4.0 Article

PM2.5 constituents and related air quality variables as predictors of survival in a cohort of U. S. military veterans

期刊

INHALATION TOXICOLOGY
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 645-657

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08958370600742946

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Air quality data on trace metals, other constituents of PM2.5, and criteria air pollutants were used to examine relationships with long-term mortality in a cohort of male U.S. military veterans, along with data on vehicular traffic density ( annual vehicle-miles traveled per unit of land area). The analysis used county-level environmental data for the period 1997 - 2002 and cohort mortality for 1997 - 2001. The proportional hazards model included individual data on age, race, smoking, body mass index, height, blood pressure, and selected interactions; contextual variables also controlled for climate, education, and income. In single-pollutant models, traffic density appears to be the most important predictor of survival, but potential contributions are also seen for NO2, NO3-, elemental carbon, nickel, and vanadium. The effects of the other main constituents of PM2.5, of crustal particles, and of peak levels of CO, O-3, or SO2 appear to be less important. Traffic density is also consistently the most important environmental predictor in multiple-pollutant models, with combined relative risks up to about 1.2. However, from these findings it is not possible to discern which aspects of traffic ( pollution, noise, stress) may be the most relevant to public health or whether an area-based predictor such as traffic density may have an inherent advantage over localized measures of ambient air quality. It is also possible that traffic density could be a marker for unmeasured pollutants or for geographic gradients per se. Pending resolution of these issues, including replication in other cohorts, it will be difficult to formulate additional cost-effective pollution control strategies that are likely to benefit public health.

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

4.0
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