Cargando…

Health Benefits from Large-Scale Ozone Reduction in the United States

Background: Exposure to ozone has been associated with adverse health effects, including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary and respiratory morbidity. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berman, Jesse D., Fann, Neal, Hollingsworth, John W., Pinkerton, Kent E., Rom, William N., Szema, Anthony M., Breysse, Patrick N., White, Ronald H., Curriero, Frank C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491929/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22809899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104851
_version_ 1782249028436623360
author Berman, Jesse D.
Fann, Neal
Hollingsworth, John W.
Pinkerton, Kent E.
Rom, William N.
Szema, Anthony M.
Breysse, Patrick N.
White, Ronald H.
Curriero, Frank C.
author_facet Berman, Jesse D.
Fann, Neal
Hollingsworth, John W.
Pinkerton, Kent E.
Rom, William N.
Szema, Anthony M.
Breysse, Patrick N.
White, Ronald H.
Curriero, Frank C.
author_sort Berman, Jesse D.
collection PubMed
description Background: Exposure to ozone has been associated with adverse health effects, including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary and respiratory morbidity. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 75 ppb, expressed as the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average over a 24-hr period. Based on recent monitoring data, U.S. ozone levels still exceed this standard in numerous locations, resulting in avoidable adverse health consequences. Objectives: We sought to quantify the potential human health benefits from achieving the current primary NAAQS standard of 75 ppb and two alternative standard levels, 70 and 60 ppb, which represent the range recommended by the U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Methods: We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration–response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature. Results: We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75-ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC-recommended range of standards (70–60 ppb) had been met. Conclusions: Attaining a more stringent primary ozone standard would significantly reduce ozone-related premature mortality and morbidity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3491929
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-34919292012-11-08 Health Benefits from Large-Scale Ozone Reduction in the United States Berman, Jesse D. Fann, Neal Hollingsworth, John W. Pinkerton, Kent E. Rom, William N. Szema, Anthony M. Breysse, Patrick N. White, Ronald H. Curriero, Frank C. Environ Health Perspect Research Background: Exposure to ozone has been associated with adverse health effects, including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary and respiratory morbidity. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 75 ppb, expressed as the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average over a 24-hr period. Based on recent monitoring data, U.S. ozone levels still exceed this standard in numerous locations, resulting in avoidable adverse health consequences. Objectives: We sought to quantify the potential human health benefits from achieving the current primary NAAQS standard of 75 ppb and two alternative standard levels, 70 and 60 ppb, which represent the range recommended by the U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Methods: We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration–response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature. Results: We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75-ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC-recommended range of standards (70–60 ppb) had been met. Conclusions: Attaining a more stringent primary ozone standard would significantly reduce ozone-related premature mortality and morbidity. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 2012-07-18 2012-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3491929/ /pubmed/22809899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104851 Text en http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, ?Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives?); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.
spellingShingle Research
Berman, Jesse D.
Fann, Neal
Hollingsworth, John W.
Pinkerton, Kent E.
Rom, William N.
Szema, Anthony M.
Breysse, Patrick N.
White, Ronald H.
Curriero, Frank C.
Health Benefits from Large-Scale Ozone Reduction in the United States
title Health Benefits from Large-Scale Ozone Reduction in the United States
title_full Health Benefits from Large-Scale Ozone Reduction in the United States
title_fullStr Health Benefits from Large-Scale Ozone Reduction in the United States
title_full_unstemmed Health Benefits from Large-Scale Ozone Reduction in the United States
title_short Health Benefits from Large-Scale Ozone Reduction in the United States
title_sort health benefits from large-scale ozone reduction in the united states
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491929/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22809899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104851
work_keys_str_mv AT bermanjessed healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates
AT fannneal healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates
AT hollingsworthjohnw healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates
AT pinkertonkente healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates
AT romwilliamn healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates
AT szemaanthonym healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates
AT breyssepatrickn healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates
AT whiteronaldh healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates
AT currierofrankc healthbenefitsfromlargescaleozonereductionintheunitedstates