Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0281499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281499

Short-term association between ambient air pollution and cardio-respiratory mortality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Taísa Rodrigues Cortes 1,*, Ismael Henrique Silveira 2, Beatriz Fátima Alves de Oliveira 3, Michelle L Bell 4, Washington Leite Junger 1
Editor: Kristina Weis Kintziger5
PMCID: PMC9934392  PMID: 36795640

Abstract

Background

Several epidemiological studies have reported associations between ambient air pollution and mortality. However, relatively few studies have investigated this relationship in Brazil using individual-level data.

Objectives

To estimate the short-term association between exposure to particulate matter <10 μm (PM10) and ozone (O3), and cardiovascular and respiratory mortality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, between 2012 and 2017.

Methods

We used a time-stratified case-crossover study design with individual-level mortality data. Our sample included 76,798 deaths from cardiovascular diseases and 36,071 deaths from respiratory diseases. Individual exposure to air pollutants was estimated by the inverse distance weighting method. We used data from seven monitoring stations for PM10 (24-hour mean), eight stations for O3 (8-hour max), 13 stations for air temperature (24-hour mean), and 12 humidity stations (24-hour mean). We estimated the mortality effects of PM10 and O3 over a 3-day lag using conditional logistic regression models combined with distributed lag non-linear models. The models were adjusted for daily mean temperature and daily mean absolute humidity. Effect estimates were presented as odds ratios (OR) with their 95% confidence interval (CI) associated with a 10 μg/m3 increase in each pollutant exposure.

Results

No consistent associations were observed for both pollutant and mortality outcome. The cumulative OR of PM10 exposure was 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.02) for respiratory mortality and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99–1.01) for cardiovascular mortality. For O3 exposure, we also found no evidence of increased mortality for cardiovascular (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.01) or respiratory diseases (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00). Our findings were similar across age and gender subgroups, and different model specifications.

Conclusion

We found no consistent associations between the PM10 and O3 concentrations observed in our study and cardio-respiratory mortality. Future studies need to explore more refined exposure assessment methods to improve health risk estimates and the planning and evaluation of public health and environmental policies.

Introduction

Air pollution is estimated to have contributed to approximately 7 million deaths in 2019 [1]. Mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases are among the most commonly investigated health outcomes associated with air pollution [2]. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and accounted for nearly 18 million deaths in 2019 [3]. Chronic respiratory diseases also carry a significant burden of premature mortality and disability, and were the third leading cause of death in 2017 [4]. Non-communicable diseases are an important public health challenge worldwide, and air pollution is now ranked among their major risk factors [5,6].

Ambient air pollution consists of a complex and heterogeneous mixture of hazardous components. The health damage caused by air pollutants depends upon their levels and composition in the environment; the duration, frequency, and timing that individuals are exposed; and individual susceptibility [7]. Pollutant levels and composition are influenced not only by emission intensity and source (such as motor vehicles, industry, and biomass burning) but also by landscape features and meteorological processes [8,9]. Differential population vulnerabilities to air pollution might also be due to differences in socioeconomic conditions and demographic characteristics [10,11].

Since many of the factors affecting individual exposure and vulnerabilities can vary significantly between different populations and geographic areas, investigations into the health effects of air pollution are particularly relevant at regional and local level. In this study, we focus on two major pollutants, ambient particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ≤10 μm (PM10) and ground-level ozone (O3). Although several epidemiological studies have reported associations between ambient air pollution and mortality [2,12–14], relatively few studies in Brazil have investigated this relationship using individual-level data. In this study, we used a case-crossover design with individual-level exposure data to estimate the short-term association between exposure to PM10 and O3, and cardiovascular and respiratory disease mortality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We also investigate effect modification by age and gender.

Methods

Mortality data

We carried out a time-stratified case-crossover study to investigate the association between short-term exposure to PM10 and O3, and cardiovascular and respiratory disease mortality in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil). Mortality data were obtained from the Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro. We selected all deaths from cardiovascular (International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision–ICD-10, codes I00-I99) and respiratory diseases (ICD-10, codes J00-J99) that occurred in residents of the municipality of Rio de Janeiro between 2012 and 2017. Residential addresses were geocoded and validated using the method described in a previous study [15]. In brief, we used different automated methods for address matching and validation, and the performance of the geocoding process was assessed by manually reviewing a sample of addresses. Out of the total deaths (n = 132,863), approximately 86% (n = 113,876) were geocoded to street level, with a sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 98%, respectively.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Research Ethics Committees of the Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro and the State University of Rio de Janeiro. The mortality data were anonymized, and the authorization to carry out the research without the informed consent of subjects was given by the ethics committees.

Environmental data

Hourly air pollution and meteorological data were obtained from the monitoring stations maintained by Rio de Janeiro’s Municipal Secretariat for the Environment. Additional meteorological data were obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Meteorology and from airport weather stations maintained by Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research.

We calculated daily concentrations of PM10 (μg/m3), maximum daily 8-hour O3 (μg/m3), mean daily temperature (C°), and mean relative humidity (%). For the computation of pollutant daily averages, the availability of at least 75% of the hourly values (for each monitor) was required. We only included monitoring station data in cases where less than 15% of the study period data was missing (7 stations for PM10, 8 for O3, 13 for temperature, and 12 for relative humidity). Absolute humidity was estimated using relative humidity and temperature data, as previously described [16]. The location of the meteorological and air quality monitoring stations used in the study are shown in the S1 Fig.

The imputation of missing data was performed using a method based on the expectation-maximization algorithm implemented in the mtsdi package [17]. Missing values were estimated using the covariance matrix of the stations’ data. The series temporal component (trend and seasonality) was modeled using natural cubic splines with 5 degrees of freedom per year. The amount of missing data imputed in each time series is presented in S1 Table.

Exposure assessment

Individual-level exposures to air pollutants and meteorological variables were estimated using the inverse distance weighting (IDW) method. In this method, the values at unmeasured locations are estimated by averaging the weighted sum of values from the nearest neighbors (monitoring stations) within a search radius. The weights assigned to each neighboring value are expressed as a function of the inverse distance (between the measured and unmeasured locations) raised to a non-negative power [18].

Leave-one-out cross-validation was carried out to determine the optimal power value, the number of nearest neighbors, and the search radius. For each day, we selected the set of parameters that minimized the prediction root mean square error (RMSE) [19]. The power of distance was evaluated using five values from 1 to 3, and the number of neighbors ranged from 1 to the maximum number of stations (7, 8, 12, or 13). Restricting the search radius to 10km, 15km, or 20km did not improve interpolation results. Although we observed better results for air pollutants using the 5km radius, these data were only used in the sensitivity analysis due to the high number of grids with missing data. The root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) values of cross-validation for the different sets of parameters are summarized in S2 Table.

Daily weighted averages of PM10, O3, and meteorological variables were interpolated into a one square kilometer grid [20]. Individual exposure estimates were calculated through the average of the interpolated values within a 1-kilometer buffer of each residential address.

Statistical analysis

The short-term mortality effects of PM10 and O3 were estimated using conditional logistic regression models combined with distributed lag non-linear models [21]. In line with most previous studies [12], we assumed a linear relationship between air pollution concentration and mortality outcomes. We considered the effects of each pollutant exposure on the day of death (lag 0) and exposures from 1 to 3 days preceding death (lag 1 to lag 3). The lag–response dimension was defined using a natural cubic spline function with three degrees of freedom.

We used a time-stratified case-crossover study with control days selected on the same day of the week and in the same month and year of death [22]. Time-invariant confounders were adjusted by design, as a consequence of self-matching. Time-variant factors, such as daily temperature and daily humidity, were considered potential confounders (as depicted in the causal directed acyclic graph (DAG) in S1 Appendix). We used a cross-basis function to account for the potential nonlinear confounding effects of temperature [21]. The exposure-response dimension of the cross-basis function for temperature was defined using a natural cubic spline with two internal knots (at the 50th and 75th percentiles), while the lag dimension was modeled with a natural cubic spline with two degrees of freedom and a maximum lag of up to 3 days. Daily absolute humidity (lag 0–3 average) was adjusted using a natural cubic spline with one internal knot. We controlled for absolute humidity rather than relative humidity, since the former is a direct measure of water vapor in the air, regardless of air temperature, thus potentially minimizing over-fitting and multicollinearity [23,24]. The number of knots and their respective locations were selected based on the Akaike Information Criteria [25]. More details about our modeling choices are provided in S1 Appendix.

Estimates of lag-specific (total) and cumulative effects are presented as odds ratios (OR), and their 95% confidence interval (CI), associated with a 10 μg/m3 increase in each pollutant exposure. We performed stratified analysis by gender (female, male) and age group. In the age-stratified analysis, the deaths were categorized into two age groups (<64 years and ≥ 65 years).

We carried out several sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of our model estimates. We investigated lag periods of 5 and 10 days for PM10 and O3, and 7 and 21 days for temperature. We also checked that the results were robust to different adjustments for humidity (a model with relative humidity and one without any humidity adjustment) and for temperature. In addition, since pollutant concentrations may have high intra-urban spatial variation, we restricted our analysis to deaths whose geocoded address was located within 10km and 5km of a monitoring station. Finally, we estimated the cumulative effect over a 3-day lag using a time series design and Poisson regression models. The models were adjusted for daily temperature, absolute humidity, long-term trends (natural cubic spline of time with 5 degrees of freedom per year), and day of the week (as an indicator variable).

All analyses were conducted using R 4.1.0. We used different R packages, including the packages survival [26] and dlnm [21] to fit the main models, and the package gstat for interpolation [27]. All the files that are not protected under data protection laws, such as the environmental data and R codes, are available at https://github.com/reprotc/Air_pollution_Rio.

Results

During the study period (2012–2017), 90,897 deaths from cardiovascular disease and 41,966 deaths from respiratory diseases were recorded. We excluded those deaths with non-geocoded addresses and lagged exposure prior to 2012. A total of 76,798 deaths (84%) due to cardiovascular disease and 36,071 deaths (86%) due to respiratory disease were thus included in our analysis. S3 Table presents descriptive statistics for the study sample and the excluded participants.

Summary statistics for air pollutants and meteorological variables are provided in Table 1. The means (and standard deviations) of air pollutants were 37.8 (13.6) μg/m3 for PM10 and 54.3 (19.7) μg/m3 for O3.

Table 1. Summary statistics of pollutant concentrations and meteorological variables in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2012–2017).

Mean SD Median IQR Minimum Maximum
PM10 (μg/m3) 37.76 13.57 35.48 16.95 11.46 107.76
O3 (μg/m3) 54.31 19.64 51.97 27.01 11.32 143.97
Daily temperature (°C) 25.36 3.16 25.15 4.73 15.51 33.97
Daily relative humidity (%) 71.84 8.99 72.23 11.90 44.56 94.72
Open in a new tab

PM10: Particulate matter ≤10 μm; O3: Ozone; SD: Standard deviation; IQR: Interquartile range.

The lag-specific mortality association for a 10 μg/m3 increase in air pollution exposure is shown in Fig 1 (and S4 Table). For PM10, the results indicate a slight increase in respiratory mortality at lag 0, lag 2 and lag 3. The PM10 effect estimate for cardiovascular mortality was slightly higher at lag 1 and lag 2. As with ozone, we found inverse associations with respiratory mortality over the 3-day lag, while for cardiovascular mortality most point estimates were close to the null value.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Lag-specific association of short-term exposure to PM10 and O3, and respiratory (A-B) and cardiovascular disease mortality (C-D), Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) (2012–2017). PM10: Particulate matter ≤10 μm; O3: Ozone; OR: Odds ratio.

No consistent cumulative associations were observed for both pollutants and mortality outcomes. As shown in Table 2, the overall estimate of the cumulative effect over a 3-day lag for a 10 μg/m3 increase in PM10 exposure was 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.02) for respiratory mortality and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99–1.01) for cardiovascular mortality. Neither did we find evidence of increased mortality for cardiovascular (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.01) or respiratory diseases (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00) for O3.

Table 2. Cumulative associations of short-term exposure to PM10 and O3, and cardiovascular and respiratory mortality, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), (2012–2017).

Pollutant
 Subgroup Respiratory disease mortality
OR (95% CI)		 Cardiovascular disease mortality
OR (95% CI)
PM 10 All 1.01 (0.99–1.02) 1.00 (0.99–1.01)
Age ≥ 65 years 1.01 (0.99–1.02) 1.00 (0.99–1.01)
Age 0–64 years 1.01 (0.98–1.05) 1.00 (0.98–1.02)
Female 1.01 (0.99–1.03) 1.01 (0.99–1.02)
Male 1.01 (0.99–1.03) 1.00 (0.98–1.01)
O 3 All 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 1.01 (1.00–1.01)
Age ≥ 65 years 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.01)
Age 0–64 years 0.97 (0.95–0.99) 1.01 (0.99–1.02)
Female 0.99 (0.97–1.00) 1.01 (1.00–1.02)
Male 0.98 (0.97–1.00) 1.00 (0.99–1.01)
Open in a new tab

OR: Odds ratio for a 10 μg/m3 increase in each pollutant exposure.; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; PM10: Particulate matter ≤10 μm; O3: Ozone. Models were performed using case-crossover design and adjusted for daily mean temperature and absolute humidity.

Table 2 shows the air pollution-mortality associations according to the age and gender subgroups. Although we found no evidence of effect modification, the association between PM10 and mortality outcomes was positive (although not significant) for most subgroups.

Sensitivity analyses using different model specifications are presented in S5 Table. We found similar results when we removed subjects whose homes were located 10km or 5km away from the nearest monitoring station. Findings also did not change when using different lag periods for pollutant exposures, and different adjustments for temperature and humidity. However, the analyses using the time series design and Poisson regression models show an increase in respiratory mortality associated with changes in PM10 concentration. In addition, we found positive associations between both pollutants (PM10 and O3) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality (S5 Table).

Discussion

In this study, we investigated the effects of ambient PM10 and O3 exposure on mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases among residents of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. We found no consistent association between the pollutant concentrations observed in our study and cardio-respiratory mortality. Moreover, we found no evidence of increased mortality effects from air pollution among the age and gender subgroups.

Our results differ from most of the literature regarding the mortality effects of air pollution [12,13,28,29]. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 196 studies assessing the short-term mortality effects of air pollution on various continents, Orellano et al. [12] found significant positive associations between ambient levels of PM10 and cardiovascular and respiratory mortality, while for O3 the authors only found an association with all-cause mortality. A multi-city study in Latin America also found positive associations between ambient PM10 levels and cardio-respiratory mortality in most of the cities, including Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre, and São Paulo in Brazil [29]. In Rio de Janeiro, PM10 concentrations were associated with a 2.14% (95% CI 1.41–2.87) increase in respiratory mortality and 0.51% (95% CI 0.06–0.96) increase in cardiovascular mortality, while O3 was only associated with cardiovascular mortality [29]. In contrast, a case-crossover study carried out in São Paulo found that higher concentrations of O3 was only associated with respiratory mortality [30].

Although some studies have produced similar results to our own, especially for O3 [12,29,30], evidence from several epidemiological and toxicological studies (both in humans and animals) supports the relationship between air pollution exposure and cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality [31]. While each pollutant has its own specific toxic properties, increasing evidence indicates oxidative stress and inflammation as key processes underlying the health effects of air pollution [6,32,33]. Air pollutants such as particulate components (PM) and ozone can cause oxidative stress within the lungs, leading to an inflammatory cascade in tissues which can itself lead to systemic inflammation and cell damage [33]. These responses can impact the lung and other organs, either directly or as a secondary effect [34]. Various acute effects of air pollution on the respiratory system have been described in the literature, including the onset and worsening of asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) admissions and mortality. Other recent findings indicate that short-term exposure to major air pollutants (including PM2,5–10 and ozone) can increase the risk of hospitalization and mortality due to ischemic heart diseases [6], heart failure and ischemic stroke [35], particularly in high-risk populations.

