sohar Industrial Port (SIP), Sohar Industrial Zone (SIZ), and Majan Industrial Area (MIA). A control area (CA) was selected as a reference group. The table displays estimated risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI95%) and Chi-square test values (X2) for the high exposure zone, comparing the development of severe asthma symptoms to patients with moderate and mild asthma in the low exposure zone. The total number of cases and the number of cases compared between the different industrial zones are shown.
|
Valid Samples |
High |
Low |
Severe Asthma (High/Low) |
Moderate & Mild Asthma (High/Low) |
RR (CI95%) |
X2
|
SIP |
264 |
<6 km |
>12 km |
47/5 |
163/49 |
2.42 (1.01-5.78) |
0.031*
|
SIZ |
264 |
<10 km |
>20 km |
40/11 |
122/64 |
1.68 (0.92-3.09) |
0.081 |
MIA |
176 |
<6 km |
>12 km |
27/11 |
72/66 |
1.91 (1.01-3.6) |
0.038*
|
CA |
323 |
<8 km |
>12 km |
25/41 |
118/139 |
0.77 (0.49-1.2) |
0.241 |
SIP-North |
223 |
Middle |
North |
23/20 |
82/98 |
1.29 (0.75-2.21) |
0.349 |
SIP-South |
269 |
Middle |
South |
23/40 |
82/124 |
0.9 (0.57-1.41) |
0.639 |
Table 3.
Risk ratios of different regions for developing severe asthma symptoms. The table preScheme 95. and Chi-square test values (X2) for various regions in relation to the development of severe asthma symptoms compared to patients with combined moderate and mild asthma in control regions (>12 Km) from SIP. The distances from SIP, SIZ, and MIA, as well as the number of cases (N) for each region.
Table 3.
Risk ratios of different regions for developing severe asthma symptoms. The table preScheme 95. and Chi-square test values (X2) for various regions in relation to the development of severe asthma symptoms compared to patients with combined moderate and mild asthma in control regions (>12 Km) from SIP. The distances from SIP, SIZ, and MIA, as well as the number of cases (N) for each region.
|
Distance From SIP (km) |
Distance From SIZ (km) |
Distance From MIA (km) |
Total N. |
Severe Asthma N. |
Moderate&Mild Asthma N. |
Severe Asthma % |
Latitude |
Longitude |
RR (CI95%) |
χ2
|
Ghadhfan |
2.6 |
11.3 |
5.3 |
30 |
8 |
22 |
27% |
24.471 |
56.602 |
2.88 (1.03-8.02) |
0.035* |
Al Hadd |
3.4 |
13.8 |
6.2 |
21 |
5 |
16 |
24% |
24.487 |
56.585 |
2.57 (0.83-7.98) |
0.10 |
Liwa |
4.0 |
16.0 |
8.8 |
22 |
5 |
17 |
23% |
24.512 |
56.586 |
2.45 (0.79-7.65) |
0.12 |
Harmul |
4.1 |
16.7 |
10.3 |
21 |
5 |
16 |
24% |
24.523 |
56.596 |
2.57 (0.83-7.98) |
0.10 |
Al Khuwayriyyah |
4.7 |
8.0 |
6.1 |
12 |
2 |
10 |
17% |
24.449 |
56.626 |
1.8 (0.4-8.2) |
0.45 |
Al Eqdah |
5.1 |
15.7 |
7.2 |
13 |
3 |
10 |
23% |
24.498 |
56.569 |
2.49 (0.68-9.12) |
0.17 |
Mikhaylif |
5.1 |
16.5 |
8.4 |
19 |
2 |
17 |
11% |
24.508 |
56.572 |
1.14 (0.24-5.38) |
0.87 |
Majees |
6.0 |
8.2 |
9.6 |
72 |
17 |
55 |
24% |
24.455 |
56.657 |
2.55 (1-6.48) |
0.036* |
Harat Ash Shaykh |
6.1 |
6.8 |
7.6 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
25% |
24.442 |
56.641 |
2.7 (0.63-11.65) |
0.19 |
Falaj Al Qabail |
6.4 |
6.4 |
5.9 |
69 |
19 |
50 |
28% |
24.433 |
56.626 |
2.97 (1.19-7.45) |
0.011* |
Az Zahiyah |
7.7 |
19.7 |
11.5 |
40 |
5 |
35 |
13% |
24.537 |
56.563 |
1.35 (0.42-4.35) |
0.61 |
Nabr |
10.1 |
22.5 |
14.5 |
20 |
5 |
15 |
25% |
24.563 |
56.559 |
2.7 (0.87-8.35) |
0.08 |
Rumelah |
10.7 |
23.1 |
15.4 |
7 |
1 |
6 |
14% |
24.572 |
56.563 |
1.54 (0.21-11.37) |
0.67 |
Control |
19.0 |
26.0 |
18.8 |
54 |
5 |
49 |
9% |
24.505 |
56.499 |
- |
- |
Table 4.
