Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Environ Int. 2018 Aug 11;120:312–320. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.033

A multicity study of air pollution and cardiorespiratory emergency department visits: comparing approaches for combining estimates across cities

Jenna R Krall a,*, Howard H Chang b, Lance A Waller c, James A Mulholland d, Andrea Winquist e, Evelyn O Talbott f, Judith J Rager g, Paige E Tolbert h, Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat i
PMCID: PMC6218942  NIHMSID: NIHMS993194  PMID: 30107292

Abstract

Determining how associations between ambient air pollution and health vary by specific outcome is important for developing public health interventions. We estimated associations between twelve ambient air pollutants of both primary (e.g. nitrogen oxides) and secondary (e.g. ozone and sulfate) origin and cardiorespiratory emergency department (ED) visits for 8 specific outcomes in five U.S. cities including Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL; Dallas, TX; Pittsburgh, PA; St. Louis, MO. For each city, we fitted overdispersed Poisson time-series models to estimate associations between each pollutant and specific outcome. To estimate multicity and posterior city-specific associations, we developed a Bayesian multicity multi-outcome (MCM) model that pools information across cities using data from all specific outcomes. We fitted single pollutant models as well as models with multipollutant components using a two-stage chemical mixtures approach. Posterior city-specific associations from the MCM models were somewhat attenuated, with smaller standard errors, compared to associations from time-series regression models. We found positive associations of both primary and secondary pollutants with respiratory disease ED visits. There was some indication that primary pollutants, particularly nitrogen oxides, were also associated with cardiovascular disease ED visits. Bayesian models can help to synthesize findings across multiple outcomes and cities by providing posterior city-specific associations building on variation and similarities across the multiple sources of available information.

Keywords: Air pollution, Bayesian hierarchical models, Cardiorespiratory morbidity, Health associations, Time-series models

1. INTRODUCTION

Short-term exposure to ambient air pollution has been associated with adverse health outcomes including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and mortality due to cardiorespiratory diseases (Dominici et al. 2006; Stafoggia et al. 2013; Environmental Protection Agency 2009, 2013; Bell 2004; Burnett et al. 1997). Air pollutants known to be associated with either cardiovascular (CVD) or respiratory (RD) diseases include particle pollutants, for example particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), and gaseous pollutants such as ozone (Environmental Protection Agency 2009, 2013). Associations with cardiorespiratory hospitalizations or ED visits have been identified for asthma (Strickland et al. 2010; Halonen et al. 2008), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (Qiu et al. 2012; Malig et al. 2015), congestive heart failure (CHF) (Wellenius 2005; S. E. Sarnat et al. 2015), and others (Darrow et al. 2014; Wellenius, Schwartz, and Mittleman 2005; Malig et al. 2015), where these outcomes are based on specific diagnosis codes from hospital billing records. Frequently, these outcomes are combined into broad categories such as all RD ED visits, which may include ED visits for asthma, COPD, upper respiratory infection (URI), and pneumonia. However, identifying the most susceptible individuals, e.g. adults with COPD, requires understanding how associations between air pollution and health vary by specific outcome.

Multicity studies are necessary to robustly estimate air pollution associations for national regulations and also to examine effect modification across cities (Environmental Protection Agency 2009). In multicity studies, previously observed differences across cities in estimated associations for total CVD and RD could potentially be driven by differences across cities in the proportion of specific outcomes, such as the proportion of pneumonia. Most previous studies of air pollution and cardiorespiratory ED visits are single-city studies that examine only a few pollutants or a few specific outcomes (Metzger et al. 2004; Jennifer L. Peel et al. 2005). Several multicity studies conducted in Canada, California, and four U.S. cities have found significant associations between pollutants and ED visits (Stieb et al. 2009; Malig et al. 2015; Krall et al. 2017); however the pollutant-outcome associations that were the strongest varied between studies. By examining associations in multiple cities across the U.S., we can more robustly explore how air pollution is associated with cardiorespiratory ED visits.

A challenge in conducting studies of air pollution and health is that daily counts for specific outcomes can be small, leading to greater uncertainty in estimated health associations compared with examining combined, broad cardiorespiratory categories (Winquist et al. 2012). When overdispersed Poisson time-series regression models (Ito et al. 2011; S. E. Sarnat et al. 2015; Peng et al. 2009; Ostro et al. 2006) are applied to city-specific data with short time series or with small daily health outcome counts, large effects are required in order to detect statistically significant associations due to large standard errors which are driven by the relatively small sample sizes. In multicity studies, instead of using only the data within the city to estimate associations, Bayesian approaches can borrow information across cities to estimate city-specific health associations using posterior means (Carlin and Louis 2009).

Furthermore, it is possible that the overarching biological pathways that lead from pollution exposure to cardiorespiratory ED visits, such as those involving oxidative stress and inflammation, are similar across outcomes. Therefore, we can also consider using information for multiple specific outcomes as well as cities to improve estimates. For pollutant-outcome associations, we can compare standard time-series estimates, which do not use information for multiple cities and outcomes, with Bayesian posterior city-specific estimates, which (with the proper structure) use information for multiple cities and outcomes. This comparison can guide interpretation of uncertain time-series estimates as well as quantify potential added value in framing a more complex model. Our results identify and highlight where estimates are both uncertain and different from other estimates across cities.

Associations with cardiorespiratory ED visits also vary by pollutant. Some studies have found that pollutants of primary origin, such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and elemental carbon (EC), were strongly associated with CVD ED visits including for myocardial infarction, heart failure (Stieb et al. 2009; J. L. Peel et al. 2007; S. E. Sarnat et al. 2015), and stroke (Villeneuve et al. 2006). For RD ED visits, associations have been identified for pollutants of both primary and secondary origin (Stieb et al. 2009; Alhanti et al. 2016; Orazzo et al. 2009; Halonen et al. 2008). While most studies have examined associations between pollution and health using a single-pollutant framework, a multipollutant framework may better explain some of these differences across previous studies.

As part of ongoing efforts in multicity air pollution investigations (Krall et al. 2017; Alhanti et al. 2016; Friberg et al. 2017; O’ Lenick et al. 2017), here we estimated associations between short-term exposure to major air pollutants and cardiorespiratory ED visits in five US cities: Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL; Dallas, TX; Pittsburgh, PA; St. Louis, MO. In these five cities, we first estimated city-specific associations between twelve major air pollutants and specific cardiorespiratory outcomes using standard time-series regression models. Then, to combine estimated health associations across cities using data for all specific outcomes, we applied a Bayesian multicity multi-outcome (MCM) model.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

2. 1. Data

For each of the five cities, we obtained ED visits using electronic billing data from: the 20-county Atlanta, GA metropolitan area from 2002–2008; the 7-county Birmingham, AL metropolitan area from 2004–2008, the 12-county Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area from 2006–2008, the 3-county Pittsburgh area (including Allegheny, Washington, and Westmoreland counties) from 2002–2008, and the 16 counties (8 in Missouri and 8 in Illinois) in the St. Louis metropolitan area from 2002–2007.

ED visits were compiled based on their primary International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) codes (Web Appendix, Table S1). Outcomes included CHF, cardiac dysrhythmia (DYS), ischemic heart disease (IHD), and stroke for CVD ED visits and asthma and/or wheeze, COPD, pneumonia, and URI for RD ED visits. ED visits for chronic conditions such as COPD represent ED visits for exacerbations or symptoms associated with the condition. The ED visit data in this study were used in accordance with our data use agreements with the Georgia Hospital Association, the Dallas–Fort Worth Hospital Council Foundation, the Missouri Hospital Association, and individual hospitals and/or hospital systems in Birmingham and Pittsburgh. This study was conducted under approval by the Emory University Institutional Review Board; we were exempted from informed consent requirements, given the minimal risk nature of the study and the infeasibility of obtaining informed consent from individual patients for > 1.8 million billing records.

Concentrations of ozone (parts per billion, ppb), CO (parts per million, ppm), NO2 (ppb), nitrogen oxides ( NOx; ppb), SO2 (ppb), PM10 (PM < 10 μm, measured in μg/m3), PM2.5 (μg/m3), and PM2.5 chemical constituents (μg/m3) including sulfate, nitrate and ammonium ions, OC, and EC were obtained from ambient monitoring stations located within each of the metropolitan areas. To create population-weighted average estimates of the 24-hour average (all PM measures), one-hour maximum (all gases except ozone), or the 8-hour maximum (ozone only) ambient pollution concentrations, monitor concentrations were fused with Community Multi-Scale Air Quality model estimates as described in previous work (Friberg et al. 2017, 2016). The fused estimates better reflect population exposure for our large metropolitan areas compared with monitoring data alone (Friberg et al. 2017). To control for possible confounding by meteorological factors, we also obtained temperature and dew-point temperature from the National Climatic Data Center from automated surface observing stations at the major airport in each city.

2.2. Poisson time-series regression models

To estimate pollutant-outcome associations, we used the most common approach applied within the literature (Peng et al. 2009; Krall et al. 2013): we applied overdispersed Poisson time-series regression models to data from each city separately. We estimated associations with ED visits for an a priori selected exposure lag based on previous research: lag 0 exposure for CVD ED visits (Dominici et al. 2006; J. A. Sarnat et al. 2008; Metzger et al. 2004; Ye et al. 2017) and 8-day moving average exposure (mean of lag 0–7 exposure) for RD ED visits (Gass et al. 2015).

We controlled for potential confounding to be consistent with our previous studies of pollution and ED visits (Krall et al. 2017; Winquist et al. 2015). First, we included in our models weekday, season, holidays, meteorology, temporal trends, and the hospitals reporting data for each day. To control for meteorology, we used cubic polynomials of maximum temperature and dew-point temperature. For CVD ED visits, we used lag 0 maximum temperature and lag 0–2 dew-point temperature. For RD ED visits, with the longer exposure lag, we used separate cubic splines of lag 0–2 and lag 3–7 temperature and dew-point temperature, as in a previous study of pollution and RD ED visits (Gass et al. 2015). In all models, we included interaction terms of season with maximum temperature, weekdays, and federal holidays. To control for long-term trends in ED visits, we included cubic splines of time with one degree of freedom (df) per month.

We estimated associations for each specific outcome, and for combined broad categories created by adding together CHF, DYS, IHD, and stroke ED visits for CVD, and adding together asthma and/or wheeze, COPD, pneumonia, and URI ED visits for RD, as is common in studies of air pollution and cardiorespiratory ED visits (S. E. Sarnat et al. 2015; Winquist et al. 2015). To compare associations across pollutants, we reported results as the relative risk for an interquartile range increase in the pollutant using the median of city-specific interquartile ranges.

2.3. Bayesian hierarchical models

To estimate both overall and posterior city-specific associations, we applied Bayesian hierarchical models using the TLNise two-level normal independent sampling estimation software with uniform priors (Everson and Morris 2000). Commonly in air pollution and health studies, time-series models described in the previous section are first applied to city-specific data (Dominici et al. 2006; Zanobetti and Schwartz 2009). Then, the estimates are pooled in a Bayesian hierarchical framework. This approach is common because when the number of cities is large, fitting mixed models becomes challenging with the increasing size of the datasets. Therefore, we first apply the time-series regression models described in the previous section to estimate city-specific associations for each city c and outcome j, denoted β^cj and their corresponding standard errors, σ^cj2 Then for each pollutant, we fitted Bayesian hierarchical models of the form:

β^cjN(βcj,σ^cj2)βcjN(μj,γj2) 1

Where 𝛽𝑐𝑗 is the unobserved true city-specific association for city c and outcome j, and 𝜇𝑗 is the unobserved, shared multicity association for outcome j.

Traditional multicity models shown in equation (1) were first fitted to the five estimated city-specific associations from time-series models. However because we only have data for five cities, these models are difficult to fit to the available data. Specifically, it can be challenging to estimate γj2 for each outcome using only five estimated associations across cities. Therefore, in our Bayesian MCM model, we included multiple outcomes simultaneously to estimate a shared intercity variation γ2. Instead of fitting models separately for each outcome, the MCM model borrows information across cities for each pollutant, incorporating information from all outcomes, via city-specific random slopes, 𝛽𝑐𝑗 varying around the multicity association The full Bayesian model details for both the multicity and MCM models are located in the Web Appendix: we assigned uniform priors to all parameters. Models were fitted using the tlnise package in R (Peng and Everson 2016).