Several factors could account for the heterogeneity of the air pollution-mortality association across studies, including differences in research methods, chemical composition of pollutants, and population characteristics [7,10–12,28]. Nonetheless, we believe that the primary reason for the different findings in our study, compared to others, arises from the characteristics of our air pollution data. The daily variability in pollutant concentrations in this study was very low, such that the concentration difference between event and control days had a mean value close to zero (S6 Table). As discussed by Kunzli and Schindler [36], similar exposure levels between case and control periods can provide low statistical power for the detection of pollutant effects in case-crossover studies. Our sensitivity analysis, using a Poisson time series, supports this hypothesis, since we found consistent positive associations between PM10 and respiratory disease mortality, and between both pollutants (PM10 and O3) and CVD mortality (S5 Table). However, compared to case-crossover studies, time series studies are more prone to residual confounding due to seasonality and long-term trends compared to case-crossover studies, and thus potential bias might still exist.

Another study limitation is the use of fixed monitoring stations to estimate air pollution exposure. We attempted to reduce exposure error by capturing more of the spatial variability in air pollutants through an interpolation method (IDW). However, this still represents a coarse exposure approach, since it does not account for spatial heterogeneity due to land use (i.e., roads) and meteorological conditions (i.e., wind, solar radiation). Our methods also did not consider the essential determinants of individual exposure, such as daily mobility and indoor air pollution. This may have led to independent and non-differential measurement errors [37], since the influence of individual activity patterns and time spent indoors/outdoors may have been partially "adjusted" due to self-matching in the case-crossover design (S1 Appendix).

However, the performance of spatial interpolation methods such as IDW may be limited in settings with a sparse monitoring network [38]. In our study, the average distance between the nearest monitoring stations and residential addresses was approximately 6 kilometers for PM10, 5 kilometers for O3 and 4 kilometers for the meteorological variables. Although we found similar results when excluding deaths whose geocoded address was located within 5km away from the nearest monitoring station (S5 Table), bias due to exposure measurement error is likely to have contributed to our findings.

While the mortality data in Brazil has been assessed as good quality [39], the exclusion of deaths due to missing geocoded addresses (14%) could also have affected our results. Our excluded sample had a higher proportion of people of color (54% vs. 37%) and lower educational attainment (74% vs. 61%), which are usually markers for residing in lower income neighborhoods, those with greater segregation and where the cartographic base may be of lower quality. Although we believe that the selection bias magnitude was not high, its impact depends on whether these locations also have higher levels of air pollution or more significant exposure variability.

In conclusion, we found no consistent associations between the PM10 and O3 concentrations observed in our study and cardio-respiratory mortality. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study using individual-level exposure estimates that has investigated the association between PM10 and O3 and cardio-respiratory mortality among residents of all ages in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

The lack of high spatial and temporal resolution air pollution data remains a significant challenge for air pollution research. Future investigations using other study designs should benefit from more refined exposure assessments [40], including satellite data, air pollution modeling, and individual mobility patterns. Enhancing exposure assessment is essential for improving health risk estimates. Adequate monitoring of population exposure to air pollutants is also crucial for planning and evaluating public health and sustainable development policies.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Map of the city of Rio de Janeiro area depicting the locations of weather and air quality monitoring stations used in the study.

The hottest spots (in red) indicate a high density of deaths within a 500-meter buffer zone.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file. (3.6MB, tif)
S1 Table. Percentage of imputed missing data.

Stations with more than 25% missing values in a year and/or > 15% missing data over the study period were excluded.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (51.1KB, pdf)
S2 Table. Root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) values of cross-validation for the different sets of inverse distance weighting parameters.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (41KB, pdf)
S3 Table. Descriptive statistics of the study sample and excluded participants.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (56KB, pdf)
S4 Table. Lag-specific association of short-term exposure to PM10 and O3, and cardiovascular and respiratory mortality, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), (2012–2017).

OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; Models were performed using case-crossover design and adjusted for temperature and relative humidity.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (49.8KB, pdf)
S5 Table. Sensitivity analyses of the short-term mortality effects of PM10 and O3.

OR: Odds ratio for a 10 μg/m3 increase in each pollutant exposure; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval. ** Risk Ratio and 95% CI estimated using a time series design and Poisson regression models adjusted for mean daily temperature, mean daily absolute humidity, seasonality, and day of the week.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (51.6KB, pdf)
S6 Table. Pollutant concentration differences between event days and average concentrations over the control period in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2012–2017).

* Differences between daily concentrations of each pollutant on event days (day of death) and average concentrations over the control period. **Difference between pollutant concentrations in event and control days using all the mortality data (geocoded and non-geocoded) and daily average exposure data (all stations without imputation and IDW interpolation). PM10: Particulate matter ≤10 μm; O3: Ozone; SD: Standard deviation; IQR: Interquartile range.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (63KB, pdf)
S1 Appendix. Modeling choices.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file. (118.1KB, pdf)

Data Availability

The mortality data used in this study are protected by the General Personal Data Protection Law (No. 13.709) and the National Health Council Resolution (No. 466/12) and cannot be made available due to potential identifying information (such as the residential address). Access to the mortality data can only be obtained after submitting a complete research project to the Research Ethics Committees at https://plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br/. After approval by the Research Ethics Committees, the mortality data can be requested from the Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro (https://www.rio.rj.gov.br/web/sms/vigilancia-em-saude). Data regarding air pollution can be obtained from the DATA.RIO platform (https://www.data.rio/maps/PCRJ::qualidade-do-ar-dados-hor%C3%A1rios/about). Meteorological data can be obtained from the INMET meteorological database system at https://bdmep.inmet.gov.br/ and the PROTIM/CPTEC/INPE system at http://bancodedados.cptec.inpe.br/. All the files that are not protected under data protection laws, such as the environmental data and R codes, are available on GitHub (https://github.com/reprotc/Air_pollution_Rio).

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – CAPES (https://www.gov.br/capes/) (finance code 001), Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro - FAPERJ (https://www.faperj.br/) (grant number grant numbers E-26/010.002131/2019 and E-26/200.966/2022), National Council of Technological and Scientific Development – CNPq (https://www.gov.br/cnpq/) (grant numbers 307495/2018-3, 406292/2018-3 and 315349/2021-2) and the Wellcome Trust (https://wellcome.org/) (grant number 216087/Z/19/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Health Effects Institute, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. State of Global Air 2019: Boston: Health Effects Institute. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sun Z, Zhu D. Exposure to outdoor air pollution and its human health outcomes: A scoping review. PLoS ONE. 2019. May 16;14(5):e0216550. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216550 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, Addolorato G, Ammirati E, Baddour LM, et al. Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors, 1990–2019. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020. Dec;76(25):2982–3021. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Soriano JB, Kendrick PJ, Paulson KR, Gupta V, Abrams EM, Adedoyin RA, et al. Prevalence and attributable health burden of chronic respiratory diseases, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2020. Jun;8(6):585–96. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30105-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Murray CJL, Aravkin AY, Zheng P, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi-Kangevari M, et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet. 2020. Oct;396(10258):1223–49. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30752-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Brook RD, Rajagopalan S, Pope CA, Brook JR, Bhatnagar A, Diez-Roux AV, et al. Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease: An Update to the Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010. Jun;121(21):2331–78. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Manisalidis I, Stavropoulou E, Stavropoulos A, Bezirtzoglou E. Environmental and Health Impacts of Air Pollution: A Review. Front Public Health. 2020. Feb 20;8:14. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pérez IA, García MÁ, Sánchez ML, Pardo N, Fernández-Duque B. Key Points in Air Pollution Meteorology. IJERPH. 2020. Nov 11;17(22):8349. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228349 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Baklanov A, Molina LT, Gauss M. Megacities, air quality and climate. Atmospheric Environment. 2016. Feb;126:235–49. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.11.059 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bell ML, Zanobetti A, Dominici F. Evidence on Vulnerability and Susceptibility to Health Risks Associated With Short-Term Exposure to Particulate Matter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2013. Sep 15;178(6):865–76. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bell ML, Zanobetti A, Dominici F. Who is More Affected by Ozone Pollution? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2014. Jul 1;180(1):15–28. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwu115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Orellano P, Reynoso J, Quaranta N, Bardach A, Ciapponi A. Short-term exposure to particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3) and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International. 2020. Sep;142:105876. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105876 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Newell K, Kartsonaki C, Lam KBH, Kurmi OP. Cardiorespiratory health effects of particulate ambient air pollution exposure in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health. 2017. Dec;1(9):e368–80. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30166-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Niu Z, Liu F, Yu H, Wu S, Xiang H. Association between exposure to ambient air pollution and hospital admission, incidence, and mortality of stroke: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 23 million participants. Environ Health Prev Med. 2021. Dec;26(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12199-021-00937-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cortes TR, Silveira IH da, Junger WL. Improving geocoding matching rates of structured addresses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Cad Saúde Pública. 2021;37(7):e00039321. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00039321 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Silveira IH, Cortes TR, de Oliveira BFA, Junger WL. Projections of excess cardiovascular mortality related to temperature under different climate change scenarios and regionalized climate model simulations in Brazilian cities. Environmental Research. 2021. Jun;197:110995. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Junger WL, Ponce de Leon A. Imputation of missing data in time series for air pollutants. Atmospheric Environment. 2015. Feb;102:96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.11.049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wong DW, Yuan L, Perlin SA. Comparison of spatial interpolation methods for the estimation of air quality data. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2004. Sep 1;14(5):404–15. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500338 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li Z, Wang P. Intelligent Optimization on Power Values for Inverse Distance Weighting. In: 2013 International Conference on Information Science and Cloud Computing Companion. Guangzhou: IEEE; 2013. p. 370–5. doi: 10.1109/ISCC-C.2013.81 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hengl T. Finding the right pixel size. Computers & Geosciences. 2006. Nov;32(9):1283–98. doi: 10.1016/j.cageo.2005.11.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gasparrini A. Distributed lag linear and non-linear models in R: the package dlnm. Journal of statistical software. 2011;43(8):1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Janes H, Sheppard L, Lumley T. Case-Crossover Analyses of Air Pollution Exposure Data: Referent Selection Strategies and Their Implications for Bias. Epidemiology. 2005. Nov;16(6):717–26. doi: 10.1097/01.ede.0000181315.18836.9d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Davis RE, McGregor GR, Enfield KB. Humidity: A review and primer on atmospheric moisture and human health. Environmental Research. 2016. Jan;144:106–16. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Barnett AG, Tong S, Clements ACA. What measure of temperature is the best predictor of mortality? Environmental Research. 2010. Aug;110(6):604–11. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2010.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Craiu RV, Duchesne T, Fortin D. Inference Methods for the Conditional Logistic Regression Model with Longitudinal Data. Biom J. 2008. Feb;50(1):97–109. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200610379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Therneau T. A Package for Survival Analysis in R. R package version 3.3–1, 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gräler B, Pebesma E, Heuvelink G. Spatio-Temporal Interpolation using gstat. The R Journal. 2016;8(1):204. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2016-014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liu C, Chen R, Sera F, Vicedo-Cabrera AM, Guo Y, Tong S, et al. Ambient Particulate Air Pollution and Daily Mortality in 652 Cities. N Engl J Med. 2019. Aug 22;381(8):705–15. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817364 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Romieu I, Gouveia N, Cifuentes LA, de Leon AP, Junger W, Vera J, et al. Multicity study of air pollution and mortality in Latin America (the ESCALA study). Res Rep Health Eff Inst. 2012. Oct;(171):5–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bravo MA, Son J, de Freitas CU, Gouveia N, Bell ML. Air pollution and mortality in São Paulo, Brazil: Effects of multiple pollutants and analysis of susceptible populations. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2016. Mar;26(2):150–61. doi: 10.1038/jes.2014.90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.WHO Regional Office for Europe. Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution–REVIHAAP Project: Technical Report. WHO Regional Office for Europe. 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Arias-Pérez RD, Taborda NA, Gómez DM, Narvaez JF, Porras J, Hernandez JC. Inflammatory effects of particulate matter air pollution. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020. Dec;27(34):42390–404. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10574-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gangwar RS, Bevan GH, Palanivel R, Das L, Rajagopalan S. Oxidative stress pathways of air pollution mediated toxicity: Recent insights. Redox Biology. 2020. Jul;34:101545. doi: 10.1016/j.redox.2020.101545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Schraufnagel DE, Balmes JR, Cowl CT, De Matteis S, Jung SH, Mortimer K, et al. Air Pollution and Noncommunicable Diseases: A Review by the Forum of International Respiratory Societies’ Environmental Committee, Part 2: Air Pollution and Organ Systems. Chest. 2019. Feb;155(2):417–26. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.10.041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yang WS, Wang X, Deng Q, Fan WY, Wang WY. An evidence-based appraisal of global association between air pollution and risk of stroke. International Journal of Cardiology. 2014. Aug;175(2):307–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.05.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kunzli N. A call for reporting the relevant exposure term in air pollution case-crossover studies. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2005. Jun 1;59(6):527–30. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.027391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.van Smeden M, Lash TL, Groenwold RHH. Reflection on modern methods: five myths about measurement error in epidemiological research. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2020. Feb 1;49(1):338–47. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz251 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jerrett M, Arain A, Kanaroglou P, Beckerman B, et al. A review and evaluation of intraurban air pollution exposure models. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 2005. 15(2), 185–204. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500388 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.World Health Organization. WHO Methods and Data Sources for Country-Level Causes of Death 2000–2019: WHO; 2020. Available at: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/gho-documents/global-health-estimates/ghe2019_cod_methods.pdf (accessed May 2022). [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dionisio KL, Baxter LK, Burke J, Özkaynak H. The importance of the exposure metric in air pollution epidemiology studies: When does it matter, and why? Air Qual Atmos Health. 2016. Jul;9(5):495–502. doi: 10.1007/s11869-015-0356-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Kristina Weis Kintziger

27 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-17313Short-term association between ambient air pollution and cardio-respiratory mortality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cortes,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

The comments by Reviewer 1 related to measurement error and the validity of your exposure estimates are a major concern to me as well, and should be addressed more fully in your discussion section, and potentially adding additional detail in Methods or Results. While you do discuss the issues of measurement error already, the authors should attempt to further alleviate reviewer and reader concerns about the fewer stations available for pollutants, distance between residential addresses and stations for the deaths included, etc. It may be helpful to provide a map of the location of the stations for each exposure type along side the count of deaths by appropriate sub-city Census unit (so that death data remains de-identifiable) and calculate the average distances between deaths and stations, for example. These are just examples and the authors may decide on a better way to address these concerns. However, I do not agree that these issues should result in a rejection, if the authors are able to address them in more detail. I feel that this paper despite the null findings adds to the evidence base on this topic and represents sound statistical methods/analysis. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kristina Weis Kintziger, PhD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

This research was funded by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – CAPES (https://www.gov.br/capes/ ) (finance code 001), Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro - FAPERJ (https://www.faperj.br/)(grant number E-26/202.756/2018), National Council of Technological and Scientific Development – CNPq (https://www.gov.br/cnpq/)(grant numbers 307495/2018-3 and 406292/2018-3) and the Wellcome Trust (https://wellcome.org/) (grant number 216087/Z/19/Z). 

  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

Additional Editor Comments:

Additional things that should be addressed in the revision:

1. Please include the direct website link on Github for the available code and data.

2. In first paragraph of results, please provide the % of total deaths of each type that were included after all exclusions were made.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors explored the associations between short-term exposures to PM10 and ozone and cardiovascular and respiratory mortality in Rio de Janeiro. They used a time-stratified case-crossover study design adjusting for temperature and humidity. The air pollution and meteorological data were obtained from the monitoring stations. The authors did not detect increased cardiovascular and respiratory mortality associated with both PM10 and ozone.

The big question for me is the high degree of exposure measurement error due to the use of monitored data in the context of case crossover design. Generally, the weather station will be established far away from the urbanized areas, and the meteorological data might not be consistent to the city. This introduces large exposure error, which may attenuate the resulting effect estimates or even results in the regression coefficients to have the wrong sign. The authors should assess the validity.

