The DOI matches its Crossref record; 122 of the 125 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Health effects of wildfire smoke in children and public health tools: a narrative review
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Respirator mask intervention studies have demonstrated reduced but still potentially useful protection (>70%) for children and other cases of sub-optimal fit [53].”
From Comparative Mask Protection against Inhaling Wildfire Smoke, Allergenic Bioaerosols, and Infectious Particles (2022) · cites this paper as [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.
Citations
Cites
Santos, A. G., da Rocha, G. O., & de Andrade, J. B. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37186-2 · Cited by 8,495
Outdoor air pollution and asthma.
Guarnieri, M., & Balmes, J. R. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60617-6 · Cited by 1,889
Self-citationCritical Review of Health Impacts of Wildfire Smoke Exposure
Reid, C. E., Brauer, M., Johnston, F. H., Jerrett, M., Balmes, J. R., & Elliott, C. T. (2016) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1409277 · Cited by 1,396
Self-citationThe health effects of ultrafine particles
Schraufnagel, D. E. (2020) · Experimental & Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1038/s12276-020-0403-3 · Cited by 1,048
Khreis, H., Kelly, C., Tate, J., Parslow, R. C., Lucas, K., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2016) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.012 · Cited by 812
Association of Improved Air Quality with Lung Development in Children
Gauderman, W. J., Urman, R., Avol, E. L., Berhane, K. T., McConnell, R., Rappaport, E. B., Chang, R., Lurmann, F. W., & Gilliland, F. D. (2015) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1414123 · Cited by 732
A systematic review of the physical health impacts from non-occupational exposure to wildfire smoke
Liu, J. C., Pereira, G., Uhl, S. A., Bravo, M. A., & Bell, M. L. (2015) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2014.10.015 · Cited by 685
Wildland fire smoke and human health
Cascio, W. E. (2018) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.086 · Cited by 642
Ozone production from wildfires: A critical review
Jaffe, D. A., & Wigder, N. L. (2011) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.11.063 · Cited by 573
Testing the Efficacy of Homemade Masks: Would They Protect in an Influenza Pandemic?
Davies, A., Thompson, K.-A., Giri, K., Kafatos, G., Walker, J., & Bennett, A. (2013) · Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness · doi:10.1017/dmp.2013.43 · Cited by 498
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Pearson C. Phone call with Charles Pearson of the California Air Resources Board; 2020.
- McCullough N, Betsinger G. Conference call with Nikki McCullough and Geoff Betsinger of 3M; 2020.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Climate change, fossil-fuel pollution, and children's health
Perera, F., & Nadeau, K. (2022) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra2117706 · Cited by 420
Barkjohn, K. K., Gantt, B., & Clements, A. L. (2021) · Atmospheric measurement techniques · doi:10.5194/amt-14-4617-2021 · Cited by 438
D’Evelyn, S. M., Jung, J., Alvarado, E., Baumgartner, J. C., Caligiuri, P., Hagmann, R. K., Henderson, S. B., Hessburg, P. F., Hopkins, S., Kasner, E. J., et al. (2022) · Current Environmental Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s40572-022-00355-7 · Cited by 186
Zhou, X., Josey, K., Kamareddine, L., Caine, M. C., Liu, T., Mickley, L. J., Cooper, M., & Dominici, F. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abi8789 · Cited by 153
Early Wildfire Detection Technologies in Practice—A Review
Mohapatra, A., & Trinh, T. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su141912270 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC7502220
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