In equation (1), γj2 represents the residual heterogeneity across cities. The main difference between the multicity and MCM models is that the multicity model estimates the the mean 𝜇𝑗 and variance γj2 separately for each outcome j. In contrast, the MCM model estimates the mean 𝜇𝑗 and shares the estimate of the residual heterogeneity 𝛾2 across outcomes. Therefore, the MCM model assumes that this residual heterogeneity across cities does not vary by outcome. The MCM model borrows information differently to estimate multicity health associations (Estimated associations for 5 cities across each outcome) compared with the standard multicity model (Estimated associations for 5 cities separately by outcome). Therefore, if the heterogeneity assumption of the MCM model is correct, the MCM model can leverage multiple outcomes to adjust uncertain health associations via a better estimate of the heterogeneity variance 𝛾2. This is a modeling choice that defines how we borrow information across observations, and should be assessed as an assumption when comparing models. Here, we compared the MCM model to the standard multicity model using the ratio of heterogeneity variances, γ2/γj2. This ratio will be less than one when the residual heterogeneity is smaller for the MCM model, which may suggest that γj2 cannot be estimated well using data from only five cities and therefore the MCM model fits the data better than the multicity model. However, it is possible that in some cases, the residual heterogeneity is smaller for the MCM model by chance alone.

Bayesian hierarchical models implement modeling assumptions via prior distributions on the random effects yielding posterior mean estimates of the city-specific associations (Carlin and Louis 2009). For each city, the posterior mean estimate is a weighted average of 1.) the city-specific estimate from time-series regression models, β^cj, and 2.) the estimated multicity average estimate, 𝜇𝑗 The weights given to the time-series estimate depend on the time-series variance σ^cj2, which, in turn, depends on the data available in city c for outcome j. When there are many days of data available and large daily counts for an outcome (i.e. yielding a small value of σ^cj2), or when all time-series estimates are similar, the posterior mean will be very similar to the time-series estimates. However, uncertain time-series estimates with large variances σ^cj2 will be pulled towards the more robust estimated average across cities, 𝜇𝑗 in the MCM or multicity models. While posterior estimates pulled towards the average incur some bias relative to time-series estimates, they have smaller uncertainty, i.e. the familiar bias-variance trade-off in statistical estimation, a standard motivation for hierarchical Bayesian inference. The Bayesian approach maintains some differences in associations between cities, based on the variances σ^cj2 while borrowing information across cities.

2.4. Multipollutant modeling

In our main analyses, we treated each pollutant individually in the MCM model. We also considered incorporating multipollutant exposures using a hierarchical principal component analysis approach (PCA) (Thurston and Spengler 1985; Ito, Xue, and Thurston 2004; Krall, Hackstadt, and Peng 2017). Briefly, varimax-rotated PCA was applied to the time series of pollution data in each city. The number of principal components (PCs) was chosen based on the number of eigenvalues of the correlation matrix that were greater than one. Then, for each multipollutant PC, health associations were estimated using time-series models and the MCM model as described earlier. Our multipollutant approach adds to our main results by estimating the associations between groups of pollutants and ED visits for specific outcomes. This approach does not attempt to identify sources of pollution, as in previous studies of pollution and health (Gass et al. 2015; J. A. Sarnat et al. 2008; Kioumourtzoglou et al. 2014; Mar et al. 2006). More details about our multipollutant approach can be found in the Web Appendix.

2.5. Sensitivity analysis

We tested the sensitivity of our results to the confounders included in the models by removing sequentially meteorology, holidays, weekdays, and season. We also compared results using different exposure lags for both CVD and RD: same day, 2-day moving average, and 7-day moving average exposure. Although we chose our control for time based on previous studies of ED visits (cubic spline with one df / month) (S. E. Sarnat et al. 2015; Winquist et al. 2015), we also compared this approach to using natural splines with 7 df/year, similar to previous studies of other health outcomes (Ostro et al. 2006; Krall et al. 2013; Zanobetti et al. 2009; Samet, Dominici, et al. 2000). Last, we compared our main model results for the Bayesian MCM model to results using Jeffrey’s prior for γ (Peng and Everson 2016).

3. RESULTS

Across the five cities, the number of days with complete pollution and ED visit data varied from 1,096 days in Dallas to 2,557 days in Atlanta. The average number of daily ED visits for cardiorespiratory diseases also varied across cities and outcomes (Table 1). Atlanta and Dallas had the most daily ED visits with means of 400 and 448 daily RD ED visits, and 98 and 120 daily CVD ED visits, respectively. The majority of ED visits for RD was for URI. There were fewer CVD ED visits for stroke compared to other outcomes.

Table 1.

Data Availability and the Daily Mean (Standard Deviation) Number of Emergency Department Visits for Cardiorespiratory Diseases in Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL; Dallas, TX; Pittsburgh, PA; St. Louis, MO

Variable Atlanta Birmingham Dallas Pittsburgh St. Louis
Years of data 2002–2008 2004–2008 2006–2008 2002–2008 2002–2007
# of days with
complete data
2557 1827 1096 2557 2004
Cardiovascular 98(21) 32(7) 120(16) 51(10) 96(14)
 CHF 26 (9) 7(3) 31 (7) 15 (5) 26 (6)
 DYS 25 (6) 6(3) 30 (6) 12 (4) 21 (5)
 IHD 28 (7) 11(4) 32 (7) 14 (4) 30 (7)
 Stroke 18 (6) 6(3) 24 (5) 10 (3) 18 (4)
Respiratory 400 (136) 73 (26) 448 (155) 103(32) 286(84)
 Asthma/Wheeze 83(28) 12(5) 76(24) 25 (8) 51(16)
 COPD 20 (8) 7(3) 22 (7) 11 (4) 16 (5)
 Pneumonia 51(20) 10(5) 71(28) 21 (9) 46(16)
 URI 231(87) 44 (18) 258(94) 44(16) 166(54)

Abbreviations: cardiac dysrhythmia (DYS); chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); congestive heart failure (CHF); ischemic heart disease (IHD); upper respiratory infection (URI)

The mean concentrations for all pollutants and the median of city-specific IQRs are shown in Table 2 for five cities. Atlanta had the largest concentrations of ozone and PM2.5, with mean concentrations of 42.1 ppb (standard deviation (SD) = 17.3) and 15.4 μg/m3 (SD = 7.1) respectively. Compared with other cities, Dallas had relatively lower concentrations of PM2.5. Median correlations across cities between combustion-related pollutants, including OC, EC, and NOx, were relatively large, and correlations between secondary pollutants such as ammonium ion and sulfate were also large (Web Appendix, Table S2).

