4.3 Article

Residential proximity to large airports and potential health impacts in New York State

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-007-0265-1

Keywords

hospital admissions; respiratory diseases; residential proximity; airports

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective This study assessed whether residents living near commercial airports have increased rates of hospital admissions due to respiratory diseases compared to those living farther away from these airports. Methods This cross-sectional study included all residents living within 12 miles from the center of each three airports (Rochester in Rochester, LaGuardia in New York City and MacArthur in Long Island). We obtained hospital admission data collected by the NYS Department of Health for all eligible residents who were admitted for asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and, for children aged 0-4 years, bronchitis and bronchiolitis during 1995-2000. Exposure indicators were distance from the airport (<= 5 miles versus > 5 miles) and dominant wind-flow patterns from the airport (> 75th percentile versus <= 75th percentile), as well as their combinations. Results Increased relative risks of hospital admissions for respiratory conditions were found for residents living within 5 miles from the airports (1.47; 95% CI 1.41, 1.52 for Rochester and 1.38; 95% CI 1.37, 1.39 for LaGuardia) compared to those living > 5 miles. We did not find positive associations between wind-flow patterns and respiratory hospital admissions among the residents in any airport vicinity. No differences were observed for MacArthur airport using either exposure measure. Conclusion There is the suggestion that residential proximity to some airports may increase hospital admissions for respiratory disorders. However, there are many factors that could influence this association that may differ by airport, which should be measured and studied further.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available