Jennifer D. Stowell , Kamal J. Maji , Zongrun Li , Yongtao Hu , Ambarish Vaidyanathan , Chad Milando , Armistead G. Russell , Patrick L. Kinney , M. Talat Odman , Gregory A. Wellenius
{"title":"美国东南部11个州规定燃烧产生的PM2.5与急诊室就诊之间的关系","authors":"Jennifer D. Stowell , Kamal J. Maji , Zongrun Li , Yongtao Hu , Ambarish Vaidyanathan , Chad Milando , Armistead G. Russell , Patrick L. Kinney , M. Talat Odman , Gregory A. Wellenius","doi":"10.1016/j.envint.2025.109770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Longer, more severe wildfire seasons are becoming the norm in fire-prone areas. Prescribed burning is a tool used to mitigate wildfire spread. However, prescribed burning also contributes to air pollution, including PM<sub>2.5</sub> (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 2.5 µm). While the health impacts of wildfire smoke (WFS) are well-studied, relatively less is known about the effects of prescribed fire smoke (PFS). Our study leverages healthcare claims available for residents of 11 Southeastern US states (2013–2021) to investigate the health impacts associated with PFS. We used a chemical transport model (CTM) and data fusion-based method to estimate county-level outdoor PFS-specific PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations and employed a time-stratified case-crossover design to quantify the relative risk of emergency department (ED) visits associated with PM<sub>2.5</sub> levels lagged 0–3 days. Models adjusted for non-prescribed fire PM<sub>2.5</sub> and O<sub>3</sub>, temperature, humidity, and holidays. We also examined how relative risks varied across population subgroups. PFS-specific PM<sub>2.5</sub> was associated with a relative risk of ED visits for non-external causes (1.01, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.01, 1.02) comparing 4.3 µg/m<sub>3</sub> (95th percentile) versus 0 µg/m<sup>3</sup>, upper respiratory infections (1.04, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.07), and ischemic heart disease (1.06, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.11). We did not observe an increased risk for overall respiratory outcomes, asthma, or COPD, which differs from published WFS findings. Relative risks varied across outcomes and modestly across population subgroups defined by age and markers of social vulnerability. However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, these differences were not significant. Some findings differed from associations previously reported elsewhere for WFS, highlighting the need for direct comparisons of the health impacts of WFS versus PFS for evaluating safety of prescribed burning as a fire management tool.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":308,"journal":{"name":"Environment International","volume":"203 ","pages":"Article 109770"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Associations between PM2.5 from prescribed burning and emergency department visits in 11 Southeastern US states\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer D. Stowell , Kamal J. Maji , Zongrun Li , Yongtao Hu , Ambarish Vaidyanathan , Chad Milando , Armistead G. Russell , Patrick L. Kinney , M. Talat Odman , Gregory A. Wellenius\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envint.2025.109770\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Longer, more severe wildfire seasons are becoming the norm in fire-prone areas. Prescribed burning is a tool used to mitigate wildfire spread. However, prescribed burning also contributes to air pollution, including PM<sub>2.5</sub> (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 2.5 µm). While the health impacts of wildfire smoke (WFS) are well-studied, relatively less is known about the effects of prescribed fire smoke (PFS). Our study leverages healthcare claims available for residents of 11 Southeastern US states (2013–2021) to investigate the health impacts associated with PFS. We used a chemical transport model (CTM) and data fusion-based method to estimate county-level outdoor PFS-specific PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations and employed a time-stratified case-crossover design to quantify the relative risk of emergency department (ED) visits associated with PM<sub>2.5</sub> levels lagged 0–3 days. Models adjusted for non-prescribed fire PM<sub>2.5</sub> and O<sub>3</sub>, temperature, humidity, and holidays. We also examined how relative risks varied across population subgroups. PFS-specific PM<sub>2.5</sub> was associated with a relative risk of ED visits for non-external causes (1.01, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.01, 1.02) comparing 4.3 µg/m<sub>3</sub> (95th percentile) versus 0 µg/m<sup>3</sup>, upper respiratory infections (1.04, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.07), and ischemic heart disease (1.06, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.11). We did not observe an increased risk for overall respiratory outcomes, asthma, or COPD, which differs from published WFS findings. Relative risks varied across outcomes and modestly across population subgroups defined by age and markers of social vulnerability. However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, these differences were not significant. Some findings differed from associations previously reported elsewhere for WFS, highlighting the need for direct comparisons of the health impacts of WFS versus PFS for evaluating safety of prescribed burning as a fire management tool.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment International\",\"volume\":\"203 \",\"pages\":\"Article 109770\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025005215\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment International","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025005215","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Associations between PM2.5 from prescribed burning and emergency department visits in 11 Southeastern US states
Longer, more severe wildfire seasons are becoming the norm in fire-prone areas. Prescribed burning is a tool used to mitigate wildfire spread. However, prescribed burning also contributes to air pollution, including PM2.5 (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 2.5 µm). While the health impacts of wildfire smoke (WFS) are well-studied, relatively less is known about the effects of prescribed fire smoke (PFS). Our study leverages healthcare claims available for residents of 11 Southeastern US states (2013–2021) to investigate the health impacts associated with PFS. We used a chemical transport model (CTM) and data fusion-based method to estimate county-level outdoor PFS-specific PM2.5 concentrations and employed a time-stratified case-crossover design to quantify the relative risk of emergency department (ED) visits associated with PM2.5 levels lagged 0–3 days. Models adjusted for non-prescribed fire PM2.5 and O3, temperature, humidity, and holidays. We also examined how relative risks varied across population subgroups. PFS-specific PM2.5 was associated with a relative risk of ED visits for non-external causes (1.01, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.01, 1.02) comparing 4.3 µg/m3 (95th percentile) versus 0 µg/m3, upper respiratory infections (1.04, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.07), and ischemic heart disease (1.06, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.11). We did not observe an increased risk for overall respiratory outcomes, asthma, or COPD, which differs from published WFS findings. Relative risks varied across outcomes and modestly across population subgroups defined by age and markers of social vulnerability. However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, these differences were not significant. Some findings differed from associations previously reported elsewhere for WFS, highlighting the need for direct comparisons of the health impacts of WFS versus PFS for evaluating safety of prescribed burning as a fire management tool.
期刊介绍:
Environmental Health publishes manuscripts focusing on critical aspects of environmental and occupational medicine, including studies in toxicology and epidemiology, to illuminate the human health implications of exposure to environmental hazards. The journal adopts an open-access model and practices open peer review.
It caters to scientists and practitioners across all environmental science domains, directly or indirectly impacting human health and well-being. With a commitment to enhancing the prevention of environmentally-related health risks, Environmental Health serves as a public health journal for the community and scientists engaged in matters of public health significance concerning the environment.