Descriptive statistics of the relationship between patients ages and asthma severity. Distribution of asthma patients from the different types (severe, moderate and mild) on three Age ranges (<25, 25-50 and >50) in male and female patients in total compared to high exposure zone (<6 km from SIP). Estimated risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI95%) and Chi-square test values (X2) of the higher age ranges (25-50 and >50) to develop severe asthma symptoms compared to lower age range (<25) with combined asthma (moderate & mild).
Table 4.
Descriptive statistics of the relationship between patients ages and asthma severity. Distribution of asthma patients from the different types (severe, moderate and mild) on three Age ranges (<25, 25-50 and >50) in male and female patients in total compared to high exposure zone (<6 km from SIP). Estimated risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI95%) and Chi-square test values (X2) of the higher age ranges (25-50 and >50) to develop severe asthma symptoms compared to lower age range (<25) with combined asthma (moderate & mild).
Exposure Zone |
Age Range |
Total |
Severe |
Moderate |
Mild |
All |
Male |
Female |
Age ranges (%) |
Cases Number (Asthma severity % - Age range %) |
RR (CI95%) |
χ2
|
RR (CI95%) |
χ2
|
RR (CI95%) |
χ2
|
Total |
< 25 |
150 (36.6%) |
20 (13.3%-23.8%) |
81 (54%-37.2%) |
49 (32.7%-45.4%) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
25 - 50 |
150 (36.6%) |
41 (27.3%-48.8%) |
82 (54.7%-37.6%) |
27 (18%-25%) |
2.05 (1.26-3.33) |
0.003* |
2.8 (1.4-5.58) |
0.002* |
1.417 (0.72-2.80) |
0.304 |
> 50 |
110 (26.8%) |
23 (20.9%-27.4%) |
55 (50%-25.2%) |
32 (29.1%-29.6%) |
1.57 (0.91-2.71) |
0.104 |
1.97 (0.86-4.5) |
0.11 |
1.14 (0.54-2.4) |
0.727 |
High <6 Km from SIP
|
< 25 |
83 (39.5%) |
14 (16.9%-29.8%) |
42 (50.6%-39.3%) |
27 (32.5%-48.2%) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
25 - 50 |
80 (38.1%) |
24 (30%-51.1%) |
42 (52.5%-39.3%) |
14 (17.5%-25%) |
1.78 (0.99-3.19) |
0.047* |
2.81 (1.23-6.4) |
0.1 |
1.058 (0.47-2.38) |
0.892 |
> 50 |
47 (22.4%) |
9 (19.1%-19.1%) |
23 (48.9%-21.5%) |
15 (31.9%-26.8%) |
1.14 (0.53-2.42) |
0.743 |
1.286 (0.37-4.46) |
0.694 |
0.857 (0.33-2.24) |
0.753 |
Table 5.
The link between the patients smoking state and asthma severity. Descriptive statistics of the smoking status (Smoker, passive smoker and non-smoker) in male and female patients in total compared to the high exposure zone (<6 km from SIP) and the relationship with the asthma severity levels (severe, moderate and mild, *) are shown. Estimated risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI95%) and Chi-square test values (X2) of the different smoking states (Smokers and Passive smokers) to develop severe asthma symptoms compared to non smoker patients with mild or with combined asthma (moderate & mild, **) are also presented.
Table 5.
The link between the patients smoking state and asthma severity. Descriptive statistics of the smoking status (Smoker, passive smoker and non-smoker) in male and female patients in total compared to the high exposure zone (<6 km from SIP) and the relationship with the asthma severity levels (severe, moderate and mild, *) are shown. Estimated risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI95%) and Chi-square test values (X2) of the different smoking states (Smokers and Passive smokers) to develop severe asthma symptoms compared to non smoker patients with mild or with combined asthma (moderate & mild, **) are also presented.
Exposure Zone |
Smoking State |
All |
Male/Female |
Severe* |
Moderate* |
Mild* |
Severe/Mild |
Severe/Comb** |
(Smoking groups %) |
Cases Number (Asthma severity % - Smoking groups %) |
RR (CI 95%) |
χ2 |
RR (CI 95%) |
χ2 |
Total |
Non Smoker |
347 (84.6%) |
155/192 (82.0%-86.9%) |
71 (20.5%-84.5%) |
178 (51.3%-81.6%) |
98 (28.2%-90.7%) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Smoker |
22 (5.4%) |
19/3 (10.1%-1.4%) |
5 (22.7%-5.9%) |
15 (68.2%-6.9%) |
2 (9.1%-1.8%) |
1.7 (1.03-2.81) |
0.12 |
1.11 (0.5-2.47) |
0.80 |
Passive Smoker |
41 (10%) |
15/26 (7.9%-11.8%) |
8 (19.5%-9.5%) |
25 (61%-11.5%) |
8 (19.5%-7.4%) |
1.19 (0.71-2) |
0.54 |
0.95 (0.5-1.84) |
0.89 |
High <6 Km from SIP
|
Non Smoker |
179 (85.2%) |
89/90 (84.8%-85.7%) |
43 (24%-91.5%) |
85 (47.5%-79.4%) |
51 (28.5%-91.1%) |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Smoker |
9 (4.3%) |
8/1 (7.6%-1.0%) |
1 (11.1%-2.1%) |
7 (77.8%-6.5%) |
1 (11.1%-1.8%) |
1.09 (0.27-4.45) |
0.90 |
0.46 (0.07-2.99) |
0.37 |
Passive Smoker |
22 (10.5%) |
8/14 (7.6%-13.3%) |
3 (13.6%-6.4%) |
15 (68.2%-14%) |
4 (18.2%-7.1%) |
0.94 (0.39-2.27) |
0.88 |
0.57 (0.19-1.68) |
0.27 |
Table 6.
