You are not currently logged in.
Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Black Carbon as an Additional Indicator of the Adverse Health Effects of Airborne Particles Compared with PM₁₀ and PM₂.₅
Nicole A.H. Janssen, Gerard Hoek, Milena Simic-Lawson, Paul Fischer, Leendert van Bree, Harry ten Brink, Menno Keuken, Richard W. Atkinson, H. Ross Anderson, Bert Brunekreef and Flemming R. Cassee
Environmental Health Perspectives
Vol. 119, No. 12 (DECEMBER 2011), pp. 1691-1699
Published by: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41329134
Page Count: 9
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Preview not available
BACKGROUND: Current air quality standards for paniculate matter (PM) use the PM mass concentration [PM with aerodynamic diameters ≤ 10 μm (PM₁₀) or < 2.5 μm (PM₂.₅)] as a metric. It has been suggested that particles from combustion sources are more relevant to human health thanare particles from other sources, but the impact of policies directed at reducing PM from combustion processes is usually relatively small when effects are estimated for a reduction in the total mass concentration. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the value of black carbon particles (BCP) as an additional indicator in air quality management. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of health effects of BCP compared with PM mass based on data from time-series studies and cohort studies that measured both exposures.We compared the potential health benefits of a hypothetical traific abatement measure, using near-roadway concentration increments of BCP and PM₂.₅ based on data from prior studies. RESULTS: Estimated health effects of a 1-μg/m³ increase in exposure were greater for BCP than for PM₁₀ or PM₂.₅, but estimated effects of an interquartile range increase were similar. Two-pollutant models in time-series studies suggested that the effect of BCP was more robust than the effect of PM mass. The estimated increase in life expectancy associated with a hypothetical traffic abatement measure was four to nine times higher when expressed in BCP compared with an equivalent changein PM₂.₅ mass. CONCLUSION: BCP is a valuable additional air quality indicator to evaluate the health risks of air quality dominated by primary combustion particles.
Environmental Health Perspectives © 2011 The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences