Skip to main content
. 2011 Mar 31;10:25. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-10-25

Table 4.

Comparison of LE losses from long term studies, in days per 10 μg/m3.

Study PM10 SO2 Comments
This paper:
regressions of concentrations, TS of Eq.7, but with sums over variable intervals Eq.11		 13.1 13.4 Single pollutant regressions with 7 intervals of length 3k days, k = 0 to 6, adjustments before regression;
observation window 3 yr
This paper:
regressions of second differences of concentrations, Eq.14		 19.2
(12.5 to 25.9)		 19.7
(15.2 to 24.2)		 Single pollutant regressions with 1096 coefficients G(i), adjustments before regression; observation window 3 yr
This paper:
regressions of second differences of concentrations, Eq.14		 35.8
(21.8 to 49.8)		 38.0
(27.4 to 48.6)		 Single pollutant regressions with 1825 coefficients G(i), adjustments before regression; observation window 5 yr
This paper:
regressions of second differences of concentrations, Eq. 14		 31.4
(25.6 to 37.2)		 12.8
(8.9 to 16.8)		 Single pollutant regressions with 1096 coefficients, adjustments within regression; observation window 3 yr
Elliott et al. [25] 39 × conversion factor black smoke/PM10 48 Eq.10 with numbers of Table 5 (but with time step 4 years instead of 1 day);
observation window 16 yr
Cohort studies, in particular Pope et al. [2], with calculation of LE loss by Rabl [11]. 90 a 110 b Mean concentration 28.8 μg/m3 for PM10 and 17.8 μg/m3 for SO2 in 1982-98

Note that the estimates of this paper are only a lower bound because the G(i) have not yet leveled off.

a) taking RR = 1.06 for 10 μg/m3 PM2.5 from Table 2 of Pope et al. [2] and assuming a factor 0.6 for the conversion from PM2.5 to PM10

b) rough estimate, reading RR from Fig.5 of Pope et al. [2]