Michael Jerrett

Exposure to ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) is a major global health concern. Quantitative estimates of attributable mortality are based on disease-specific hazard ratio models that incorporate risk information from multiple PM 2.5 sources (outdoor and indoor air pollution from use of solid fuels and secondhand and active smoking), requiring assumptions about equivalent exposure and toxicity. We relax these contentious assumptions by constructing a PM 2.5 -mortality hazard ratio function based only on cohort studies of outdoor air pollution that covers the global exposure range. We modeled the shape of the association between PM 2.5 and nonaccidental mortality using data from 41 cohorts from 16 countries—the Global Exposure Mortality Model (GEMM). We then constructed GEMMs for five specific causes of death examined by the global burden of disease (GBD). The GEMM predicts 8.9 million [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.5–10.3] deaths in 2015, a figure 30% larger than that predicted by the sum of deaths among the five specific causes (6.9; 95% CI: 4.9–8.5) and 120% larger than the risk function used in the GBD (4.0; 95% CI: 3.3–4.8). Differences between the GEMM and GBD risk functions are larger for a 20% reduction in concentrations, with the GEMM predicting 220% higher excess deaths. These results suggest that PM 2.5 exposure may be related to additional causes of death than the five considered by the GBD and that incorporation of risk information from other, nonoutdoor, particle sources leads to underestimation of disease burden, especially at higher concentrations.

BACKGROUND: Although many studies have linked elevations in tropospheric ozone to adverse health outcomes, the effect of long-term exposure to ozone on air pollution-related mortality remains uncertain. We examined the potential contribution of exposure to ozone to the risk of death from cardiopulmonary causes and specifically to death from respiratory causes. METHODS: Data from the study cohort of the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II were correlated with air-pollution data from 96 metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. Data were analyzed from 448,850 subjects, with 118,777 deaths in an 18-year follow-up period. Data on daily maximum ozone concentrations were obtained from April 1 to September 30 for the years 1977 through 2000. Data on concentrations of fine particulate matter (particles that are < or = 2.5 microm in aerodynamic diameter [PM(2.5)]) were obtained for the years 1999 and 2000. Associations between ozone concentrations and the risk of death were evaluated with the use of standard and multilevel Cox regression models. RESULTS: In single-pollutant models, increased concentrations of either PM(2.5) or ozone were significantly associated with an increased risk of death from cardiopulmonary causes. In two-pollutant models, PM(2.5) was associated with the risk of death from cardiovascular causes, whereas ozone was associated with the risk of death from respiratory causes. The estimated relative risk of death from respiratory causes that was associated with an increment in ozone concentration of 10 ppb was 1.040 (95% confidence interval, 1.010 to 1.067). The association of ozone with the risk of death from respiratory causes was insensitive to adjustment for confounders and to the type of statistical model used. CONCLUSIONS: In this large study, we were not able to detect an effect of ozone on the risk of death from cardiovascular causes when the concentration of PM(2.5) was taken into account. We did, however, demonstrate a significant increase in the risk of death from respiratory causes in association with an increase in ozone concentration.

BACKGROUND: Wildfire activity is predicted to increase in many parts of the world due to changes in temperature and precipitation patterns from global climate change. Wildfire smoke contains numerous hazardous air pollutants and many studies have documented population health effects from this exposure. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the evidence of health effects from exposure to wildfire smoke and to identify susceptible populations. METHODS: We reviewed the scientific literature for studies of wildfire smoke exposure on mortality and on respiratory, cardiovascular, mental, and perinatal health. Within those reviewed papers deemed to have minimal risk of bias, we assessed the coherence and consistency of findings. DISCUSSION: Consistent evidence documents associations between wildfire smoke exposure and general respiratory health effects, specifically exacerbations of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Growing evidence suggests associations with increased risk of respiratory infections and all-cause mortality. Evidence for cardiovascular effects is mixed, but a few recent studies have reported associations for specific cardiovascular end points. Insufficient research exists to identify specific population subgroups that are more susceptible to wildfire smoke exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent evidence from a large number of studies indicates that wildfire smoke exposure is associated with respiratory morbidity with growing evidence supporting an association with all-cause mortality. More research is needed to clarify which causes of mortality may be associated with wildfire smoke, whether cardiovascular outcomes are associated with wildfire smoke, and if certain populations are more susceptible. CITATION: Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. 2016. Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Environ Health Perspect 124:1334-1343; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1409277.

Land Use Regression (LUR) models have been used increasingly for modeling small-scale spatial variation in air pollution concentrations and estimating individual exposure for participants of cohort studies. Within the ESCAPE project, concentrations of PM(2.5), PM(2.5) absorbance, PM(10), and PM(coarse) were measured in 20 European study areas at 20 sites per area. GIS-derived predictor variables (e.g., traffic intensity, population, and land-use) were evaluated to model spatial variation of annual average concentrations for each study area. The median model explained variance (R(2)) was 71% for PM(2.5) (range across study areas 35-94%). Model R(2) was higher for PM(2.5) absorbance (median 89%, range 56-97%) and lower for PM(coarse) (median 68%, range 32- 81%). Models included between two and five predictor variables, with various traffic indicators as the most common predictors. Lower R(2) was related to small concentration variability or limited availability of predictor variables, especially traffic intensity. Cross validation R(2) results were on average 8-11% lower than model R(2). Careful selection of monitoring sites, examination of influential observations and skewed variable distributions were essential for developing stable LUR models. The final LUR models are used to estimate air pollution concentrations at the home addresses of participants in the health studies involved in ESCAPE.