Table 2.

Mean (Standard Deviation) Concentration and Interquartile Ranges for Twelve Gaseous and Particle Pollutants for Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL; Dallas, TX; Pittsburgh, PA; St. Louis, MO

Pollutant Units IQR* Atlanta Birmingham Dallas Pittsburgh St. Louis
Ozone, 8-hour max ppb 25.34 42.1(17.3) 41.8(14.6) 41.8(14.4) 37.5(18.6) 38.4(17)
CO, 1-hour max ppm 0.25 0.6(0.3) 0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.5(0.2) 0.5(0.2)
NO2, 1-hour max ppb 9.44 21.6(7) 13.2(4.3) 19.7(8.2) 26.5(8.1) 21.3(6.3)
NOx, 1-hour max ppb 34.54 45.6(30.5) 24.5(13.8) 41.4(32.2) 56 (35.8) 51.3(30.9)
SO2, 1- our max ppb 8.09 10 (6.9) 11 (6.5) 5.4 (3.9) 20.2(9.5) 11.6(5.4)
PM10, 24-hour mean μg/m3 14.1 23.3(10.4) 26.3(10.9) 22.6(9.5) 23.7(12.2) 23 (9.4)
PM2.5, 24-hour mean μg/m3 8.71 15.4(7.1) 14.5(7.1) 10.8(4.7) 15 (8.6) 13.8(6.7)
 EC μg/m3 0.55 1.1(0.6) 0.9 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 0.9(0.5) 0.7(0.3)
 OC μg/m3 1.94 3 (1.5) 4.2 (2.4) 2.5 (1.2) 3.8(2) 3.3(1.6)
 Sulfate μg/m3 2.64 4.5(3) 3.9 (2.5) 2.8 (1.8) 4.9(3.4) 3.4(2.6)
 Ammonium μg/m3 1.01 1.4(0.9) 1.5 (0.9) 1 (0.7) 1.8(0.9) 1.7(1)
 Nitrate μg/m3 0.6 0.6(0.6) 0.7 (0.7) 0.5 (0.7) 2.1(2) 2.1(2)

Abbreviations: carbon monoxide (CO); elemental carbon (EC); interquartile range (IQR); nitrogen dioxide (NO2); nitrogen oxides (NOx); organic carbon (OC); particulate matter less than 2.5 μm (PM2.5); particulate matter less than 10 μm (PM10); sulfur dioxide (SO2); parts per billion (ppb); parts per million (ppm)

* Median IQR across cities

3.1. Estimated health associations

We first estimated pollution-outcome associations for each of the five cities separately using overdispersed Poisson time-series regression models as in previous multicity studies (Peng et al. 2009). Then, we estimated posterior city-specific and overall associations using both the multicity and MCM Bayesian hierarchical models (Web Appendix, Figures S1-S2). We fitted the MCM model separately for CVD and RD outcomes to account for the differences in potentially complex confounding factors, such as the populations primarily affected (e.g., children and CVD vs. children and RD), as well as to match previous studies that have separately examined CVD and RD ED visits (S. E. Sarnat et al. 2015; Gass et al. 2015).

Estimated health associations across cities from the MCM model are shown in Figures 12. The pollutants in Figures 12 are roughly ordered according to primary and secondary pollutants (Web Appendix, Figure S3) for consistency across results figures. For short-term exposure to NOx and NO2, we found some positive and statistically significant associations for CVD ED visits, with relative risks for NOx of 1.02 (95% posterior interval (PI): 1.01, 1.03) and 1.02 (95% PI: 1.01, 1.03) for CHF and stroke respectively. In general, primary pollutants related to combustion such as CO, NO2, NOx, SO2, EC, and OC, showed positive, though not always statistically significant, associations with CVD ED visits. For RD ED visits, associations varied in magnitude across pollutants. For ozone, the largest estimated associations were for COPD ED visits, with a relative risk of 1.09 (95% PI: 1.02, 1.16). We did not fit the MCM model for the combined categories of CVD and RD because these combined categories are created by summing specific outcomes.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Estimated relative risks of cardiovascular emergency department visits and 95% posterior intervals associated with an interquartile (IQR) increase in pollutant for both the average across cities and posterior mean estimates for each city based on the multicity multi-outcome (MCM) model. Pollutants are roughly ordered according to primary and secondary pollution, separated by a vertical line.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Estimated relative risks of respiratory emergency department visits and 95% posterior intervals associated with an interquartile (IQR) increase in pollutant for both the average across cities and posterior mean estimates for each city based on the multicity multi-outcome (MCM) model. Pollutants are roughly ordered according to primary and secondary pollution, separated by a vertical line.

Comparing associations between standard time-series regression models and posterior means from the multicity and MCM models (Web Appendix, Figures S1-S2), the point estimates for the two hierarchical models were similar, with smaller standard errors associated with the MCM model, as expected. When large daily counts for an outcome were available, there were few differences across models. For example, the associations between PM2.5 and asthma/wheeze in Atlanta from the time-series, multicity, and MCM models were, respectively: 1.03 (95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.06), 1.04 (95% PI: 1.02, 1.06), 1.04 (95% PI: 1.02, 1.06). However, when associations from time-series models were more uncertain, estimated health associations from Bayesian hierarchical models were pulled towards the average association across cities. In Dallas, the estimated PM2.5 -stroke relative risk was 1.04 (95% confidence interval: 1.01, 1.07) from the time-series model and 1.01 (95% PI: 0.996, 1.03) from the MCM model. Additionally, the ratio of residual variances γ2/γj2 was generally less than one (Web Appendix, Figure S4),with a median decrease of 69% for the MCM model compared with the multicity model. The residual variance for SO2 and RD was larger for the MCM model compared to the multicity model, which reflects the differences across RD outcomes observed in Dallas compared to other cities (Figure 2).

3.2. Multipollutant modeling

Across cities, three multipollutant PCs displayed in the Web Appendix Figure S3 explained most of the variability in our pollutant data, defined as the number of eigenvalues greater than 1 (Krall, Hackstadt, and Peng 2017). The proportion variability explained by the PCs selected for each city ranged from 73.5% (Atlanta) to 81.0% (Pittsburgh). PC1 contained mostly primary pollutants including CO, NO2, NOx, SO2, and EC, while PC2 contained mostly secondary pollutants such as ozone, ammonium, and sulfate. PC3 contained mostly ammonium and nitrate. However, in Atlanta, this PC explained little variability in the data, had an eigenvalue less than one, and was not interpretable as ammonium nitrate based on its loadings.

We then fitted health models, including the time-series model and the Bayesian models, separately for each multipollutant PC as in the main pollutant models. Because the PCs are uncorrelated, results from time-series models fitted to all multipollutant PCs simultaneously were similar to results from single-PC models. We found associations of the primary pollutant PC (PC1) with all CVD specific outcomes, though associations were not all statistically significant and varied across cities (Figure 3). For RD ED visits, both primary and secondary pollutants (PCs 1–2) were positively associated with all respiratory specific outcomes. Associations of PC1 with COPD and pneumonia were positive, but not consistently statistically significant across cities. There was some evidence of associations between PC3 (ammonium nitrate) with URI ED visits.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Estimated relative risks of (A.) cardiovascular and (B.) respiratory emergency department visits and 95% posterior intervals associated with an interquartile (IQR) increase in multipollutant principal components (PCs) for both the average across cities and posterior mean estimates for each city based on the multicity multi-outcome (MCM) model.

3.3. Sensitivity analysis

In time-series regression models, our results were not very sensitive to excluding control for meteorology, holidays, day of week, and season. The lack of sensitivity to control for meteorology might be driven by the additional control for season and time in each model. For combustion-related pollutants such as EC and NOx, estimated associations for models without control for holidays and weekdays were attenuated in RD models and greater in magnitude in CVD models, relative to results from our basic models (results not shown). Estimated associations with RD for shorter exposure periods were attenuated relative to lag 0–7 associations. For CVD, associations for lags longer than same-day exposure were not substantially different from same-day exposure. We did not find that controlling for time using a natural spline with 7 df/year substantially changed our estimated associations for CVD outcomes and most RD outcomes. We found some indication that estimated associations with this control for time were larger in magnitude for URI and for associations in Atlanta. Last, we did not find that our choice of prior for substantially impacted our estimated health associations.

4. DISCUSSION

In this study of twelve major air pollutants across five cities, we found positive associations of both primary (e.g. NOx and EC) and secondary pollutants (e.g. ozone and sulfate) with RD ED visits, though associations were not consistently statistically significant across cities. For CVD ED visits, there was some indication of associations for primary pollutants including NO2 and NOx, though these associations were smaller in magnitude compared with RD outcomes and were not consistently statistically significant across cities.

A challenge in studies of pollution and health is how to synthesize estimated health associations across pollutants, outcomes, and cities. Because some health associations are uncertain due to small daily counts, using Bayesian approaches can formalize what information our models use in order to help guide interpretation of estimated associations that are large in magnitude, but highly uncertain. Previous studies that have examined a large number of pollutants and outcomes frequently present all results for the reader to interpret (J. L. Peel et al. 2007; S. E. Sarnat et al. 2015; Halonen et al. 2008). Our MCM model leverages information across cities and outcomes to guide interpretation of a large number of estimated associations. For example, the time-series association between ozone and CHF in Dallas is statistically significant and large in magnitude, but with a large standard error. The posterior mean from the MCM model shrinks the Dallas estimate towards the average across cities, and the shrunken estimate is no longer statistically significant. In this way, the observed differences between the time-series association and MCM posterior mean can help to guide the interpretation of the association in one city (e.g. Dallas) relative to other cities. It is possible that, in some cases, the shrunken estimates from the MCM may be biased towards the null; however, these conservative estimates can still help to focus future studies where the evidence is stronger across cities.

In our Bayesian hierarchical models, γj2 represents the residual variance across cities. If we apply Bayesian hierarchical models to a small number of data points, e.g. five cities in the multicity model, estimating γj2 from only city-specific data is difficult. The MCM model uses more information from all cities and multiple outcomes to estimate an assumed shared value of γ2. A challenge with the MCM model is that with only five cities, we cannot estimate well whether the residual heterogeneity across cities varies by outcome and so this is an assumption we make. Additional data are necessary to fully evaluate whether the residual heterogeneity varies by outcome and therefore whether the MCM or multicity model is more appropriate. An advantage of the MCM model is that it provides a more robustly estimated γ2 compared with the more commonly applied multicity model in studies of only a few cities. However, when the residual heterogeneity γj2 varies by outcome, such as between SO2 and RD, the assumptions of the MCM model are not met. Specifically, there is greater heterogeneity across cities for COPD, pneumonia, and URI compared with asthma/wheeze (Web Appendix, Figure S2). Future work should explore whether factors that vary both by city and by outcome, such as the age distribution of ED visits, might drive this result.

In comparing our results between the multicity and MCM models (Web Appendix, Figures S1-S2), the inferences that would be drawn from the point estimates and corresponding confidence intervals are often the same. It is possible that in other scenarios, estimating a shared residual heterogeneity across outcomes, γ2, as in the MCM model may have a larger impact on statistical inference. Because city-specific time-series estimates are frequently highly uncertain, posterior estimates from either the multicity or MCM model might better reflect the consensus across cities.

An advantage of our Bayesian modeling approach is that it can be extended to include more prior information. Currently, we only use non-informative priors to match previous studies that used Bayesian hierarchical models to pool information across cities. In the present study, we assume that the confounding structure of the model and the lag structure is the same across outcomes, within CVD and RD categories. While this is a strong assumption, it is common in studies of air pollution and health when outcomes are examined separately, specifically the same confounding variables and lags are specified a priori for all outcomes. Importantly, this is not a required assumption of the Bayesian modeling approach applied here, and future work could relax this assumption. In the present study, we did specify the confounding structures separately for CVD and RD outcomes, but in general, there is not enough prior knowledge to specify these structures separately by specific outcome within CVD and RD. We also did not estimate global means for CVD and RD using the MCM model because the focus of the present study was examining associations for specific outcomes. A three-level normal Bayesian hierarchical model could be fitted using the MCM approach to estimate the overall associations for CVD and RD ED visits. While we assumed a linear association here to be consistent with previous studies of pollution and ED visits (12,50), future work could extend our model to include non-linear associations.

