4.6 Article

Association of black carbon with cognition among children in a prospective birth cohort study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 167, 期 3, 页码 280-286

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm308

关键词

air pollution; child; cognition; intelligence; neurotoxicity syndromes; particulate matter; soot; vehicle emissions

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [K08 HL 04187] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES015172-01, T32 ES007142, ES-00002] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While studies show that ultrafine and fine particles can be translocated from the lungs to the central nervous system, the possible neurodegenerative effect of air pollution remains largely unexplored. The authors examined the relation between black carbon, a marker for traffic particles, and cognition among 202 Boston, Massachusetts, children (mean age = 9.7 years (standard deviation, 1.7)) in a prospective birth cohort study (1986-2001). Local black carbon levels were estimated using a validated spatiotemporal land-use regression model (mean predicted annual black carbon level, 0.56 mu g/m(3) (standard deviation, 0.13)). The Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning and the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test were administered for assessment of cognitive constructs. In analysis adjusting for sociodemographic factors, birth weight, blood lead level, and tobacco smoke exposure, black carbon (per interquartile-range increase) was associated with decreases in the vocabulary (-2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.5, 1.1), matrices (-4.0, 95% CI: -7.6, -0.5), and composite intelligence quotient (-3.4, 95% CI: -6.6, -0.3) scores of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test and with decreases on the visual subscale (-5.4, 95% CI: -8.9, -1.9) and general index (-3.9, 95% CI: -7.5, -0.3) of the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning. Higher levels of black carbon predicted decreased cognitive function across assessments of verbal and nonverbal intelligence and memory constructs.

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

4.6
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