Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of effect estimates (excess risk per 10 μg/m 3 ) from cohort studies on particulate matter (PM 10 or PM 2.5 ) and mortality from all causes and cardiovascular diseases

From: Long-term air pollution exposure and cardio- respiratory mortality: a review

Study

Study population

Follow-up period

Pollutant

Conca(μg/m3)

Spatial scaleb

% change in risk (95% CI) in mortality associated with a 10 μg/m3increase PM

References

      

All cause

Cardiovascular c

 

Harvard six cities

8111 adults in six US cities

1976 - 1989

PM2.5

18 (11–30)

City

13(4, 23)

18 (6, 32)

[15]

Harvard six cities

8096 adults in six US cities

1979 -1998

PM2.5

15 (10–22)

City

16 (7, 26)

28 (13,44)

[14]

Harvard six cities

8096 adults in six US cities

1974 - 2009

PM2.5

16 (11–24)

City

14 (7, 22)

26 (14, 40)

[16]

American Cancer Society (ACS) study

552, 800 adults from 51 US cities

1982 - 1989

PM2.5

18 (9–34)

City

26 (8, 47)

NA

[17]

ACS study

500,000 adults from 51 US cities

1982 -1998

PM2.5

18 (4)

City

6 (2, 11)

9 (3, 16)c

[18]

ACS sub-cohort study

22,905 subjects in Los Angeles area

1982 - 2000

PM2.5

(~9 – 27)

Zip code (Int)

17 (5, 30)

26 (1, 60)c

[19]

German cohort

4752 women in Ruhr area

1985 – 2003

PM10

44 (35–53)

Address (near)

12 (−9, 37)

52 (8, 114)

[20]

German cohort

4752 women in Ruhr and surrounding area

1985 - 2008

PM10

44 (35–53)

Address (near)

22 (6, 41)

61 (26, 104)

[21]

Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study

65,893 postmenopausal women from 36 US metropolitan areas

1994-1998

PM2.5

14 (3–28)

Zip code (near)

NA

76 (25,147)

[22]

Netherlands Cohort Study

120, 852 subjects from Netherlands

1987 -1996

PM2.5

28 (23–37)

Address (LUR)

6 (−3, 16)

4 (−10, 21)

[23]

Nurses’ Health Study

66,250 women from the US north eastern metropolitan areas

1992-2002

PM10

22 (4)

Address (LUR)

11 (1,23)

35 (3, 77)

[24]

Nurses’ Health Study

66,250 women from the US north eastern metropolitan areas

1992-2002

PM2.5

14 (6–28)

Address (LUR)

26 (2, 54)

NA

[25]

Medicare national cohort

13.2 million elderly Medicare recipients across the USA

2000 - 2005

PM2.5

13 (4)

Zip code (Mean)

4 (3, 6)d

 

[26]

California teachers study

45,000 female teachers

2002 -2007

PM2.5

18 (7–39)

Address (near)

6 (−4, 16)

19 (5, 36)c

[27]

Swiss national cohort

National census data linked with mortality

2000 - 2005

PM10

19 (>40)e

Address (Disp)

NA

−1 (−3, 0)

[28]

Health professionals follow-up study

17,545 highly educated men in the midwestern and northeastern US

1989 – 2003

PM2.5

18 (3)

Address (LUR)

−14 (−28,2)

3 (−17, 26)

[29]

Vancouver cohort

452,735 Vancouver residents 45–85 yr

1999 – 2002

PM2.5

4 (0 – 10)

Address (LUR)

NA

7 (-14, 32)

[30]

China nat. hypertension survey

70,497 men and women

1991 - 2000

TSP

289 (113–499)

City

0.3 (0, 1)

1 (0, 2)

[31]

US trucking industry cohort

53,814 men in the US trucking industry

1985 -2000

PM2.5

14 (4)

Address (near)

10 (3, 18)

5 (−7, 19)

[32]

Chinese retrospective cohort study

9,941 adults from five districts of Shenyang city

1998 -2009

PM10

154 (78–274)f

District (mean)

53 (50, 56)

55 (51, 60)

[33]

Canadian national cohort

2.1 million nonimmigrant Canadians . > 25 yr

1991 - 2001

PM2.5

9 (2 – 19)

Enumeration area, N = 45710 (satellite)

10 (5, 15)

15 (7, 24)

[34]

New Zealand Census mortality study

1.06 million adults in urban areas from 1996 census

1996 -1999

PM10

8 (0 – 19)

Census tract (Disp)

7 (3, 10)

6 (1, 11)

[35]

California teachers study

101,784 female teachers

1997- 2005

PM2.5

16 (3–28)

Address (Inter)

1 (−5, 9)

7 (−5, 19)

[36]

Nippon data cohort

7,250 adults > 30 yr throughout Japan

1980 - 2004

PM10

<27 - > 43

District (near)

−2 (−8, 4)

−10 (−19, 0)

[37]

Rome longitudinal study

1,265,058 adults from Rome

2001 - 2010

PM2.5

23 (7 – 32)

Address (DISP, 1 km grid)

4 (3, 5)

6 (4, 8)

[38]

  1. a Mean with minimum – maximum in parentheses (μg/m3). One number in parentheses is standard deviation.
  2. b Spatial scale of exposure assignment, in parentheses exposure assignment method. City = average of monitors within the city; Near = nearest monitor concentration; LUR = land use regression; Disp = dispersion modeling; Inter = interpolation.
  3. c Cardio-pulmonary mortality reported if cardiovascular mortality not available.
  4. d Combining the estimates from the three regions of the USA.
  5. e Median and 90th percentile reported.
  6. f Very high pollution levels that changed significantly during follow-up changing the ranking of the five districts.
  7. Studies adjusted for individual smoking except references [26, 28, 30, 34, 38, 56].