Cited by 339Air Quality and Health ImpactsIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureClimate Change and Health Impacts

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 52 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Differentiating the effects of fine and coarse particles on daily mortality in Shanghai, China

Open access

Abstract

The findings on health effects of ambient fine particles (PM2.5) and coarse particles (PM10-2.5) remain inconsistent. In China, PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 are not the criteria air pollutants, and their monitoring data are scarce. There have been no epidemiological studies of health effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 simultaneously in China. We conducted a time series study to examine the acute effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 on daily mortality in Shanghai, China from Mar. 4, 2004 to Dec. 31, 2005. We used the generalized additive model (GAM) with penalized splines to analyze the mortality, air pollution and covariate data. The average concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 were 56.4 microg/m3 and 52.3 microg/m3 in our study period, and PM2.5 constituted around 53.0% of the PM10 mass. Compared with the Global Air Quality Guidelines set by World Health Organization (10 microg/m3 for annual mean) and U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (15 microg/m3 for annual mean), the PM2.5 level in Shanghai was much higher. We found that PM2.5 was associated with the death rates from all causes and from cardiorespiratory diseases in Shanghai. We did not find a significant effect of PM10-2.5 on mortality outcomes. A10 microg/m3 increase in the 2-day moving average (lag01) concentration of PM2.5 corresponded to 0.36% (95% CI 0.11%, 0.61%), 0.41% (95% CI 0.01%, 0.82%) and 0.95% (95% CI 0.16%, 1.73%) increase of total, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality. For PM10-2.5, the effects were attenuated and less precise. Our analyses provide the first statistically significant evidence in China that PM2.5 has an adverse effect on population health and strengthen the rationale for further limiting levels of PM2.5 in outdoor air in Shanghai.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This time-series study in Shanghai found that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was associated with increased daily all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality, while coarse particles (PM10-2.5) showed no significant associations. The authors report the first statistically significant evidence in China that PM2.5 adversely affects population health.

Key findings

  • Over 668 days (Mar. 4, 2004–Dec. 31, 2005), mean PM2.5 was 56.4 µg/m³ and mean PM10-2.5 was 52.3 µg/m³; PM2.5 constituted about 53.0% of PM10 mass.
  • A 10 µg/m³ increase in lag01 PM2.5 was associated with 0.36% (95% CI 0.11%, 0.61%) higher total mortality, 0.41% (95% CI 0.01%, 0.82%) higher cardiovascular mortality, and 0.95% (95% CI 0.16%, 1.73%) higher respiratory mortality.
  • PM10-2.5 effects were attenuated and not statistically significant: total mortality 0.12% (95% CI −0.13%, 0.36%), cardiovascular 0.34% (95% CI −0.05%, 0.73%), respiratory 0.40% (95% CI −0.34%, 1.13%).
  • PM10 was significantly associated with total mortality (0.16%, 95% CI 0.02%, 0.30%) and cardiovascular mortality (0.31%, 95% CI 0.10%, 0.53%), but not respiratory mortality.

Methods

  • Time-series analysis using a generalized additive model (GAM) with penalized splines, log link, and Poisson error; adjusted for time trend, day of week, temperature, relative humidity, and ozone.
  • Mortality data came from the Shanghai Municipal Center of Disease Control and Prevention for nine urban districts; air pollution data came from a fixed-site Shanghai Environmental Monitoring Center station; PM10-2.5 was estimated by subtracting PM2.5 from PM10.
  • Primary exposure was the 2-day moving average (lag01) of particles; sensitivity analyses varied lag structures, degrees of freedom, and exclusion of extreme concentrations; analyses used R 2.1.1 with the MGCV package.

Limitations

  • The paper states that outdoor monitoring data were used to represent population exposure, which may introduce measurement error, generally biasing estimates downward, but personal exposure data were unavailable to quantify this.
  • The paper states that particle assessment came from one monitoring station, and the single-city, limited time period may have limited power to detect significant PM10-2.5 associations.
  • The paper states that only current-day weather was adjusted for and indoor particle sources were not considered; the text also makes evident that PM10-2.5 was estimated by subtraction rather than directly measured, and PM2.5/PM10-2.5 data were available for 661 of 668 days with no missing-data imputation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envint.2006.12.001

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 52 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 25
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 26
47 of 47
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There have been no epidemiological studies of health effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 simultaneously in China.

    “There have been no epidemiological studies of health effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 simultaneously in China.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There have been no epidemiological studies investigating the health effect of PM10-2.5 in China.

    “To our knowledge, there have been no epidemiological studies investigating the health effect of PM10-2.5 in China.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In China, PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 are not the criteria air pollutants.

    “In China, PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 are not the criteria air pollutants, and their monitoring data are scarce.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Particle levels in Shanghai are much higher than in developed countries.

    “Compared with developed countries, particle levels in Shanghai are much higher.”
    “Compared with developed countries, the level of PM2.5 in Shanghai is much higher.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The composition of the motor vehicle fleet in developed countries differs substantially from that in Shanghai.

    “In addition, the composition of the motor vehicle fleet in developed countries differs substantially from that in Shanghai.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most prior air pollution time-series studies have been based on the GAM model in S-PLUS.

    “Most prior air pollution time-series studies have been based on the GAM model in S-PLUS.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    PM10-2.5 is typically mechanically generated by crushing or grinding, and is often dominated by re-suspended dusts and crustal material from paved or unpaved roads or from construction, farming, and mining activities.

    “PM10-2.5 is typically mechanically generated by crushing or grinding, and is often dominated by re-suspended dusts and crustal material from paved or unpaved roads or from construction, farming, and mining activities.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Generally, nature-generated particles are less toxic to the cardio-respiratory system than combustion-related particles, such as oil fly ash particles.

    “Generally, these nature-generated particles are less toxic to the cardio-respiratory system than combustion-related particles, such as oil fly ash particles.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In Shanghai, little or no indoor air monitoring data are available.

    “In Shanghai, little or no indoor air monitoring data are available.”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Conflicting study-area sizes

    Minor

    The methods give the nine urban districts an area of 289 km2, while the discussion gives 279 square kilometers for the same study area.

  • Tables end one day before the stated study period

    Minor

    The methods state that mortality data run through December 31, 2005, but the summary-statistics table labels its period as ending December 30, 2005. The correlation table uses the December 30 end date as well.

  • Particle measurements are not reported for all 668 days

    Minor

    The discussion says it had PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 data for 668 consecutive days, whereas Table 1 reports 661 observations for each measure.

  • Conflicting Chinese PM10 limits

    Minor

    The introduction gives the daily and annual PM10 limits as 50 and 150 μg/m3, respectively; the results give them as 150 and 100 μg/m3, respectively.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 83 references

1 of the 83 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 339

Metadata

Authors
Kan, H., London, S. J., Chen, G., Zhang, Y., Song, G., Zhao, N., Jiang, L., & Chen, B.
Affiliations
  • Fudan University (CN)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
  • Shanghai Municipal Center For Disease Control Prevention (CN)
Corresponding author
Kan, Haidong
Venue
Environment International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-04
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
376-384
ISSN
0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2138898408
Cited by
339
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 17
FWCI
9.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environment International (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01ES043012)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Climate Change and Health Impacts
Keywords
PM2.5, PM2.5-10, coarse particles, air pollution health effects, daily mortality, cardiovascular mortality, respiratory mortality, all-cause mortality, Shanghai, air quality guidelines, air quality standards
MeSH terms
Air Pollutants, Cardiovascular Diseases, China, Cities, Environmental Exposure, Humans, Mortality, Ozone, Particle Size, Respiratory Tract Diseases, Urban Health, Particulate Matter

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review