Integrative review identifies links between particulate matter exposure and dementia in older adults, suggesting urgent policy needs.
Objective: To investigate the scientific evidence on the association between exposure to atmospheric particulate matter (PM), especially fine and ultrafine fractions, and the development of neurodegenerative changes in the elderly. Theoretical Framework: PM is a pollutant composed of solid and liquid particles suspended in the air, originating from vehicular emissions, industrial processes, and biomass combustion. Chronic exposure is associated with oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, telomere shortening, and the accumulation of neurotoxic proteins—mechanisms implicated in diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and other dementias. Method: Integrative review of observational and experimental studies published between 2020 and 2025, involving human and animal models, investigating outcomes related to PM-induced neurotoxicity. Results and Discussion: Prolonged exposure to particulate pollutants is associated with cognitive impairment and neuropathological changes. Epidemiological studies show a higher incidence of dementia in older adults exposed to high levels of PM, especially those with a genetic predisposition. Experimental research shows that ultrafine particles induce significant brain dysfunction in animal models, reproducing human findings. These results confirm PM as a modifiable environmental risk factor and reinforce the urgency of mitigation policies. Research Implications: Include strengthening air quality control policies, epidemiological surveillance, development of preventive strategies, and improvement of theoretical models integrating environmental and genetic factors. Originality/Value: Integrates recent evidence from different designs, providing an updated view on the neurodegenerative impacts of PM in the elderly and highlighting its relevance as a priority target for public health preventive actions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goelzer et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: