BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that moderate levels of outdoor air pollution may be associated with infant mortality, representing substantial loss of life-years. To date, there has been no investigation of the effects of outdoor pollution on infant mortality in the UK. METHODS: Daily time-series data of air pollution and all infant deaths between 1990 and 2000 in 10 major cities of England: Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield, were analysed. City-specific estimates were pooled across cities in a fixed-effects meta-regression to provide a mean estimate. RESULTS: Few associations were observed between infant deaths and most pollutants studied. The exception was sulphur dioxide (SO2), of which a 10 mug/m(3) increase was associated with a RR of 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.04) in all infant deaths. The effect was present in both neonatal and postneonatal deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing reductions in SO2 levels in the UK may yield additional health benefits for infants.
BACKGROUND: There is growing concern that moderate levels of outdoor air pollution may be associated with infant mortality, representing substantial loss of life-years. To date, there has been no investigation of the effects of outdoor pollution on infant mortality in the UK. METHODS: Daily time-series data of air pollution and all infant deaths between 1990 and 2000 in 10 major cities of England: Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Nottingham and Sheffield, were analysed. City-specific estimates were pooled across cities in a fixed-effects meta-regression to provide a mean estimate. RESULTS: Few associations were observed between infant deaths and most pollutants studied. The exception was sulphur dioxide (SO2), of which a 10 mug/m(3) increase was associated with a RR of 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.04) in all infant deaths. The effect was present in both neonatal and postneonatal deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing reductions in SO2 levels in the UK may yield additional health benefits for infants.
Authors: Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat; Brent A Coull; Joel Schwartz; Diane R Gold; Helen H Suh Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: L A Pereira; D Loomis; G M Conceição; A L Braga; R M Arcas; H S Kishi; J M Singer; G M Böhm; P H Saldiva Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Jennifer L Peel; Mitchel Klein; W Dana Flanders; James A Mulholland; Gary Freed; Paige E Tolbert Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Hans Scheers; Samuel M Mwalili; Christel Faes; Frans Fierens; Benoit Nemery; Tim S Nawrot Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Andréa Paula Peneluppi de Medeiros; Nelson Gouveia; Reinaldo Paul Pérez Machado; Miriam Regina de Souza; Gizelton Pereira Alencar; Hillegonda Maria Dutilh Novaes; Márcia Furquim de Almeida Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-09-22 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Cindy M Padilla; Wahida Kihal-Talantikit; Verónica M Vieira; Séverine Deguen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Juyong Brian Kim; Mary Prunicki; Francois Haddad; Christopher Dant; Vanitha Sampath; Rushali Patel; Eric Smith; Cezmi Akdis; John Balmes; Michael P Snyder; Joseph C Wu; Kari C Nadeau Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-03-15 Impact factor: 5.501