06.01.2013 Views

Air Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005 - World Health ...

Air Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005 - World Health ...

Air Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005 - World Health ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

354<br />

AIR QUALITY GUIDELINES<br />

<strong>2005</strong> (136). Daily measurements of five pollutants (PM10, ozone, nitrogen dioxide,<br />

carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide) were available from January 1993<br />

to August 2000. The mean daily 1-hour maximum nitrogen dioxide value was<br />

45.9 ppb. Detailed measurements of PM were available for 24 months. Visits for<br />

asthma, COPD, upper respiratory infections and pneumonia were evaluated.<br />

Considering an a priori three-day lag (lag 0–2), PM10, ozone, nitrogen dioxide<br />

and carbon monoxide were associated with all respiratory admissions and with<br />

upper respiratory infections. The effect for 20 ppb 1-hour nitrogen dioxide was<br />

1.6% (95% CI 0.6–2.7) for all respiratory conditions and 1.9% (95% CI 0.6–3.1)<br />

for upper respiratory infections. Visits for COPD were associated only with<br />

1-hour nitrogen dioxide (3.5% per 20 ppb, 95% CI 0.6–6.5) and carbon monoxide.<br />

For asthma, a stronger effect was detected considering distributed lag models<br />

(lags 0–13 days), with PM10, nitrogen dioxide (4.7% for 20 ppb, 95% CI 1.1–8.5)<br />

and carbon monoxide showing a statistically significant effect. Paediatric asthma<br />

visits (ages 2–18 years) showed a strong association only with nitrogen dioxide<br />

(2.7% per 20 ppb, 95% CI 0.5–5.0). In multi-pollutant models, the nitrogen dioxide<br />

effects were attenuated when PM10, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide<br />

were considered simultaneously. However, the effect of nitrogen dioxide on<br />

emergency visits for asthma was not attenuated in multi-pollutant models, while<br />

the estimates for the other pollutants suggested a weak association or none at all.<br />

Observations are also available on nitrogen dioxide and hospital admissions<br />

for cardiovascular diseases. In the studies by Polonieski et al. (148) (myocardial<br />

infarction), Burnett et al. (149) (all cardiovascular admissions), Burnett et al.<br />

(150) (ischaemic heart disease, heart failure), Atkinson et al. (151) (all cardiovascular),<br />

Wong e al. (152) (all cardiovascular, heart failure) and D’Ippoliti et al.<br />

(153) (myocardial infarction), a statistically significant effect was found for nitrogen<br />

dioxide. In some of these studies, the effect estimates were moderated and<br />

sometimes became non-significant when the investigators controlled for particle<br />

concentrations. In the studies by Schwartz (154) (all cardiovascular) and Morris<br />

et al. (155) (heart failure), no effect of nitrogen dioxide was found.<br />

Two recent large American studies evaluated nitrogen dioxide and other pollutants<br />

and their relationship with hospital admissions for ischemic heart disease<br />

(156) and visits to emergency departments for cardiovascular problems (134).<br />

Mann et al. (156) examined whether admissions for ischemic heart disease were<br />

associated with air pollutants in subjects with and without secondary diagnoses<br />

of arrhythmia or congestive heart failure, using a large data set of members of a<br />

large health maintenance organization who resided in the South Coast <strong>Air</strong> Basin<br />

of California from 1988 to 1995. Daily variations in carbon monoxide, nitrogen<br />

dioxide, ozone and PM10 were considered. Carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide<br />

(mean 37.2 ppb, interquartile range 3.7–138) were both associated with admissions,<br />

with the greatest effects for carbon monoxide. PM10 was not associated<br />

with hospital admissions in this study but particle concentrations were available

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!