4.8 Article

Long-term residential exposure to PM2.5, PM10, black carbon, NO2, and ozone and mortality in a Danish cohort

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 265-272

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.12.010

关键词

Particulate matter; NO2; Black carbon; Ozone; CVD; Mortality; Epidemiology

资金

  1. NordForsk under the Nordic Programme on Health and Welfare [75007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Air pollutants such as NO2 and PM2.5 have consistently been linked to mortality, but only few previous studies have addressed associations with long-term exposure to black carbon (BC) and ozone (O-3). We investigated the association between PM2.5, PM10, BC, NO2, and O-3 and mortality in a Danish cohort of 49,564 individuals who were followed up from enrollment in 1993-1997 through 2015. Residential address history from 1979 onwards was combined with air pollution exposure obtained by the state-of-the-art, validated, THOR/AirGIS air pollution modelling system, and information on residential traffic noise exposure, lifestyle and socio-demography. We observed higher risks of all-cause as well as cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality with higher long-term exposure to PM2.5, PM10, BC, and NO2. For PM2.5 and CVD mortality, a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.29 (95% CI: 1.13-1.47) per 5 mu g/m(3) was observed, and correspondingly HRs of 1.16 (95% CI: 1.05-1.27) and 1.11 (95% CI: 1.04-1.17) were observed for BC (per 1 mu g/m(3)) and NO2 (per 10 mu g/m(3)),respectively. Adjustment for noise gave slightly lower estimates for the air pollutants and CVD mortality. Inverse relationships were observed for O-3. None of the investigated air pollutants were related to risk of respiratory mortality. Stratified analyses suggested that the elevated risks of CVD and all-cause mortality in relation to long-term PM, NO2 and BC exposure were restricted to males. This study supports a role of PM, BC, and NO2 in all-cause and CVD mortality independent of road traffic noise exposure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据