Cited by 247Air Quality and Health ImpactsIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities

Health Effects of Wildfire Smoke in Children and Public Health Tools: A Narrative Review

Open access
Holm, Stephanie M., Miller, Mark D., Balmes, John R.·2021·Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology

Abstract

Wildfire smoke is an increasing environmental health threat to which children are particularly vulnerable, for both physiologic and behavioral reasons. To address the need for improved public health messaging this review summarizes current knowledge and knowledge gaps in the health effects of wildfire smoke in children, as well as tools for public health response aimed at children, including consideration of low-cost sensor data, respirators, and exposures in school environments. There is an established literature of health effects in children from components of ambient air pollution, which are also present in wildfire smoke, and an emerging literature on the effects of wildfire smoke, particularly for respiratory outcomes. Low-cost particulate sensors demonstrate the spatial variability of pollution, including wildfire smoke, where children live and play. Surgical masks and respirators can provide limited protection for children during wildfire events, with expected decreases of roughly 20% and 80% for surgical masks and N95 respirators, respectively. Schools should improve filtration to reduce exposure of our nation's children to smoke during wildfire events. The evidence base described may help clinical and public health authorities provide accurate information to families to improve their decision making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41370-020-00267-4

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Holm et al.'s summary of real-world studies reports mask efficiency ranges of 0-50% for cloth, 20-70% for surgical, and 70-97% for respirator masks.

    “Holm et al.’s summary of real-world studies of cloth, surgical, and respirator mask efficiencies (with ranges 0–50%, 20–70%, and 70–97%, respectively) [53]”

    From Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles (2022) · cites this paper as [53]

    The 'Respirator Use by Children During Wildfire Events' section summarizes studies of all three mask types and supports their differing levels of protection. It does not report the claimed ranges as real-world efficiency ranges: it describes an 85% exposure reduction for one fitted cloth mask, 15–40% average reductions for surgical masks in NIOSH testing, and a 66–70% reduction for nearly everyone wearing the tested respirators. The specific ranges attributed to Holm et al. are therefore not supported as stated. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Respirator mask intervention studies have demonstrated reduced but still potentially useful protection (>70%) for children and other cases of sub-optimal fit.

    “Respirator mask intervention studies have demonstrated reduced but still potentially useful protection (>70%) for children and other cases of sub-optimal fit [53].”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 125 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [69]Pearson Charles. Phone call with Charles Pearson of the California Air Resources Board. 2020.
  2. [109]McCullough N, Betsinger G. Conference Call with Nikki McCullough and Geoff Betsinger of 3M. 2020.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holm, S. M., Miller, M. D., & Balmes, J. R.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Holm, Stephanie M.
Venue
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology
Published
2020-09-20
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
1-20
ISSN
  • 1559-0631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-064X
OpenAlex
W3087506932
Cited by
246
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 19
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (DW-75-95,877,701)
  • California Air Resources Board
  • California Environmental Protection Agency
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R01TS000296, NU61TS000296)
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
  • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (1 NU61TS000296-01-00, 95877701)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
Keywords
wildfire smoke, children, respiratory effects, air pollution exposure, low-cost particulate matter sensors, N95 respirators, surgical masks, public health communication, spatial variability of pollution
MeSH terms
Wildfires, Air Pollution, Child, Environmental Exposure, Humans, Public Health, Smoke

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.

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