Previous studies of environmental exposures have used semi-Bayes approaches to estimate city-specific associations (Stingone et al. 2014; Kalkbrenner et al. 2010; Braun et al. 2014) instead of the approach we applied in this study. Semi-Bayes approaches assume the second-level variance, γj2, is known before collecting data, whereas we have estimated γj2 from the data. However, when many data points are available, the second-level variance γj2 can frequently be estimated well.

In this work, we were limited to data from five cities for which we had ED visit data. These five cities represent the southeast (Birmingham, AL; Atlanta, GA), the south (Dallas, TX), and the Midwest/industrial Midwest (St. Louis, MO; Pittsburgh, PA) (Samet, Zeger, et al. 2000). Therefore, the results of this multicity study, while important for informing knowledge about associations between individual pollutants and ED visits, may not fully represent associations across the US. It is possible that specific outcomes for ED visits designated by ICD-9 codes may represent other, similar outcomes. We reduced the potential for miscategorizing specific outcomes in the present study by combining primary diagnosis ICD-9 codes (e.g. from the Web Appendix, Table S1, COPD includes 491 (chronic bronchitis), 492 (emphysema), 496 (chronic airway obstruction, not elsewhere classified)) based on similar specific outcomes (Web Appendix, Table S1).

In addition to our results examining each of the twelve pollutants individually, we also considered a multipollutant approach based on PCA to examine multipollutant exposures. In general, we found that the results were consistent between the MCM model using single pollutant exposures and multipollutant exposures. Applying the multipollutant approach allowed us to examine a smaller number of interpretable pollution components. We employed a multipollutant approach that grouped together pollutants based on their shared temporal variation. This multipollutant method was designed to help synthesize the many estimated associations across pollutants, outcomes, and cities. This approach also helps to identify groups of pollutants most associated with adverse health outcomes. An alternative approach would attempt to identify the pollutant or pollutants that are most strongly associated with adverse health outcomes using variable selection methods.

4.1. Conclusions

This work estimated associations between twelve major ambient air pollutants, and observed multipollutant groupings, and cardiorespiratory ED visits across five US cities. Our approach is broadly applicable to future studies of multiple air pollutants and ED visits for specific outcomes, although other approaches are also necessary to develop and assess pollution interventions. We proposed the use of a multicity multi-outcome (MCM) model that incorporated information across cities and outcomes to estimate both health associations. In studies of a small number of cities, the MCM model can be used to leverage the available information to estimate health associations for multiple cities and outcomes.

Supplementary Material

1

Highlights.

  • Bayesian models can incorporate information across multiple cities and outcomes

  • Ambient air pollutants are associated with respiratory disease ED visits.

  • Pollutants of primary origin are associated with cardiovascular disease ED visits.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This publication is based in part upon information obtained through the Georgia Hospital Association, the Missouri Hospital Association, the Dallas Fort Worth Hospital Council Foundation Information and Quality Services Center’s collaborative hospital data initiative, and individual hospitals and hospital systems in Birmingham and Pittsburgh. We are grateful for the support of all participating hospitals.

Funding: This publication was developed under Assistance Agreement No. EPA834799 awarded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology as well as by funding from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI, grant number 10002467). Research reported in this publication was also supported by grants to Emory University from the USEPA (grant number R82921301), the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant number R01ES11294), and EPRI (grant numbers EP-P27723/C13172, EP-P4353/C2124, EP-P34975/C15892, EP-P45572/C19698, EP-P25912/C12525). This publication has not been formally reviewed by USEPA or NIH. The views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of either Agency. USEPA does not endorse any products or commercial services mentioned in this publication.

Abbreviations:

