4.6 Article

Ambient air pollution and asthma exacerbations in children: An eight-city analysis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 164, 期 6, 页码 505-517

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwj225

关键词

air pollution; asthma; carbon monoxide; nitrogen dioxide; ozone; pediatrics; sulfur dioxide

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01-HR-16050, N01-HR-16049, N01-HR-16047, N01-HR-16051, N01-HR-16044, N01-HR-16045, N01-HR-16046, N01-HR-16052, N01-HR-16048] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors investigated the relation between ambient concentrations of five of the Environmental Protection Agency's criteria pollutants and asthma exacerbations (daily symptoms and use of rescue inhalers) among 990 children in eight North American cities during the 22-month prerandomization phase (November 1993-September 1995) of the Childhood Asthma Management Program. Short-term effects of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter less than 10 mu m in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), sulfur dioxide, and warm-season ozone were examined in both one-pollutant and two-pollutant models, using lags of up to 2 days. Lags in carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide were positively associated with both measures of asthma exacerbation, and the 3-day moving sum of sulfur dioxide levels was marginally related to asthma symptoms. PM10 and ozone were unrelated to exacerbations. The strongest effects tended to be seen with 2-day lags, where a 1-parts-per-million change in carbon monoxide and a 20-parts-per-billion change in nitrogen dioxide were associated with symptom odds ratios of 1.08 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02, 1.15) and 1.09 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.15), respectively, and with rate ratios for rescue inhaler use of 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.10) and 1.05 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.09), respectively. The authors believe that the observed carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide associations can probably be attributed to mobile-source emissions, though more research is required.

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