Abstract
The fine particulate matter baseline (PMB), which includes PM2.5 monitor readings fused with Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) model predictions, using the Hierarchical Bayesian Model (HBM), is less accurate in rural areas without monitors. To address this issue, an upgraded HBM was used to form four experimental aerosol optical depth (AOD)-PM2.5 concentration surfaces. A case-crossover design and conditional logistic regression evaluated the contribution of the AOD-PM2.5 surfaces and PMB to four respiratory-cardiovascular hospital events in all 99 12 km2 CMAQ grids, and in grids with and without ambient air monitors. For all four health outcomes, only two AOD-PM2.5 surfaces, one not kriged (PMC) and the other kriged (PMCK), had significantly higher Odds Ratios (ORs) on lag days 0, 1, and 01 than PMB in all grids, and in grids without monitors. In grids with monitors, emergency department (ED) asthma PMCK on lag days 0, 1 and 01 and inpatient (IP) heart failure (HF) PMCK ORs on lag days 01 were significantly higher than PMB ORs. Warm season ORs were significantly higher than cold season ORs. Independent confirmation of these results should include AOD-PM2.5 concentration surfaces with greater temporal-spatial resolution, now easily available from geostationary satellites, such as GOES-16 and GOES-17.
Highlights
The adverse effects of PM2.5 on the respiratory-cardiovascular system have been repeatedly confirmed [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]
Emergency department (ED) asthma PMCK on lag days 0, 1 and 01 and inpatient (IP) heart failure (HF) PMCK Odds Ratios (ORs) on lag days 01 were significantly higher than particulate matter baseline (PMB) ORs
PMCQ and PMB in grids with monitors (97.4%) and grids without monitors (94.3%) was negatively smaller (−3.1%) than it was for PMCKQ (−15.9%), PMC (−32.4%) and PMCK (−35.6%)
Summary
The adverse effects of PM2.5 on the respiratory-cardiovascular system have been repeatedly confirmed [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Ambient air monitors are not spatially distributed, and most make measurements every 3 or 6 days [13,16,17,18]. There are characterization errors in available PM2.5 concentration measurements due to limited instrument measurement precision and spatial heterogeneity [19]. In 2004, the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and EPA established and logistically supported the CDC Public Health Air Surveillance Evaluation (PHASE) project [18,20,21,22]. One important PHASE project outcome was the development of the first-generation HBM that statistically fused PM2.5 monitor concentration readings with CMAQ PM2.5 model predictions [23,24,25]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
