4.6 Article

Residence near a major road and respiratory symptoms in US veterans

期刊

EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 6, 页码 728-736

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ede.0000082045.50073.66

关键词

respiratory symptoms; traffic; GIS; air pollution; mobile sources; adults

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA090792] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NCI NIH HHS [R01 CA090792, R01 CA90792] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is evidence that exposure to motor vehicle exhaust is associated with respiratory disease. Studies in children have observed associations with wheeze, hospital admissions for asthma, and decrements in pulmonary function. However, a relationship of adult respiratory disease with exposure to vehicular traffic has not been established. Methods: We studied a sample of U.S. mate veterans drawn from the general population of southeastern Massachusetts. Information on respiratory symptoms and potential risk factors was collected by questionnaire. We assessed distance from residential addresses to major roadways using geographic information system methodology. Results: Adjusting for cigarette smoking, age, and occupational exposure to dust, men living within 50 m of a major roadway were more likely to report persistent wheeze (odds ratio [OR] = 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.0-1.7) compared with those living more than 400 in away. The risk was observed only for those living within 50 m of heavily trafficked roads (greater than or equal to10,000 vehicles/24 h): OR = 1.7; CI = 1.2-2.4). The risk of patients experiencing chronic phlegm while living on heavily trafficked roads also increased (OR = 1.4; CI = 1.0-2.0), although there was little evidence for an association with chronic cough. This association was not dependent on preexisting doctor-diagnosed chronic respiratory or heart disease. Conclusions: Exposure to vehicular emissions by living near busy roadways might contribute to symptoms of chronic respiratory disease in adults.

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