4.7 Article

Association between PM10 and specific circulatory system diseases in China

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-91637-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41975141, 41961028]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study in Beijing found that PM10 has a significant short-term impact on emergency room visits for total circulatory system diseases as well as specific diseases such as arrhythmia, cerebrovascular diseases, high blood pressure, and ischemic heart disease. The addition of NO2 or SO2 to the model resulted in a weakening of the effect estimates of PM10, while the addition of PM2.5 mostly increased the effect estimates of PM10. The study also found that PM10 had a greater effect on males and the elderly.
Particulate matter (PM) has been proved to be a risk factor for the development of circulatory system diseases (CSDs) around the world. In this study, we collected daily air pollutants, emergency room (ER) visits for CSDs, and meteorological data from 2009 to 2012 in Beijing, China. After controlling for the long-term trend and eliminating the influence of confounding factors, the generalized additive model (GAM) was used to evaluate the short-term effects of PM10 on CSDs and cause-specific diseases. The results showed that for every 10 mu g/m(3) increase in PM10, the largest effect estimates in ER visits of total CSDs, arrhythmia, cerebrovascular diseases, high blood pressure, ischemic heart disease and other related diseases were 0.14% (95% CI: 0.06-0.23%), 0.37% (95% CI: - 0.23 to 0.97%), 0.20% (95% CI: 0.00-0.40%), 0.15% (95% CI: 0.02-0.27%), 0.18% (95% CI: 0.02-0.35%) and 0.35% (95% CI: - 0.04 to 0.79%), respectively. When NO2 or SO2 was added into the model, the effect estimates of PM10 were mostly attenuated, while in those models with PM2.5 added, the effect estimates of PM10 were mostly increased. Stratified analysis indicated that PM10 had a greater effect on males and the elderly.

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

4.7
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