Nilüfer Aykaç1, Yeşim Yasin2. 1. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Florence Nightingale Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Public Health, School of Medicine, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University, İstanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ambient air pollution is an important cause of morbidity and mortality for both individual and public health. The major contaminant that creates air pollution in Turkey is particulate matter. This study aims to demonstrate Turkey's air quality in terms of particulatematter in the last 4 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this descriptive study, the public data of the National Air Quality Monitoring Network between the years 2016 and 2019 were analyzed for particulate matter (PM10). Stations with less than 75% data throughout the year were excluded from the evaluation while calculating the annual average values. The averages of the years were compared statistically with each other. RESULTS: For 111 stations that made sufficient measurements for 4 years, the annual median value of particulate matter remained constant in 12 stations (10.8%), increased in 26 stations (23.4%), and decreased in 73 stations (65.7%). The level of air pollution at 18 stations has been sustained for 4 years. It has been observed that there is no significant improvement in the criterion that the daily average PM10 level should not be higher than 50 μg/m3 for more than 35 days, and pollution is detected above the limit value permitted by the World Health Organization in all provinces and stations except a few provinces every year. Finally, during the 4-year observation, the number of stations that did not make sufficient measurements throughout the year has been found to increase over the years. CONCLUSION: Our data reveal that the air pollution attributable to particulate matter in Turkey between the years 2016 and 2019 did not regress prominently. On the contrary, air pollution has been found to gain permanency in certain provinces, and air quality monitoring has been inadequate due to insufficient measurement activities of some of the stations.
OBJECTIVE: Ambient air pollution is an important cause of morbidity and mortality for both individual and public health. The major contaminant that creates air pollution in Turkey is particulate matter. This study aims to demonstrate Turkey's air quality in terms of particulatematter in the last 4 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this descriptive study, the public data of the National Air Quality Monitoring Network between the years 2016 and 2019 were analyzed for particulate matter (PM10). Stations with less than 75% data throughout the year were excluded from the evaluation while calculating the annual average values. The averages of the years were compared statistically with each other. RESULTS: For 111 stations that made sufficient measurements for 4 years, the annual median value of particulate matter remained constant in 12 stations (10.8%), increased in 26 stations (23.4%), and decreased in 73 stations (65.7%). The level of air pollution at 18 stations has been sustained for 4 years. It has been observed that there is no significant improvement in the criterion that the daily average PM10 level should not be higher than 50 μg/m3 for more than 35 days, and pollution is detected above the limit value permitted by the World Health Organization in all provinces and stations except a few provinces every year. Finally, during the 4-year observation, the number of stations that did not make sufficient measurements throughout the year has been found to increase over the years. CONCLUSION: Our data reveal that the air pollution attributable to particulate matter in Turkey between the years 2016 and 2019 did not regress prominently. On the contrary, air pollution has been found to gain permanency in certain provinces, and air quality monitoring has been inadequate due to insufficient measurement activities of some of the stations.
Authors: Robert D Brook; Sanjay Rajagopalan; C Arden Pope; Jeffrey R Brook; Aruni Bhatnagar; Ana V Diez-Roux; Fernando Holguin; Yuling Hong; Russell V Luepker; Murray A Mittleman; Annette Peters; David Siscovick; Sidney C Smith; Laurie Whitsel; Joel D Kaufman Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-05-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elena Fattore; Viviana Paiano; Alessandro Borgini; Andrea Tittarelli; Martina Bertoldi; Paolo Crosignani; Roberto Fanelli Journal: Environ Res Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: C Arden Pope; Richard T Burnett; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle; Daniel Krewski; Kazuhiko Ito; George D Thurston Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Giulia Cesaroni; Francesco Forastiere; Massimo Stafoggia; Zorana J Andersen; Chiara Badaloni; Rob Beelen; Barbara Caracciolo; Ulf de Faire; Raimund Erbel; Kirsten T Eriksen; Laura Fratiglioni; Claudia Galassi; Regina Hampel; Margit Heier; Frauke Hennig; Agneta Hilding; Barbara Hoffmann; Danny Houthuijs; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Michal Korek; Timo Lanki; Karin Leander; Patrik K E Magnusson; Enrica Migliore; Caes-Göran Ostenson; Kim Overvad; Nancy L Pedersen; Juha Pekkanen J; Johanna Penell; Göran Pershagen; Andrei Pyko; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Andrea Ranzi; Fulvio Ricceri; Carlotta Sacerdote; Veikko Salomaa; Wim Swart; Anu W Turunen; Paolo Vineis; Gudrun Weinmayr; Kathrin Wolf; Kees de Hoogh; Gerard Hoek; Bert Brunekreef; Annette Peters Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-01-21
Authors: Rob Beelen; Gerard Hoek; Piet A van den Brandt; R Alexandra Goldbohm; Paul Fischer; Leo J Schouten; Michael Jerrett; Edward Hughes; Ben Armstrong; Bert Brunekreef Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 9.031