4.4 Article

Correlation of environmental factors with asthma and rhinitis symptoms in Tulsa, OK

Journal

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 92, Issue 3, Pages 356-366

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61575-X

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Airborne allergens, pollutants, and climatic changes are known to influence the symptoms of asthma patients. Objective: To correlate airborne fungal spore and pollen concentrations, meteorological data, and airborne pollutants with asthma and rhinitis symptoms to develop predictive models for asthma severity. Methods: Patients from the Tulsa community participated in this study from September I to October 31, 2000, by filling out daily symptom diaries and measuring morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates. Air samples were collected using a volumetric spore trap. Meteorological variables and maximum and average pollutants were also included in the analysis. Linear regression analyses were performed for all environmental variables and symptom scores. Forward stepwise multiple regression analyses were performed to determine sets of variables that could be used to predict the conditions of increased symptom severity. Results: Twenty-four patients participated in this study. The predominant spore types included Cladosporium, ascospores, and basidiospores. The predominant pollen type was Ambrosia. September was unusually hot and dry in Tulsa, but 161 mm of precipitation fell in October, primarily during the last I I days. Two periods of peak symptoms occurred during the study, the first during the peak week of Ambrosia and the second after a 22degrees C drop in temperature over 6 days. Numerous environmental variables showed significant correlations with symptom scores; however, there was no single predictive model for all symptoms. Conclusions: Ambrosia pollen and other environmental variables, including ozone levels, were significantly correlated with asthma and rhinitis symptoms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available