Fine particulate air pollution and human mortality: 25+ years of cohort studies

Pope, C. Arden; Coleman, Nathan C.; Pond, Zachari A.; Burnett, Richard T.

doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108924

Cited by 276 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

171

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the lung cancer IRR is remarkably robust across modeling choices, spatial controls, and various exposure windows. Although the present study estimates an IRR that is somewhat higher than the estimate in a recent meta-analysis that examined the association between PM 2:5 exposure and lung cancer incidence [risk ratio = 1:07 (95% CI: 1.03, 1.12)] (Huang et al 2017), the IRR from the present study is comparable to the meta-analysis mentioned previously for the association between exposure to PM 2:5 and lung cancer incidence or mortality [HR = 1:14 (95% CI: 1.08, 1.21)] (Pope et al 2020). Finally, the exposure-response curve provides evidence that although smoking is a much larger risk factor for lung cancer incidence, PM 2:5 also contributes to the risk of lung cancer.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Furthermore, extensive epidemiological evidence indicates that PM 2:5 is associated with lung cancer mortality (Crouse et al 2015;Yin et al 2017;Lepeule et al 2012;Turner et al 2011;Pope et al 2019). For example, a recent meta-analysis estimated the hazard ratio (HR) for the association between PM 2:5 and lung cancer to be 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08, 1.21] (Pope et al 2020). Much of the epidemiological evidence to support this association, however, is based on prospective cohort studies that examined lung cancer mortality, not lung cancer incidence.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fine Particulate Matter Exposure and Cancer Incidence: Analysis of SEER Cancer Registry Data from 1992–2016

Coleman

Burnett²,

Ezzati

et al. 2020

Environ Health Perspect

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Previous research has identified an association between fine particulate matter (PM 2:5) air pollution and lung cancer. Most of the evidence for this association, however, is based on research using lung cancer mortality, not incidence. Research that examines potential associations between PM 2:5 and incidence of non-lung cancers is limited. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between the incidence of cancer and exposure to PM 2:5 using >8:5 million cases of cancer incidences from U.S. registries. Secondary objectives include evaluating the sensitivity of the associations to model selection, spatial control, and latency period as well as estimating the exposure-response relationship for several cancer types. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data were used to calculate incidence rates for various cancer types in 607 U.S. counties. County-level PM 2:5 concentrations were estimated using integrated empirical geographic regression models. Flexible seminonparametric regression models were used to estimate associations between PM 2:5 and cancer incidence for selected cancers while controlling for important county-level covariates. Primary time-independent models using average incidence rates from 1992-2016 and average PM 2:5 from 1988-2015 were estimated. In addition, time-varying models using annual incidence rates from 2002-2011 and lagged moving averages of annual estimates for PM 2:5 were also estimated. RESULTS: The incidences of all cancer and lung cancer were consistently associated with PM 2:5. The incident rate ratios (IRRs), per 10-lg=m 3 increase in

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fine Particulate Matter Exposure and Cancer Incidence: Analysis of SEER Cancer Registry Data from 1992–2016

Coleman

Burnett²,

Ezzati

et al. 2020

Environ Health Perspect

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, EPA has not yet released year-2020 data for several criteria pollutants, including NO 2 ; investigation of additional pollutants will provide a more complete picture regarding changes in air pollution from responses to covid. Finally, because of decades of effective regulatory policies, air pollution levels in the US are (while causing substantial adverse health effects 57,58 ) much lower than many other countries in the world 59,60 . Findings here suggest that covid-related emission reductions did not in general lower average US PM 2.5 beyond their typical range of variability, and did not consistently lead to lower-than-expected ozone concentrations across the country.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PM2.5 and Ozone Air Pollution Levels Have Not Dropped Consistently Across the US Following Societal Covid Response

Bekbulat¹,

Apte²,

Millet³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Analysis of a large national dataset of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone air pollution from the US Environmental Protection Agency indicate opposing differences in average concentrations during the covid response period, relative to expected levels. These are the two most important pollutants in terms of public health impacts and non-attainment in the US. Post- covid response, average PM2.5 levels are modestly higher (~10%) than expected; average ozone levels are lower (~7%). However, the size of the post-response ozone anomaly is decreasing with time. In addition, no individual US state had lower-than-expected PM2.5 for all weeks post- covid response, and only one US state (California) met that criteria for ozone. Two non-covid factors, meteorology and regional transport, do not fully explain observed trends. These findings are unexpected given the large reduction in many household’s activities associated with “stay at home” and other covid responses. We hypothesize that this result partly arises from the fact that ozone and the majority of PM2.5 are secondary pollutants formed in the atmosphere from emissions from many sources (i.e., not just traffic). Preliminary analysis of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) data in a few cities reveals substantially lower-than-expected (~31%) concentrations post-covid. NO2 is a primary pollutant and is much more strongly associated with traffic than PM2.5 or ozone. </p><br>

show abstract

“…Air pollution levels and the air pollution-attributable burden of disease are declining in most European countries. Nonetheless, new studies report strong associations with health effects at levels below current legal standards in the general population, with no observable thresholds [22,23]. Two of the largest new studies undertaken to examine adverse health effects of low levels of ambient air pollution in USA and Canada were published recently by the Health Effects Institute [24,25].…”

Section: How Low Should We Go? New Health Research On Low-level Ambiementioning

confidence: 99%

Air pollution and health: recent advances in air pollution epidemiology to inform the European Green Deal: a joint workshop report of ERS, WHO, ISEE and HEI

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Fine particulate air pollution and human mortality: 25+ years of cohort studies

Cited by 276 publications

References 102 publications

Fine Particulate Matter Exposure and Cancer Incidence: Analysis of SEER Cancer Registry Data from 1992–2016

Fine Particulate Matter Exposure and Cancer Incidence: Analysis of SEER Cancer Registry Data from 1992–2016

PM2.5 and Ozone Air Pollution Levels Have Not Dropped Consistently Across the US Following Societal Covid Response

Air pollution and health: recent advances in air pollution epidemiology to inform the European Green Deal: a joint workshop report of ERS, WHO, ISEE and HEI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About