4.6 Article

An Association between Air Pollution and Daily Outpatient Visits for Respiratory Disease in a Heavy Industry Area

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 8, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075220

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Central University-Landseed Hospital [100-A-004, 101-A-006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this work we used daily outpatient data from the Landseed Hospital in a heavily industrial area in northern Taiwan to study the associations between daily outpatient visits and air pollution in the context of a heavily polluted atmospheric environment in Chung-Li area during the period 2007-2011. We test the normality of each data set, control for the confounding factors, and calculate correlation coefficient between the outpatient visits and air pollution and meteorology, and use multiple linear regression analysis to seek significance of these associations. Our results show that temperature and relative humidity tend to be negatively associated with respiratory diseases. NO and NO2 are two main air pollutants that are positively associated with respiratory diseases, followed by PM10, PM2.5, O-3, CO, and SO2. Young outpatients (age 0-15 years) are most sensitive to changing air pollution and meteorology factors, followed by the eldest (age >= 66 years) and age 16-65 years of outpatients. Outpatients for COPD diseases are most sensitive to air pollution and meteorology factors, followed by allergic rhinitis, asthma, and pneumonia diseases. In the context of sex difference to air pollution and meteorological factors, male outpatients are more sensitive than female outpatients in the 16-65 age groups, while female outpatients are more sensitive than male outpatients in the young 0-15 age groups and in the eldest age groups. In total, female outpatients are more sensitive to air pollution and meteorological factors than male outpatients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available