Reviewer #2: The comments are as attached in PDF form. Overall, it is a good attempt as I rarely seen researchers analyzed for individual level data, and usually people will only consider for pool health impacts.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-17313_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file. (482.2KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0281499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281499.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

11 Nov 2022

Authors' responses:

We thank the editor and both reviewers for their time and helpful suggestions for our paper. We have provided answers to each of your questions below.

============================================================

Editor:

The comments by Reviewer 1 related to measurement error and the validity of your exposure estimates are a major concern to me as well, and should be addressed more fully in your discussion section, and potentially adding additional detail in Methods or Results. While you do discuss the issues of measurement error already, the authors should attempt to further alleviate reviewer and reader concerns about the fewer stations available for pollutants, distance between residential addresses and stations for the deaths included, etc. It may be helpful to provide a map of the location of the stations for each exposure type along side the count of deaths by appropriate sub-city Census unit (so that death data remains de-identifiable) and calculate the average distances between deaths and stations, for example. These are just examples and the authors may decide on a better way to address these concerns. However, I do not agree that these issues should result in a rejection, if the authors are able to address them in more detail. I feel that this paper despite the null findings adds to the evidence base on this topic and represents sound statistical methods/analysis.

Authors' response:

We agree that the limited availability of exposure data is an important limitation of our study. According to your suggestions, we added information on distance between residential addresses and monitoring stations, as well as a map displaying the locations of the pollutant stations and deaths density (Figure S1). The new version of our manuscript also includes the additional comment regarding measurement error:

“However, the performance of spatial interpolation methods such as IDW may be limited in settings with a sparse monitoring network [38]. In our study, the average distance between the nearest monitoring stations and residential addresses was approximately 6 kilometers for PM10, 5 kilometers for O3 and 4 kilometers for the meteorological variables. Although we found similar results when excluding deaths whose geocoded address was located within 5km away from the nearest monitoring station (S5 Table), bias due to exposure measurement error is likely to have contributed to our findings” (p.10, lines 274-280).

We hope that these revisions will be satisfactory.

Additional Editor comments:

Please include the direct website link on Github for the available code and data.

Authors' response:

The github (https://github.com/reprotc/Air_pollution_Rio) link has been added to the manuscript.

In first paragraph of results, please provide the % of total deaths of each type that were included after all exclusions were made.

Authors' response:

We changed the paragraph in accordance with your recommendation (p. 6, lines 177-178).

============================================================

Responses to reviewers:

Reviewer #1: The authors explored the associations between short-term exposures to PM10 and ozone and cardiovascular and respiratory mortality in Rio de Janeiro. They used a time-stratified case-crossover study design adjusting for temperature and humidity. The air pollution and meteorological data were obtained from the monitoring stations. The authors did not detect increased cardiovascular and respiratory mortality associated with both PM10 and ozone. The big question for me is the high degree of exposure measurement error due to the use of monitored data in the context of case crossover design. Generally, the weather station will be established far away from the urbanized areas, and the meteorological data might not be consistent to the city. This introduces large exposure error, which may attenuate the resulting effect estimates or even results in the regression coefficients to have the wrong sign. The authors should assess the validity.

Authors' response:

As previously mentioned, we provide additional information on the location of monitoring sites and the distribution of deaths in our study area, as well as a new paragraph discussing measurement error (please, see S1 Figure and p.10 lines 274-280).

Unfortunately, it was not possible to implement statistical approaches to quantify the impacts of measurement error on our point estimates and confidence intervals. However, these untouched issues relate to exposure assessment will be the subject of our future investigation.

Reviewer #2: It is better if you could use the latest reference (line 55)

Authors' response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. In the new version of the manuscript, we added the most recent report on the health impacts of air pollutants.

Reviewer #2: Explain a little bit about how you get the sensitivity and specificity percentage

Authors' response: We have added the following clarifications regarding the sensitivity and specificity of geocoding: “Residential addresses were geocoded and validated using the method described in a previous study [15]. In brief, we used different automated methods for address matching and validation, and the performance of the geocoding process was assessed by manually reviewing a sample of addresses. Out of the total deaths (n=132,863), approximately 86% (n=113,876) were geocoded to street level, with a sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 98%, respectively ” (p. 3, lines 89-93).

Reviewer #2: Why temperature and relative humidity variables were taken, and not described in the title, abstract and introduction (lines 100-102)

Authors' response: In response to the reviewer's question, we added to the abstract information about the meteorological variables used in our study. Since these variables were thought to be confounders, we assumed it would be appropriate to report them only in the abstract and methods section, as suggested by the STROBE.

Reviewer #2: Is this sufficient to be extrapolated to the whole Rio de Janeiro? (lines 103-104)

Authors' response: We agree that the representativeness of monitoring data is a important issue. In the new version of the manuscript, we attempted to address your question by including additional information on the stations density and futher discussion on exposure measurement error (please, see p.10 lines 274-280).

We hope that these revisions will be satisfactory.

Reviewer #2: Line 136-137: Why you consider only until lag 3? I found many publications with significant findings at Lag 6.

Authors' response: To select the lag length, we first examined the relationship between air pollution and mortality using a lag of 15 days, as described in the supplemental material (Appendix S1). While the main results were presented with a maximum lag of three days, we found very similar results when using different lag periods (such as lag 0-5, lag 0-10 days), as described in our sensitivity analyses.