COPD

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

CHF

congestive heart failure

CVD

cardiovascular diseases

DF

degrees of freedom

DYS

cardiac dysrhythmia

ED

emergency department

IHD

ischemic heart disease

MCM

multicity multi-outcome

RD

respiratory diseases

URI

upper respiratory infection

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Conflicts of interest statement. The authors do not have any conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. Alhanti Brooke A, Howard H Chang, Andrea Winquist, James A Mulholland, Darrow Lyndsey A, and Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat. 2016. “Ambient Air Pollution and Emergency Department Visits for Asthma: A Multi-City Assessment of Effect Modification by Age.” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 26 (2): 180–88. 10.1038/jes.2015.57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell Michelle L. 2004. “Ozone and Short-Term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987–2000.” JAMA 292 (19): 2372 10.1001/jama.292.19.2372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Braun Joseph M, Kalkbrenner Amy E, Just Allan C, Yolton Kimberly, Calafat Antonia M, Andreas Sjödin, Russ Hauser, Webster Glenys M, Aimin Chen, and Bruce P Lanphear. 2014. “Gestational Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Reciprocal Social, Repetitive, and Stereotypic Behaviors in 4-and 5-Year-Old Children: The HOME Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122 (5): 513. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Burnett Richard T., Brook Jeffrey R., Yung Wesley T., Dales Robert E., and Krewski Daniel. 1997. “Association between Ozone and Hospitalization for Respiratory Diseases in 16 Canadian Cities.” Environmental Research 72 (1): 24–31. 10.1006/enrs.1996.3685. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carlin Bradley P, and Louis Thomas A. 2009. Bayesian Methods for Data Analysis CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Darrow Lyndsey A., Klein Mitchel, Dana Flanders W, Mulholland James A., Tolbert Paige E., and Strickland Matthew J.. 2014. “Air Pollution and Acute Respiratory Infections Among Children 0–4 Years of Age: An 18-Year Time-Series Study.” American Journal of Epidemiology 180 (10): 968–77. 10.1093/aje/kwu234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dominici Francesca, Peng Roger D., Bell Michelle L., Pham Luu, Aidan McDermott Scott L. Zeger, and Samet Jonathan M.. 2006. “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases.” Journal of the American Medical Association 295 (10): 1127–1134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Protection. 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter [PubMed]
  9. ———. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants Everson Philip J., and Morris. Carl N. 2000. “Inference for Multivariate Normal Hierarchical Models.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 62 (2): 399–412. [Google Scholar]
  10. Friberg Mariel D., Kahn Ralph A., Holmes Heather A., Chang Howard H., Ebelt Sarnat Stefanie, Tolbert Paige E., Russell Armistead G., and Mulholland James A.. 2017. “Daily Ambient Air Pollution Metrics for Five Cities: Evaluation of Data-Fusion-Based Estimates and Uncertainties.” Atmospheric Environment 158 (June): 36–50. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.03.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Friberg Mariel D., Zhai Xinxin, Holmes Heather A., Chang Howard H., Strickland Matthew J., Ebelt Sarnat Stefanie, Tolbert Paige E., Russell Armistead G., and Mulholland James A.. 2016. “Method for Fusing Observational Data and Chemical Transport Model Simulations To Estimate Spatiotemporally Resolved Ambient Air Pollution.” Environmental Science & Technology 50 (7): 3695–3705. 10.1021/acs.est.5b05134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gass Katherine, Balachandran Sivaraman, Chang Howard H, Russell Armistead G, and Strickland Matthew J. 2015. “Ensemble-Based Source Apportionment of Fine Particulate Matter and Emergency Department Visits for Pediatric Asthma.” American Journal of Epidemiology 181 (7): 504–512. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Halonen JI, Lanki T, Yli-Tuomi T, Kulmala M, Tiittanen P, and Pekkanen J. 2008. “Urban Air Pollution, and Asthma and COPD Hospital Emergency Room Visits.” Thorax 63 (7):635–41. 10.1136/thx.2007.091371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ito Kazuhiko, Mathes Robert, Ross Zev, Nadas Arthur, Thurston George, and Matte Thomas. 2011. “Fine Particulate Matter Constituents Associated with Cardiovascular Hospitalizations and Mortality in New York City.” Environmental Health Perspectives 119 (4): 467–473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ito Kazuhiko, Xue Nan, and Thurston George. 2004. “Spatial Variation of PM2.5 Chemical Species and Source-Apportioned Mass Concentrations in New York City.” Atmospheric Environment 38 (31): 5269–5282. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.063. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kalkbrenner Amy E., Daniels Julie L., Chen Jiu-Chiuan, Poole Charles, Emch Michael, and Morrissey Joseph. 2010. “Perinatal Exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants and Autism Spectrum Disorders at Age 8” Epidemiology 21 (5): 631–41. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e65d76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kioumourtzoglou Marianthi-Anna, Brent A Coull Francesca Dominici, Koutrakis Petros, Schwartz Joel, and Suh Helen. 2014. “The Impact of Source Contribution Uncertainty on the Effects of Source-Specific PM2. 5 on Hospital Admissions A Case Study in Boston, MA.” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 24 (4): 365–371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Krall Jenna R, Anderson G Brooke, Francesca Dominici, Bell Michelle L, and Peng Roger D. 2013. “Short-Term Exposure to Particulate Matter Constituents and Mortality in a National Study of US Urban Communities.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121 (10): 1148–1153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Krall Jenna R., Hackstadt Amber J., and Peng Roger D.. 2017. “A Hierarchical Modeling Approach to Estimate Regional Acute Health Effects of Particulate Matter Sources.” Statistics in Medicine 36 (9): 1461–75. 10.1002/sim.7210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Krall Jenna R., Mulholland James A., Russell Armistead G., Balachandran Sivaraman, Winquist Andrea, Tolbert Paige E., Waller Lance A., and Ebelt Sarnat Stefanie. 2017. ”Associations between Source-Specific Fine Particulate Matter and Emergency Department Visits for Respiratory Disease in Four U.S. Cities.” Environmental Health Perspectives 125 (1): 97–103. 10.1289/EHP271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Malig Brian J., Pearson Dharshani L., Brenda Chang Yun, Broadwin Rachel, Basu Rupa, Green Rochelle S., and Ostro Bart. 2015. “A Time-Stratified Case-Crossover Study of Ambient Ozone Exposure and Emergency Department Visits for Specific Respiratory Diagnoses in California (2005–2008).” Environmental Health Perspectives 124 (6). 10.1289/ehp.1409495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Mar Therese F., Ito Kazuhiko, Koenig Jane Q., Larson Timothy V., Eatough Delbert J., Henry Ronald C., Kim Eugene, et al. 2006. “PM Source Apportionment and Health Effects. 3. Investigation of Inter-Method Variations in Associations between Estimated Source Contributions of PM2.5 and Daily Mortality in Phoenix, AZ.” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 16 (4): 311–320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Metzger Kristi Busico, Tolbert Paige E., Klein Mitchel, Peel Jennifer L., Flanders W Dana, Todd K NOx, Mulholland James A., Ryan P Barry, and Howard Frumkin 2004. “Ambient Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Emergency Department Visits:” Epidemiology 15 (1): 46–56. 10.1097/01.EDE.0000101748.28283.97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. O’ Lenick Cassandra R., Chang Howard H., Kramer Michael R., Winquist Andrea, Mulholland James A., Friberg Mariel D., and Sarnat Stefanie Ebelt. 