| Literature DB >> 24534768 |
Kathleen F Bush1, Cheryl L Fossani2, Shi Li3, Bhramar Mukherjee4, Carina J Gronlund5, Marie S O'Neill6.
Abstract
As a result of climate change, extreme precipitation events are expected to increase in frequency and intensity. Runoff from these extreme events poses threats to water quality and human health. We investigated the impact of extreme precipitation and beach closings on the risk of gastrointestinal illness (GI)-related hospital admissions among individuals 65 and older in 12 Great Lakes cities from 2000 to 2006. Poisson regression models were fit in each city, controlling for temperature and long-term time trends. City-specific estimates were combined to form an overall regional risk estimate. Approximately 40,000 GI-related hospital admissions and over 100 beach closure days were recorded from May through September during the study period. Extreme precipitation (≥90th percentile) occurring the previous day (lag 1) is significantly associated with beach closures in 8 of the 12 cities (p < 0.05). However, no association was observed between beach closures and GI-related hospital admissions. These results support previous work linking extreme precipitation to compromised recreational water quality.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24534768 PMCID: PMC3945582 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110202014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Cities in the Great Lakes region included in this analysis, defined as the county or counties surrounding the Metropolitan Statistical Area.
| City | State | County |
|---|---|---|
| Buffalo | NY | Erie |
| Chicago | IL | Cook |
| Lake | ||
| McHenry | ||
| Will | ||
| Cleveland | OH | Cuyahoga |
| Lake | ||
| Lorain | ||
| Detroit | MI | Macomb |
| Oakland | ||
| Wayne | ||
| Erie | PA | Erie |
| Gary | IN | Lake |
| Grand Rapids | MI | Kent |
| Milwaukee | WI | Milwaukee |
| Minneapolis | MN | Ramsey |
| Rochester | NY | Monroe |
| Rockford | IL | Winnebago |
| Toledo | OH | Lucas |
Figure 1Location of beaches in the Great Lakes region included in this analysis, cities correspond to the surrounding county or counties for which data was available.
Data sources corresponding to hospital admission, meteorological, and recreational water quality data.
| Data Type | Data Source |
|---|---|
|
| Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services |
|
| National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program |
| Cook; Lake; McHenry; Will; and Winnebago, IL | Illinois Department of Public Health: Environmental Health |
| Lake, IN | Indiana Department of Environmental Management |
| Kent; Macomb; Oakland; and Wayne, MI | Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Environment |
| Ramsey, MN | Ramsey County Public Works |
| Erie; and Monroe, NY | New York State Health Department |
| Cuyahoga; Lake; Lorain; and Lucas, OH | Ohio Department of Health |
| Erie, PA | Erie County Department of Health |
| Milwaukee; and Waukesha, WI | Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources |
Summary statistics for 12 Great Lakes cities during the swimming season (1 May–30 September) from 2000 to 2006.
| City | Population Over 65a (% of Population) | Mean Daily GI-Related Admissions (per 100,000) | Mean Daily Beach Closures (Total) | Median daily Total Precipitation (mm) (90th Percentile) | Mean daily Apparent Temperature °C (°F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buffalo, NY | 151,258 (16) | 1.48 (0.98) | 0.93 (292) | 0.00 (9.40) | 18.99 (66.19) |
| Chicago, IL | 747,777 (11) | 14.47 (1.94) | 0.61 (506) | 0.00 (9.63) | 20.39 (68.71) |
| Cleveland, OH | 284,788 (15) | 4.89 (1.72) | 1.47 (535) | 0.00 (9.63) | 20.22 (68.39) |
| Detroit, MI | 491,592 (12) | 7.35 (1.50) | 0.71 (342) | 0.00 (9.40) | 20.44 (68.80) |
| Erie, PA | 40,256 (14) | 0.42 (1.04) | 0.40 (103) | 0.00 (10.67) | 19.38 (66.89) |
| Gary, IN | 63,234 (13) | 0.95 (1.50) | 0.90 (293) | 0.00 (10.67) | 20.27 (68.49) |
| Grand Rapids, MI | 59,625 (10) | 0.69 (1.16) | 0.43 (15) | 0.00 (11.43) | 19.14 (66.46) |
| Milwaukee, WI | 121,685 (13) | 2.38 (1.96) | 0.90 (376) | 0.00 (9.40) | 19.06 (66.31) |
| Minneapolis, MN | 59,502 (12) | 1.95 (3.28) | 0.23 (17) | 0.00 (10.67) | 19.33 (67.79) |
| Rochester, NY | 95,779 (13) | 0.80 (0.84) | 0.40 (145) | 0.00 (9.65) | 19.29 (66.22) |
| Rockford, IL | 35,450 (13) | 0.51 (1.44) | 0.10 (75) | 0.00 (9.65) | 20.14 (68.26) |
| Toledo, OH | 59,441 (13) | 0.57 (0.96) | 0.44 (115) | 0.00 (9.65) | 20.44 (68.8) |
Note: a Population estimate based on the 2000 U.S. Census [49].
