Jia C Liu1, Gavin Pereira2, Sarah A Uhl3, Mercedes A Bravo4, Michelle L Bell5. 1. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Electronic address: coco.liu@yale.edu. 2. Center for Perinatal Pediatric and Environmental Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Electronic address: gavin.pereira@yale.edu. 3. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Electronic address: sarah.uhl@gmail.com. 4. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Electronic address: mbravo@med.umich.edu. 5. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Electronic address: michelle.bell@yale.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Climate change is likely to increase the threat of wildfires, and little is known about how wildfires affect health in exposed communities. A better understanding of the impacts of the resulting air pollution has important public health implications for the present day and the future. METHOD: We performed a systematic search to identify peer-reviewed scientific studies published since 1986 regarding impacts of wildfire smoke on health in exposed communities. We reviewed and synthesized the state of science of this issue including methods to estimate exposure, and identified limitations in current research. RESULTS: We identified 61 epidemiological studies linking wildfire and human health in communities. The U.S. and Australia were the most frequently studied countries (18 studies on the U.S., 15 on Australia). Geographic scales ranged from a single small city (population about 55,000) to the entire globe. Most studies focused on areas close to fire events. Exposure was most commonly assessed with stationary air pollutant monitors (35 of 61 studies). Other methods included using satellite remote sensing and measurements from air samples collected during fires. Most studies compared risk of health outcomes between 1) periods with no fire events and periods during or after fire events, or 2) regions affected by wildfire smoke and unaffected regions. Daily pollution levels during or after wildfire in most studies exceeded U.S. EPA regulations. Levels of PM10, the most frequently studied pollutant, were 1.2 to 10 times higher due to wildfire smoke compared to non-fire periods and/or locations. Respiratory disease was the most frequently studied health condition, and had the most consistent results. Over 90% of these 45 studies reported that wildfire smoke was significantly associated with risk of respiratory morbidity. CONCLUSION: Exposure measurement is a key challenge in current literature on wildfire and human health. A limitation is the difficulty of estimating pollution specific to wildfires. New methods are needed to separate air pollution levels of wildfires from those from ambient sources, such as transportation. The majority of studies found that wildfire smoke was associated with increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Children, the elderly and those with underlying chronic diseases appear to be susceptible. More studies on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity are needed. Further exploration with new methods could help ascertain the public health impacts of wildfires under climate change and guide mitigation policies.
BACKGROUND: Climate change is likely to increase the threat of wildfires, and little is known about how wildfires affect health in exposed communities. A better understanding of the impacts of the resulting air pollution has important public health implications for the present day and the future. METHOD: We performed a systematic search to identify peer-reviewed scientific studies published since 1986 regarding impacts of wildfire smoke on health in exposed communities. We reviewed and synthesized the state of science of this issue including methods to estimate exposure, and identified limitations in current research. RESULTS: We identified 61 epidemiological studies linking wildfire and human health in communities. The U.S. and Australia were the most frequently studied countries (18 studies on the U.S., 15 on Australia). Geographic scales ranged from a single small city (population about 55,000) to the entire globe. Most studies focused on areas close to fire events. Exposure was most commonly assessed with stationary air pollutant monitors (35 of 61 studies). Other methods included using satellite remote sensing and measurements from air samples collected during fires. Most studies compared risk of health outcomes between 1) periods with no fire events and periods during or after fire events, or 2) regions affected by wildfire smoke and unaffected regions. Daily pollution levels during or after wildfire in most studies exceeded U.S. EPA regulations. Levels of PM10, the most frequently studied pollutant, were 1.2 to 10 times higher due to wildfire smoke compared to non-fire periods and/or locations. Respiratory disease was the most frequently studied health condition, and had the most consistent results. Over 90% of these 45 studies reported that wildfire smoke was significantly associated with risk of respiratory morbidity. CONCLUSION: Exposure measurement is a key challenge in current literature on wildfire and human health. A limitation is the difficulty of estimating pollution specific to wildfires. New methods are needed to separate air pollution levels of wildfires from those from ambient sources, such as transportation. The majority of studies found that wildfire smoke was associated with increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. Children, the elderly and those with underlying chronic diseases appear to be susceptible. More studies on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity are needed. Further exploration with new methods could help ascertain the public health impacts of wildfires under climate change and guide mitigation policies.
Authors: Joshua A Mott; David M Mannino; Clinton J Alverson; Andrew Kiyu; Jamilah Hashim; Tzesan Lee; Kenneth Falter; Stephen C Redd Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Edith H van den Hooven; Yvonne de Kluizenaar; Frank H Pierik; Albert Hofman; Sjoerd W van Ratingen; Peter Y J Zandveld; Johan P Mackenbach; Eric A P Steegers; Henk M E Miedema; Vincent W V Jaddoe Journal: Hypertension Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Ana G Rappold; Wayne E Cascio; Vasu J Kilaru; Susan L Stone; Lucas M Neas; Robert B Devlin; David Diaz-Sanchez Journal: Environ Health Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Ralph J Delfino; Robert S Zeiger; James M Seltzer; Donald H Street; Christine E McLaren Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Audrey Flak Pennington; Matthew J Strickland; Katherine Gass; Mitchel Klein; Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat; Paige E Tolbert; Sivaraman Balachandran; Howard H Chang; Armistead G Russell; James A Mulholland; Lyndsey A Darrow Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Luxi Zhou; Kirk R Baker; Sergey L Napelenok; George Pouliot; Robert Elleman; Susan M O'Neill; Shawn P Urbanski; David C Wong Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: David M J S Bowman; Lori D Daniels; Fay H Johnston; Grant J Williamson; W Matt Jolly; Sheryl Magzamen; Ana G Rappold; Michael Brauer; Sarah B Henderson Journal: Fire (Basel) Date: 2018
Authors: Jia Coco Liu; Ander Wilson; Loretta J Mickley; Keita Ebisu; Melissa P Sulprizio; Yun Wang; Roger D Peng; Xu Yue; Francesca Dominici; Michelle L Bell Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Daniel A Jaffe; Susan M O'Neill; Narasimhan K Larkin; Amara L Holder; David L Peterson; Jessica E Halofsky; Ana G Rappold Journal: J Air Waste Manag Assoc Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 2.235
Authors: Erin L Landguth; Zachary A Holden; Jonathan Graham; Benjamin Stark; Elham Bayat Mokhtari; Emily Kaleczyc; Stacey Anderson; Shawn Urbanski; Matt Jolly; Erin O Semmens; Dyer A Warren; Alan Swanson; Emily Stone; Curtis Noonan Journal: Environ Int Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Yuzhi Xi; Abhijit V Kshirsagar; Timothy J Wade; David B Richardson; M Alan Brookhart; Lauren Wyatt; Ana G Rappold Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-07-16 Impact factor: 10.121