2017. “Ozone and Childhood Respiratory Disease in Three US Cities: Evaluation of Effect Measure Modification by Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status Using a Bayesian Hierarchical Approach.” Environmental Health 16 (1). 10.1186/s12940-017-0244-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Orazzo Flavia, Nespoli Luigi, Ito Kazuhiko, Tassinari Davide, Giardina Daniela, Funis Maurizio, Cecchi Alessandra, et al. 2009. “Air Pollution, Aeroallergens, and Emergency Room Visits for Acute Respiratory Diseases and Gastroenteric Disorders among Young Children in Six Italian Cities.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (11): 1780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ostro Bart, Broadwin Rachel, Green Shelley, Feng Wen-Ying, and Lipsett Michael. 2006. “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in Nine California Counties: Results from CALFINE.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (1): 29–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Peel JL, Metzger KB, Klein M, Flanders WD, Mulholland JA, and Tolbert PE. 2007. “Ambient Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Emergency Department Visits in Potentially Sensitive Groups.” American Journal of Epidemiology 165 (6): 625–33. 10.1093/aje/kwk051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Peel Jennifer L., Tolbert Paige E., Klein Mitchel, Metzger Kristi Busico, Flanders W Dana, Todd K NOx, Mulholland James A., Ryan P Barry, and Howard Frumkin. 2005. “Ambient Air Pollution and Respiratory Emergency Department Visits:” Epidemiology 16 (2): 164– 74. 10.1097/01.ede.0000152905.42113.db. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Peng Roger D., Bell Michelle L., Geyh Alison S., Aidan McDermott Scott L. Zeger, Samet Jonathan M., and Dominici Francesca. 2009. “Emergency Admissions for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases and the Chemical Composition of Fine Particle Air Pollution.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (6): 957–963. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Peng Roger D., and Everson Philip J.. 2016. Tlnise: Two Level Normal Independent Sampling Estimation
  31. Qiu Hong, Tak-sun Yu Ignatius, Tian Linwei, Wang Xiaorong, Ah Tse W Lap, Wilson Tam, and Wai Wong. Tze 2012. “Effects of Coarse Particulate Matter on Emergency Hospital Admissions for Respiratory Diseases: A Time-Series Analysis in Hong Kong.” Environmental Health Perspectives 120 (4): 572–76. 10.1289/ehp.1104002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Samet Jonathan M, Francesca Dominici, Curriero Frank C, Coursac Ivan, and Zeger Scott L. 2000. “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 US Cities, 1987–1994.” New England Journal of Medicine 343 (24): 1742–1749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Samet Jonathan M., Zeger Scott L., Dominici Francesca, Curriero Frank, Coursac Ivan, Dockery Douglas W, Schwartz Joel, and Zanobetti Antonella. 2000. The National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study, Part II: Morbidity and Mortality from Air Pollution in the United States. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge MA. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sarnat Jeremy A., Marmur Amit, Klein Mitchel, Kim Eugene, Russell Armistead G., Sarnat Stefanie E., Mulholland James A., Hopke Philip K., and Tolbert Paige E.. 2008. “Fine Particle Sources and Cardiorespiratory Morbidity: An Application of Chemical Mass Balance and Factor Analytical Source-Apportionment Methods.” Environmental Health Perspectives 116 (4): 459–466. 10.1289/ehp.10873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sarnat Stefanie Ebelt, Winquist Andrea, Schauer James J, Turner Jay R, and Sarnat Jeremy A. 2015. “Fine Particulate Matter Components and Emergency Department Visits for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases in the St. Louis, Missouri–Illinois, Metropolitan Area.” Environmental Health Perspectives 123 (5): 437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Stafoggia Massimo, Samoli Evangelia, Alessandrini Ester, Cadum Ennio, Ostro Bart, Berti Giovanna, Faustini Annunziata, et al. 2013. “Short-Term Associations between Fine and Coarse Particulate Matter and Hospitalizations in Southern Europe: Results from the MED-PARTICLES Project.” Environmental Health Perspectives 121 (9): 1026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Stieb David M, Mieczyslaw Szyszkowicz, Rowe Brian H, Judith A Leech, and others. 2009. “Air Pollution and Emergency Department Visits for Cardiac and Respiratory Conditions: A Multi-City Time-Series Analysis.” Environ Health 8 (25): 10–1186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stingone Jeanette A, Luben Thomas J, Daniels Julie L, Montserrat Fuentes, Richardson David B, Aylsworth Arthur S, Herring Amy H, et al. 2014. “Maternal Exposure to Criteria Air Pollutants and Congenital Heart Defects in Offspring: Results from the National Birth Defects Prevention Study.” Environmental Health Perspectives 122 (8): 863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Strickland Matthew J, Darrow Lyndsey A, Mitchel Klein, Flanders W Dana, Sarnat Jeremy A, Waller Lance A, Stefanie E Sarnat, Mulholland James A, and Tolbert Paige E. 2010. “Short-Term Associations between Ambient Air Pollutants and Pediatric Asthma Emergency Department Visits.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 182 (3): 307–316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Thurston George D., and Spengler John D.. 1985. “A Quantitative Assessment of Source Contributions to Inhalable Particulate Matter Pollution in Metropolitan Boston.” Atmospheric Environment 19 (1): 9–25. [Google Scholar]
  41. Villeneuve Paul J, Chen Li, Dave Stieb, and Rowe Brian H. 2006. “Associations between Outdoor Air Pollution and Emergency Department Visits for Stroke in Edmonton, Canada.” European Journal of Epidemiology 21 (9): 689–700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Wellenius GA 2005. “Particulate Air Pollution and the Rate of Hospitalization for Congestive Heart Failure among Medicare Beneficiaries in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.” American Journal of Epidemiology 161 (11): 1030–36. 10.1093/aje/kwi135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wellenius GA, Schwartz J, and Mittleman MA. 2005. “Air Pollution and Hospital Admissions for Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke Among Medicare Beneficiaries.” Stroke 36 (12): 2549–53. 10.1161/01.STR.0000189687.78760.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Winquist Andrea, Klein Mitchel, Tolbert Paige, and Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat. 2012. “Power Estimation Using Simulations for Air Pollution Time-Series Studies.” Environmental Health 11 (1). 10.1186/1476-069X-11-68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Winquist Andrea, Schauer Jamie J, Turner Jay R, Klein Mitch, and Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat. 2015. “Impact of Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Carbon Measurement Methods on Observed Associations with Acute Cardiorespiratory Morbidity.” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 25 (2): 215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Ye Dongni, Klein Mitchel, Chang Howard H., Sarnat Jeremy A., Mulholland James A., Edgerton Eric S., Winquist Andrea, Tolbert Paige E., and Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat. 2017. “Estimating Acute Cardiorespiratory Effects of Ambient Volatile Organic Compounds:” Epidemiology 28 (2): 197–206. 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Zanobetti Antonella, Franklin Meredith, Koutrakis Petros, and Schwartz Joel. 2009. “Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Its Components in Association with Cause-Specific Emergency Admissions.” Environmental Health 8 (58): 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zanobetti Antonella, and Schwartz Joel. 2009. “The Effect of Fine and Coarse Particulate Air Pollution on Mortality: A National Analysis.” Environmental Health Perspectives 117 (6): 898–903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1

RESOURCES