Reviewer #2: why considered as non significant? it is a protective factor

Authors' response: We revised the text based on your comment (Please, see p. 7, line 190)

Reviewer #2: Line 230-231: Are they using Lag1-3?

Authors' response: We agree that methodological aspects such as the lag duration should be considered when comparing risk estimates between studies. We believe, however, that our choices for the exposures lags does not appear to be the an explanation for our findings, as we found similar results using different lag structures (please, see S5 Table).

Reviewer #2: Table 1: μg/m3

Authors' response: We appreciate the reviewer correction and have modified the text accordingly.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (20.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Kristina Weis Kintziger

13 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-17313R1Short-term association between ambient air pollution and cardio-respiratory mortality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cortes,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

I am unable to make changes to authorship. Please add the new author as requested on 12/1/2022, in the location of your choosing and provide appropriate contact information, as needed. Then, resubmit the final version. Thank you for addressing all of my and the reviewers' concerns.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kristina Weis Kintziger, PhD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for the revisions to your manuscript. All requests have been adequately addressed. Please add the additional co-author with appropriate contact or other information as requested on 12/1 by the corresponding author and resubmit a final version.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0281499. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281499.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

5 Jan 2023

Editor:

I am unable to make changes to authorship. Please add the new author as requested on 12/1/2022, in the location of your choosing and provide appropriate contact information, as needed. Then, resubmit the final version. Thank you for addressing all of my and the reviewers' concerns.

Additional Editor comments:

Thank you for the revisions to your manuscript. All requests have been adequately addressed. Please add the additional co-author with appropriate contact or other information as requested on 12/1 by the corresponding author and resubmit a final version.

Authors' response: We thank you for your time and suggestions and for providing us with the opportunity to submit a final version of our manuscript. We added the new author with appropriate contact information. In addition, we have made few minor modifications to the manuscript, primarily the correction of typographical errors (lines 114, 205, 300) and the addition of citations for a few statements (line 264).

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Authors' response: We checked the reference list and found no retractions. However, we corrected the manuscript title of reference 34, which was incomplete.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (15KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Kristina Weis Kintziger

25 Jan 2023

Short-term association between ambient air pollution and cardio-respiratory mortality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

PONE-D-22-17313R2

Dear Dr. Cortes,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Kristina Weis Kintziger, PhD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for addressing all of the reviewers', editor's, and journal's requests. I have submitted a decision of "Accept".

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Kristina Weis Kintziger

7 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-17313R2

Short-term association between ambient air pollution and cardio-respiratory mortality in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Dear Dr. Cortes:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kristina Weis Kintziger

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Map of the city of Rio de Janeiro area depicting the locations of weather and air quality monitoring stations used in the study.

    The hottest spots (in red) indicate a high density of deaths within a 500-meter buffer zone.

    (TIF)

    Click here for additional data file. (3.6MB, tif)
    S1 Table. Percentage of imputed missing data.

    Stations with more than 25% missing values in a year and/or > 15% missing data over the study period were excluded.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (51.1KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. Root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) values of cross-validation for the different sets of inverse distance weighting parameters.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (41KB, pdf)
    S3 Table. Descriptive statistics of the study sample and excluded participants.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (56KB, pdf)
    S4 Table. Lag-specific association of short-term exposure to PM10 and O3, and cardiovascular and respiratory mortality, Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), (2012–2017).

    OR: odds ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; Models were performed using case-crossover design and adjusted for temperature and relative humidity.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (49.8KB, pdf)
    S5 Table. Sensitivity analyses of the short-term mortality effects of PM10 and O3.

    OR: Odds ratio for a 10 μg/m3 increase in each pollutant exposure; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval. ** Risk Ratio and 95% CI estimated using a time series design and Poisson regression models adjusted for mean daily temperature, mean daily absolute humidity, seasonality, and day of the week.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (51.6KB, pdf)
    S6 Table. Pollutant concentration differences between event days and average concentrations over the control period in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2012–2017).

    * Differences between daily concentrations of each pollutant on event days (day of death) and average concentrations over the control period. **Difference between pollutant concentrations in event and control days using all the mortality data (geocoded and non-geocoded) and daily average exposure data (all stations without imputation and IDW interpolation). PM10: Particulate matter ≤10 μm; O3: Ozone; SD: Standard deviation; IQR: Interquartile range.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (63KB, pdf)
    S1 Appendix. Modeling choices.

    (PDF)

    Click here for additional data file. (118.1KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-17313_reviewer.pdf

    Click here for additional data file. (482.2KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (20.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (15KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    The mortality data used in this study are protected by the General Personal Data Protection Law (No. 13.709) and the National Health Council Resolution (No. 466/12) and cannot be made available due to potential identifying information (such as the residential address). Access to the mortality data can only be obtained after submitting a complete research project to the Research Ethics Committees at https://plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br/. After approval by the Research Ethics Committees, the mortality data can be requested from the Municipal Health Department of Rio de Janeiro (https://www.rio.rj.gov.br/web/sms/vigilancia-em-saude). Data regarding air pollution can be obtained from the DATA.RIO platform (https://www.data.rio/maps/PCRJ::qualidade-do-ar-dados-hor%C3%A1rios/about). Meteorological data can be obtained from the INMET meteorological database system at https://bdmep.inmet.gov.br/ and the PROTIM/CPTEC/INPE system at http://bancodedados.cptec.inpe.br/. All the files that are not protected under data protection laws, such as the environmental data and R codes, are available on GitHub (https://github.com/reprotc/Air_pollution_Rio).

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES