Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Peat Bog Wildfire Smoke Exposure in Rural North Carolina Is Associated with Cardiopulmonary Emergency Department Visits Assessed through Syndromic Surveillance

Open access
Rappold, Ana G., Stone, Susan L., Cascio, Wayne E., Neas, Lucas M., Kilaru, Vasu J., Carraway, Martha Sue, Szykman, James J., Ising, Amy, Cleve, William E., Meredith, John T., Vaughan-Batten, Heather, Deyneka, Lana, Devlin, Robert B.·2011·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In June 2008, burning peat deposits produced haze and air pollution far in excess of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, encroaching on rural communities of eastern North Carolina. Although the association of mortality and morbidity with exposure to urban air pollution is well established, the health effects associated with exposure to wildfire emissions are less well understood. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the effects of exposure on cardiorespiratory outcomes in the population affected by the fire. METHODS: We performed a population-based study using emergency department (ED) visits reported through the syndromic surveillance program NC DETECT (North Carolina Disease Event Tracking and Epidemiologic Collection Tool). We used aerosol optical depth measured by a satellite to determine a high-exposure window and distinguish counties most impacted by the dense smoke plume from surrounding referent counties. Poisson log-linear regression with a 5-day distributed lag was used to estimate changes in the cumulative relative risk (RR). RESULTS: In the exposed counties, significant increases in cumulative RR for asthma [1.65 (95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.1)], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [1.73 (1.06-2.83)], and pneumonia and acute bronchitis [1.59 (1.07-2.34)] were observed. ED visits associated with cardiopulmonary symptoms [1.23 (1.06-1.43)] and heart failure [1.37 (1.01-1.85)] were also significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Satellite data and syndromic surveillance were combined to assess the health impacts of wildfire smoke in rural counties with sparse air-quality monitoring. This is the first study to demonstrate both respiratory and cardiac effects after brief exposure to peat wildfire smoke.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.1003206

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Rappold, A. G., Stone, S. L., Cascio, W. E., Neas, L. M., Kilaru, V. J., Carraway, M. S., Szykman, J. J., Ising, A., Cleve, W. E., Meredith, J. T., Vaughan-Batten, H., Deyneka, L., & Devlin, R. B.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2011-10
Volume
119
Issue
10
Pages
1415-1420
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2006065622
Cited by
309
References
4
FWCI
10.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Peat Bog Wildfire Smoke Exposure in Rural North Carolina Is Associated with Cardiopulmonary Emergency Department Visits Assessed through Syndromic Surveillance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.1003206
The paper
Rappold, A. G., Stone, S. L., Cascio, W. E., Neas, L. M., Kilaru, V. J., Carraway, M. S., Szykman, J. J., Ising, A., Cleve, W. E., Meredith, J. T., Vaughan-Batten, H., Deyneka, L., & Devlin, R. B. (2011). Peat Bog Wildfire Smoke Exposure in Rural North Carolina Is Associated with Cardiopulmonary Emergency Department Visits Assessed through Syndromic Surveillance. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003206

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.