City-specific odds ratios (OR) with p-values evaluating the association between daily categorical precipitation a at lag 1 (1-day previous) and beach closures in 12 Great Lakes cities from 2000 to 2006.
| Precipitation Category | City-specific OR | City-specific OR | City-specific OR | City-specific OR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 < prcp < 0.01 | 2.42 (0.14) | 1.69 (0.23) | 1.77 (0.30) | 1.28 (0.68) |
| 0.01 ≤ prcp < 90th percentile | 2.94 (<0.001) | 1.34 (0.14) | 1.65 (0.07) | 1.42 (0.13) |
| prcp ≥ 90th percentile | 16.93 (<0.001) | 1.20 (0.41) | 7.39 (0.00) | 4.02 (<0.001) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 < prcp < 0.01 | 0.00 (0.98) | 1.48 (0.70) | - | 0.93 (0.89) |
| 0.01 ≤ prcp < 90th percentile | 2.31 (0.09) | 1.53 (0.15) | 1.71 (0.54) | 1.41 (0.22) |
| prcp ≥ 90th percentile | 10.21 (<0.001) | 2.01 (0.05) | 0.57 (0.64) | 2.01 (0.04) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| 0 < prcp < 0.01 | 2.00 (0.59) | 2.67 (0.03) | 0.00 (0.09) | 2.02 (0.29) |
| 0.01 ≤ prcp < 90th percentile | 1.33 (0.75) | 1.91 (0.03) | 0.51 (0.17) | 1.24 (0.55) |
| prcp ≥ 90th percentile | 1.60 (0.50) | 5.67 (<0.001) | 0.66 (0.40) | 9.07 (<0.001) |
Not: a Reference category is where precipitation is equal to 0.
City-specific risk ratios a (95% confidence intervals) corresponding to the risk of GI-related hospital admissions among the elderly following beach closures over a 1-week lag using a two-stage spline structure in 12 Great Lakes cities 2000–2006.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.96 (0.79, 1.16) | 0.96 (0.91, 1.00) | 0.99 (0.90, 1.09) | 1.01 (0.94, 1.08) | 1.49 (0.90, 2.46) |
| lag 2 | 0.97 (0.79, 1.19) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.07) | 1.05 (0.95, 1.17) | 1.00 (0.93, 1.08) | 1.67 (1.02, 2.76) |
| lag 3 | 1.04 (0.85, 1.28) | 1.00 (0.95, 1.05) | 0.88 (0.80, 0.98) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.05) | 1.15 (0.69, 1.93) |
| lag 4 | 0.98 (0.81, 1.20) | 1.01 (0.96, 1.06) | 0.96 (0.86, 1.06) | 0.99 (0.92, 1.07) | 1.23 (0.70, 2.18) |
| lag 5 | 0.78 (0.63, 0.96) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.07) | 1.02 (0.92, 1.14) | 0.92 (0.86, 0.99) | 0.49 (0.22, 1.06) |
| lag 6 | 0.92 (0.75, 1.12) | 1.02 (0.98, 1.08) | 1.03 (0.93, 1.15) | 0.95 (0.88, 1.02) | 1.54 (0.89, 2.65) |
| lag 7 | 0.92 (0.75, 1.12) | 1.00 (0.96, 1.05) | 0.96 (0.87, 1.06) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.04) | 0.94 (0.52, 1.68) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.90 (0.71, 1.15) | 0.70 (0.22, 2.13) | 1.05 (0.89, 1.24) | 1.76 (1.13, 2.75) | 0.84 (0.64, 1.10) |
| lag 2 | 1.08 (0.85, 1.38) | 1.74 (0.74, 4.09) | 1.02 (0.87, 1.20) | 1.13 (0.72, 1.75) | 0.86 (0.65, 1.12) |
| lag 3 | 1.01 (0.80, 1.28) | 1.13 (0.51, 2.51) | 0.99 (0.84, 1.17) | 1.08 (0.68, 1.69) | 1.30 (1.00, 1.68) |
| lag 4 | 1.03 (0.81, 1.31) | 1.26 (0.50, 3.17) | 1.03 (0.88, 1.21) | 0.70 (0.40, 1.22) | 0.96 (0.73, 1.26) |
| lag 5 | 0.99 (0.78, 1.25) | 0.66 (0.17, 2.57) | 1.08 (0.92, 1.27) | 1.14 (0.69, 1.86) | 0.97 (0.74, 1.28) |
| lag 6 | 1.11 (0.87, 1.41) | 1.49 (0.49, 4.50) | 0.99 (0.84, 1.16) | 1.10 (0.73, 1.67) | 1.03 (0.79, 1.35) |
| lag 7 | 0.87 (0.69, 1.11) | 2.41 (0.75, 7.77) | 1.07 (0.91, 1.26) | 0.75 (0.51, 1.10) | 1.19 (0.92, 1.53) |
|
|
|
| |||
| lag 1 | 1.11 (0.67, 1.82) | 0.97 (0.68, 1.38) | 0.98 (0.95, 1.01) | ||
| lag 2 | 0.78 (0.42, 1.43) | 0.70 (0.47, 1.02) | 1.01 (0.98, 1.05) | ||
| lag 3 | 0.83 (0.46, 1.50) | 1.13 (0.77, 1.65) | 0.98 (0.95, 1.02) | ||
| lag 4 | 1.04 (0.62, 1.74) | 0.64 (0.43, 0.97) | 1.00 (0.96, 1.03) | ||
| lag 5 | 1.35 (0.85, 2.13) | 1.03 (0.71, 1.48) | 0.99 (0.95, 1.02) | ||
| lag 6 | 0.77 (0.42, 1.43) | 1.01 (0.71, 1.45) | 1.01 (0.97, 1.04) | ||
| lag 7 | 1.30 (0.81, 2.10) | 1.67 (1.22, 2.30) | 0.99 (0.96, 1.03) |
Note: a Two-stage Poisson regression adjusted for meteorological conditions, day of week, and long-term time trends.
Figure 2The discontinous, summer-only spline compared to the spline estimated using the entire 7-year time-series in the two-stage spline model, using Detroit, MI as an example.
City-specific risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) corresponding to the risk of GI-related hospital admissions among the elderly following extreme precipitation over a 1-week lag using a two-stage spline structure in 12 Great Lakes cities 2000–2006.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.69 (0.38, 1.25) | 1.12 (1.00, 1.24) | 1.02 (0.83, 1.25) | 0.98 (0.78, 1.20) | 1.33 (0.38, 4.60) |
| lag 2 | 1.26 (0.80, 1.99) | 0.97 (0.86, 1.09) | 1.03 (0.84, 1.27) | 0.92 (0.73, 1.15) | 0.34 (0.05, 2.49) |
| lag 3 | 1.11 (0.67, 1.83) | 1.02 (0.90, 1.15) | 1.13 (0.93, 1.38) | 1.04 (0.83, 1.30) | 2.33 (0.94, 5.77) |
| lag 4 | 0.61 (0.33, 1.13) | 0.99 (0.88, 1.12) | 0.96 (0.77, 1.21) | 1.05 (0.83, 1.31) | 1.04 (0.30, 3.61) |
| lag 5 | 1.04 (0.62, 1.72) | 0.99 (0.88, 1.11) | 0.93 (0.74, 1.17) | 0.78 (0.61, 1.00) | 0.96 (0.22, 4.14) |
| lag 6 | 0.99 (0.59, 1.69) | 1.05 (0.94, 1.18) | 1.01 (0.82, 1.26) | 1.29 (1.06, 1.58) | 1.02 (0.23, 4.46) |
| lag 7 | 1.10 (0.68, 1.79) | 1.10 (0.98, 1.23) | 1.11 (0.91, 1.36) | 1.02 (0.81, 1.27) | 0.75 (0.11, 5.37) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 1.14 (0.42, 3.11) | 0.51 (0.13, 1.87) | 0.86 (0.55, 1.35) | 0.83 (0.27, 2.49) | 1.25 (0.77, 2.02) |
| lag 2 | 1.52 (0.64, 3.59) | 1.31 (0.53, 3.25) | 0.91 (0.59, 1.39) | 1.02 (0.41, 2.52) | 0.80 (0.45, 1.41) |
| lag 3 | 0.42 (0.09, 2.00) | 1.23 (0.55, 2.75) | 0.93 (0.61, 1.43) | 1.28 (0.60, 2.77) | 1.18 (0.72, 1.94) |
| lag 4 | 1.30 (0.55, 3.07) | 0.47 (0.14, 1.57) | 1.19 (0.83, 1.73) | 0.71 (0.23, 2.16) | 1.09 (0.65, 1.84) |
| lag 5 | 1.45 (0.62, 3.39) | 1.33 (0.44, 4.04) | 0.66 (0.41, 1.06) | 1.57 (0.67, 3.66) | 0.86 (0.48, 1.56) |
| lag 6 | 0.91 (0.34, 2.49) | 0.66 (0.18, 2.40) | 1.02 (0.69, 1.52) | 1.05 (0.45, 2.44) | 1.21 (0.75, 1.95) |
| lag 7 | 0.90 (0.30, 2.72) | 0.87 (0.23, 3.26) | 1.08 (0.74, 1.58) | 0.51 (0.20, 1.29) | 1.00 (0.59, 1.72) |
|
|
| ||||
| lag 1 | 1.50 (0.90, 2.53) | 0.71 (0.30, 1.69) | |||
| lag 2 | 0.79 (0.38, 1.61) | 0.86 (0.39, 1.88) | |||
| lag 3 | 1.20 (0.64, 2.24) | 0.68 (0.27, 1.70) | |||
| lag 4 | 1.02 (0.53, 1.96) | 0.73 (0.30, 1.82) | |||
| lag 5 | 0.66 (0.31, 1.43) | 0.98 (0.46, 2.11) | |||
| lag 6 | 0.97 (0.47, 2.00) | 1.73 (0.95, 3.15) | |||
| lag 7 | 1.44 (0.79, 2.63) | 1.69 (0.94, 3.02) |
City-specific risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) corresponding to the risk of GI-related hospital admissions among the elderly following beach closures over a 1-week lag using discontinuous time-series in 12 Great Lakes cities 2000–2006.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.94 (0.78, 1.14) | 0.96 (0.91, 1.01) | 1.02 (0.92, 1.12) | 1.01 (0.94, 1.08) | 1.35 (0.81, 2.25) |
| lag 2 | 0.96 (0.79, 1.18) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.08) | 1.08 (0.97, 1.19) | 1.00 (0.93, 1.08) | 1.49 (0.90, 2.49) |
| lag 3 | 1.04 (0.84, 1.27) | 0.99 (0.94, 1.05) | 0.89 (0.81, 0.99) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.05) | 1.09 (0.65, 1.84) |
| lag 4 | 0.96 (0.78, 1.17) | 1.01 (0.96, 1.07) | 0.97 (0.87, 1.08) | 1.00 (0.93, 1.07) | 1.24 (0.69, 2.20) |
| lag 5 | 0.76 (0.62, 0.93) | 1.02 (0.97, 1.08) | 1.04 (0.93, 1.16) | 0.92 (0.86, 0.99) | 0.48 (0.22, 1.05) |
| lag 6 | 0.89 (0.73, 1.09) | 1.03 (0.98, 1.08) | 1.06 (0.95, 1.17) | 0.95 (0.88, 1.02) | 1.58 (0.91, 2.74) |
| lag 7 | 0.91 (0.74, 1.11) | 1.01 (0.97, 1.06) | 0.97 (0.87, 1.08) | 0.97 (0.90, 1.04) | 0.87 (0.48, 1.58) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| lag 1 | 0.95 (0.74, 1.22) | 0.62 (0.20, 1.93) | 1.02 (0.86, 1.20) | 1.84 (1.16, 2.91) | 0.82 (0.63, 1.08) |
| lag 2 | 1.16 (0.90, 1.49) | 1.89 (0.76, 4.68) | 1.01 (0.86, 1.19) | 1.09 (0.69, 1.71) | 0.84 (0.64, 1.11) |
| lag 3 | 1.09 (0.85, 1.39) | 1.11 (0.48, 2.60) | 0.99 (0.84, 1.17) | 0.96 (0.60, 1.55) | 1.28 (0.99, 1.65) |
| lag 4 | 1.13 (0.88, 1.46) | 1.37 (0.53, 3.58) | 1.05 (0.90, 1.23) | 0.61 (0.35, 1.05) | 0.94 (0.72, 1.24) |
| lag 5 | 1.06 (0.82, 1.38) | 1.48 (0.26, 8.57) | 1.08 (0.92, 1.27) | 1.10 (0.67, 1.81) | 0.96 (0.73, 1.27) |
| lag 6 | 1.22 (0.94, 1.57) | 1.35 (0.45, 4.05) | 1.00 (0.86, 1.18) | 1.07 (0.70, 1.65) | 1.02 (0.78, 1.34) |
| lag 7 | 0.90 (0.70, 1.15) | 2.29 (0.68, 7.76) | 1.07 (0.91, 1.26) | 0.77 (0.52, 1.12) | 1.17 (0.91, 1.52) |
|
|
| ||||
| lag 1 | 1.10 (0.67, 1.82) | 0.97 (0.68, 1.39) | |||
| lag 2 | 0.77 (0.42, 1.42) | 0.70 (0.48, 1.03) | |||
| lag 3 | 0.81 (0.44, 1.47) | 1.11 (0.76, 1.63) | |||
| lag 4 | 1.02 (0.61, 1.72) | 0.64 (0.42, 0.96) | |||
| lag 5 | 1.35 (0.84, 2.16) | 1.02 (0.71, 1.46) | |||
| lag 6 | 0.75 (0.40, 1.40) | 1.01 (0.71, 1.45) | |||
| lag 7 | 1.29 (0.79, 2.09) | 1.64 (1.19, 2.25) |