Short-term and long-term effects of prenatal exposure to peat smoke

Introduction. Air pollution by combustion products formed during wildfires poses a real risk for disorders of reproductive health in the population living under conditions of high smoke pollution from wildfires.

Materials and methods. Female white mongrel rats were exposed to peat smoke from the 14^th to the 18^th day of gestation. The offspring were examined on the 4^th, 7^th, 14^th, 21^st, 40^th, and 90^th days of postnatal development. Postnatal mortality, physical development, the rate of maturation of sensorimotor reflexes, muscle strength, motor activity, and electroencephalogram parameters in the offspring were assessed.

Results. Prenatal exposure to peat smoke leads to a significant decrease in survival and impaired physical development of the offspring of white rats. Newborn rats showed low body weight, a pronounced delay in the formation of the vestibular response, muscle strength and motor coordination. During puberty and in adult animals, changes in behavior and EEG were recorded only in males from the obtained offspring.

Limitations. This study is limited to the study of the offspring in white rats exposed to peat smoke from the 14^th to the 18^th days of gestation.

Conclusion. The consequences of exposure to peat smoke in the prenatal period were characterized by an increase in mortality over the neonatal period, impaired physical and sensorimotor development, and changes in the functional state of the central nervous system in the offspring.

Compliance with ethical standards. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee of the East Siberian Institute of Medical and Environmental Research (Protocol No. 32 of 01/10/2023), conducted in accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrates Used for Experiments or Other Scientific Purposes (ETS N 123), directive of the European Parliament and the Council Of the European Union 2010/63/EC of 09/22/2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.

Contribution:
Vokina V.A. – development of the study concept and design, conducting the experiment, processing, analyzing and interpreting data, reviewing publications on the topic of the article; writing and design of the article;
Sosedova L.M. – development of the study concept and design, reviewing publications on the topic of the article; writing and design of the article;
Pankova A.A. – conducting the experiment, collecting and initially processing the material, statistical processing of data;
Abramova V.A. – collecting and initially processing the material, statistical processing of data;
Rukavishnikov V.S. – research methodology, approval of the manuscript for publication, checking critical content;
Savchenkov M.F. – critical revision of the manuscript, final approval of the article.
All authors are responsible for the integrity of all parts of the manuscript and approval of the manuscript final version.

Funding. The work was carried out according to the research plan within the framework of the state task.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Received: March 19, 2025 / Accepted: June 26, 2025 / Published: July 31, 2025

1. Confalonieri U., Menne B., Akhtar R., Ebi K.L., Hauengue M., Kovats R.S., et al. Human health. In: Parry M.L., Canziani O.F., Palutikof J.P., van der Linden P.J., Hanson C.E., eds. ClimateChange 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 391–431: 2007.

2. Langmann B., Duncan B., Textor C., Trentmann J., van der Werf G.R. Vegetation fire emissions and their impact on air pollution and climate. Atmos. Environ. 2009; 43: 107–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.047

3. Wu J., Winer A., Delfino R.J. Exposure assessment of particulate matter air pollution before, during, and after the 2003 Southern California Wildfires. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40: 3333–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.056

4. Fisk W.J., Chan W.R. Health benefits and costs of filtration interventions that reduce indoor exposure to PM2.5 during wildfires. Indoor Air. 2017; 27(1): 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12285

5. Delfino R.J., Brummel S., Wu J., Stern H., Ostro B., Lipsett M., et al. The relationship of respiratory and cardiovascular hospital admissions to the southern California wildfires of 2003. Occup. Environ. Med. 2009; 66(3): 189–97. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2008.041376

6. Loomis D., Grosse Y., Lauby-Secretan B., El Ghissassi F., Bouvard V., Benbrahim-Tallaa L., et al. The carcinogenicity of outdoor air pollution. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14(13): 1262–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70487-x

7. Huttunen K., Siponen T., Salonen I., Yli-Tuomi T., Aurela M., Dufva H., et al. Low-level exposure to ambient particulate matter is associated with systemic inflammation in ischemic heart disease patients. Environ. Res. 2012; 116: 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.04.004

8. Liu J.C., Pereira G., Uhl S.A., Bravo M.A., Bell M.L. A systematic review of the physical health impacts from non-occupational exposure to wildfire smoke. Environ. Res. 2015; 136: 120–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2014.10.015

9. Milton L.A., White A.R. The potential impact of bushfire smoke on brain health. Neurochem. Int. 2020; 139: 104796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2020.104796

10. Schuller A., Montrose L. Influence of woodsmoke exposure on molecular mechanisms underlying Alzheimer’s disease: existing literature and gaps in our understanding. Epigenet. Insights. 2020; 13: 2516865720954873. https://doi.org/10.1177/2516865720954873

11. Abdo M., Ward I., O’Dell K., Ford B., Pierce J.R., Fischer E.V., et al. Impact of wildfire smoke on adverse pregnancy outcomes in Colorado, 2007–2015. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019; 16(19): 3720. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193720

12. Holstius D.M., Reid C.E., Jesdale B.M., Morello-Frosch R. Birth weight following pregnancy during the 2003 Southern California wildfires. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012; 120(9): 1340–5. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104515

13. Heft-Neal S., Driscoll A., Yang W., Shaw G., Burke M. Associations between wildfire smoke exposure during pregnancy and risk of preterm birth in California. Environ. Res. 2022; 203: 111872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111872

14. Mccoy S.J., Zhao X. Wildfire and infant health: A geospatial approach to estimating the health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2021; 28: 32–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2020.1730747

15. Requia W.J., Papatheodorou S., Koutrakis P., Mukherjee R., Roig H.L. Increased preterm birth following maternal wildfire smoke exposure in Brazil. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health. 2022; 240: 113901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113901

16. Requia W.J., Amini H., Adams M.D., Schwartz J.D. Birth weight following pregnancy wildfire smoke exposure in more than 1.5 million newborns in Brazil: A nationwide case-control study. Lancet Reg. Health Am. 2022; 11: 100229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2022.100229

17. Wegesser T.C., Pinkerton K.E., Last J.A. California Wildfires of 2008: coarse and fine particulate matter toxicity. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009; 117(6): 893–7. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800166

18. Vokina V.A., Andreeva E.S., Novikov M.A., Sosedova L.M. A device for simulating intoxication in small laboratory animals by biomass combustion products. Patent RF № 213283 U1; 2022. (in Russian)

19. Kulikov A.V., Tikhonova M.A., Kulikov V.A. Automated measurement of special preference in the open field test with transmitted lighting. J. Neurosci. Meth. 2008; 170: 345–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.01.024

20. On the sanitary and epidemiological state of the territories of the Russian Federation affected by the fire and the measures taken by Rospotrebnadzor as of August 9, 2010. Available at: https://37.rospotrebnadzor.ru/document/1190/ (in Russian)

21. On the sanitary and epidemiological state of the territories of the Russian Federation affected by the fire and the measures taken by Rospotrebnadzor as of August 8, 2010. Available at: https://37.rospotrebnadzor.ru/document/1184/ (in Russian)

22. WHO. WHO global air quality guidelines: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide; 2021. Available at: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/345329

23. Willson B.E., Gee N.A., Willits N.H., Li L., Zhang Q., Pinkerton K.E., et al. Effects of the 2018 Camp Fire on birth outcomes in non-human primates: Case-control study. Reprod. Toxicol. 2021; 105: 128–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2021.08.005

24. Capitanio J.P., Del Rosso L.A., Gee N., Lasley B.L. Adverse biobehavioral effects in infants resulting from pregnant rhesus macaques’ exposure to wildfire smoke. Nat. Commun. 2022; 13(1): 1774. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29436-9

25. Voulgarakis A., Field R.D. Fire influences on atmospheric composition, air quality and climate. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2015; 1: 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40726-015-0007-z

26. Kim K.H., Kabir E., Kabir S. A review on the human health impact of airborne particulate matter. Environ. Int. 2015; 74: 136–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2014.10.005

27. Prass T.S., Lopes S.R., Dórea J.G., Marques R.C., Brandão K.G. Amazon forest fires between 2001 and 2006 and birth weight in Porto Velho. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2012; 89(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-012-0621-z

28. Breton C., Park C., Wu J. Effect of prenatal exposure to wildfire-generated PM2.5 on birth weight. Epidemiology. 2011; 22: 66. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000391864.79309.9c

29. O’Donnell M.H., Behie A.M. Effects of wildfire disaster exposure on males birth weight in an Australian population. Evol. Med. Public Health. 2015; 2015(1): 344–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eov027

30. Gelashvili O.A. Variant of periodization of biologically similar stages of human and rats ontogenesis. Saratovskii nauchno-meditsinskii zhurnal. 2008; 22(4): 125–6. (in Russian)