Relationship between exposure to contaminants and asthma severity. Descriptive statistics regarding the levels of exposure to various contaminants and their corresponding asthma severity levels. The table provides estimated risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI95%) and Chi-square test values (X2) to evaluate the risk of patients developing severe asthma symptoms when exposed to different contaminants (dust, incense, perfume, and smoke) compared to non-exposed patients with a combined asthma (moderate and mild). The analysis is conducted for both the entire study area and a high exposure zone within a radius of less than 6 km from the port.
Table 6.
Relationship between exposure to contaminants and asthma severity. Descriptive statistics regarding the levels of exposure to various contaminants and their corresponding asthma severity levels. The table provides estimated risk ratios (RR) with confidence intervals (CI95%) and Chi-square test values (X2) to evaluate the risk of patients developing severe asthma symptoms when exposed to different contaminants (dust, incense, perfume, and smoke) compared to non-exposed patients with a combined asthma (moderate and mild). The analysis is conducted for both the entire study area and a high exposure zone within a radius of less than 6 km from the port.
Contaminants |
Respondent N |
Respondent % |
Responses % |
Severe Asthma % |
Severe Asthma Y/N |
Comb Asthma Y/N |
Total |
High (<6 Km) |
RR (CI95%) |
χ2
|
RR (CI95%) |
χ2
|
Yes |
281 |
68.5% |
- |
19.2% |
54 |
227 |
0.83 (0.56-1.23) |
0.347 |
0.76 (0.45-1.28) |
0.303 |
Uncertain |
129 |
31.5% |
- |
23.3% |
30 |
99 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dust |
186 |
67.9% |
27.7% |
22.6% |
42/42 |
144/182 |
1.2 (0.82-1.76) |
0.339 |
1.02 (0.61-1.69) |
0.951 |
Incense |
224 |
81.8% |
33.4% |
20.1% |
45/39 |
179/147 |
0.96 (0.65-1.4) |
0.826 |
1 (0.6-1.67) |
0.99 |
Perfume |
180 |
65.7% |
26.8% |
21.7% |
39/45 |
141/185 |
1.11 (0.76-1.62) |
0.601 |
1.21 (0.73-2.01) |
0.457 |
Smoke |
81 |
29.6% |
12.1% |
24.7% |
20/64 |
61/265 |
1.27 (0.82-1.97) |
0.295 |
1.41 (0.81-2.47) |
0.238 |
Total Respondent |
274 |
100.0% |
- |
19.3% |
53 |
221 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Total Responses |
671 |
- |
100.0% |
21.8% |
146 |
525 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Table 7.
Classification of percentage of prediction. The actual and expected number of samples based on the model, as well as the percentages of the correct predictions for each level of risk. The data is reported separately for the training and testing phases of constructing the neural network.
Table 7.
Classification of percentage of prediction. The actual and expected number of samples based on the model, as well as the percentages of the correct predictions for each level of risk. The data is reported separately for the training and testing phases of constructing the neural network.
|
Predicted |
Very Low Risk |
Low Risk |
Average Risk |
High Risk |
Very High Risk |
Percent Correct |
Training |
Very Low Risk |
47 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
97.9% |
Low Risk |
1 |
59 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
92.2% |
Average Risk |
0 |
1 |
53 |
1 |
3 |
91.4% |
High Risk |
0 |
0 |
0 |
57 |
2 |
96.6% |
Very High Risk |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
55 |
96.5% |
Overall Percent |
16.8% |
21.3% |
20.3% |
20.6% |
21.0% |
94.8% |
Testing |
Very Low Risk |
29 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
100.0% |
Low Risk |
1 |
24 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
88.9% |
Average Risk |
0 |
0 |
17 |
2 |
3 |
77.3% |
High Risk |
0 |
0 |
1 |
18 |
2 |
85.7% |
Very High Risk |
17.7 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
24 |
96.0% |
Overall Percent |
23.4% |
19.4% |
15.3% |
17.7% |
24.2% |
90.3% |