4.7 Article

Combined influence of multiple climatic factors on the incidence of bacterial foodborne diseases

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 610, 期 -, 页码 10-16

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.045

关键词

Foodborne disease; Climatic factors; Combined effect; Climate change; South Korea

资金

  1. IPET (Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries), Republic of Korea [316021-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Information regarding the relationship between the incidence of foodborne diseases (FBD) and climatic factors is useful in designing preventive strategies for FBD based on anticipated future climate change. To better predict the effect of climate change on foodborne pathogens, the present study investigated the combined influence of multiple climatic factors on bacterial FBD incidence in South Korea. During 2011-2015, the relationships between 8 climatic factors and the incidences of 13 bacterial FBD, were determined based on inpatient stays, on a monthly basis using the Pearson correlation analyses, multicollinearity tests, principal component analysis (PCA), and the seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) modeling. Of the 8 climatic variables, the combination of temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, insolation, and cloudiness was significantly associated with salmonellosis (P < 0.01), vibriosis (P < 0.05), and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection (P < 0.01). The combined effects of snowfall, wind speed, duration of sunshine, and cloudiness were not significant for these 3 FBD. Other FBD, including campylobacteriosis, were not significantly associated with any combination of climatic factors. These findings indicate that the relationships between multiple climatic factors and bacterial FBD incidence can be valuable for the development of prediction models for future patterns of diseases in response to changes in climate. (c) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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