4.8 Article

Mortality Risk Associated with Short-Term Exposure to Particulate Matter in China: Estimating Error and Implication

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 55, 期 2, 页码 1110-1121

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c05095

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (Youth Program) [21707006]
  2. Fundamental Research Project of Beihang University [KG16036301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used a multiple-path particle dosimetry model to estimate the deposition of PM in human airways and associated mortality risk in China. The results showed that different sizes of PM deposited in the respiratory tract have a significant impact on the nationwide nonaccidental mortality rate.
Most previous studies used a specific size of particulate matter (PMx) for dosimetry estimation when determining particulate matter (PM)-associated risk, which precluded the impact of other sizes of PM. Here, we used a multiple-path particle dosimetry model to determine the deposition of PM in human airways and further estimated the associated mortality risk in 205 cities in China. Results showed that the fractions of PM1, PM1-2.5, and coarse PM (PM2.5-10) deposited in the tracheobronchial (TB) and pulmonary airways were estimated in ranges of 11.06-12.83, 19.9-26.37, and 5.35-9.81%, respectively. Each 10 mu g/m(3) increase in deposited PM was significantly associated with a nationwide increment of 1.12% (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.77-1.49%) for total nonaccidental mortality. Short-term exposure to PM during 2014-2017 resulted in a nationwide mortality of 98 826 cases/year, with contributions from PM1, PM1-2.5, coarse PM of 37.7, 43.1, and 19.2%, respectively. Our study demonstrated that the estimated mortality counts may be associated with the coefficient of variation of dosimetry estimations. In addition, we revealed the caution should be exercised when interpreting PMx-associated risk and further reinforced the importance of size distribution in relevant research.

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