Cited by 45Air Quality and Health ImpactsIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureAsthma and respiratory diseases

Effects of ambient ozone exposure on mail carriers’ peak expiratory flow rates

Open access
Chan, Chang-Chuan, Wu, Tsung-Huan·2005·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

The extent to which occupational exposure to ozone in ambient air can affect lung function remains unclear. We conducted a panel study in 43 mail carriers by measuring their peak expiratory flow rates (PEFRs) twice daily for 6 weeks in 2001. The daily exposure of each mail carrier to O3, particulate matter < 10 microm in aerodynamic diameter (PM10), and nitrogen dioxide was estimated by one air monitoring station in the center of the mail carrier's delivery area. Hourly concentrations of air pollutants during their exposure periods were 6-96 ppb for O3, 11-249 microg/m3 for PM10, and 14-92 ppb for NO2. Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the association between air pollution exposures and PEFR after adjusting for subject's sex, age, and disease status and for temperature and humidity. We found that night PEFR and the deviation in night PEFR were significantly decreased in association with 8-hr O3 exposures with a lag 0-2 days and by daily maximum O3 exposures with a lag of 0-1 day in our multipollutant models. By contrast, neither PM10 nor NO2 was associated with a PEFR reduction. Daily 8-hr mean concentrations of O3 had greater reduction effects on PEFR than did daily maximum concentrations. For a 10-ppb increase in the 8-hr average O3 concentration, the night PEFR was decreased by 0.54% for a 0-day lag, 0.69% for a 1-day lag, and 0.52% for a 2-day lag. We found that an acute lung function reduction occurs in mail carriers exposed to O3 concentrations below current ambient air quality standards and occupational exposure limits.

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.7636

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Adverse health responses such as decreases in pulmonary function, alterations in the respiratory tract, and declines in lung function have been observed at O3 levels close to background concentrations.

    “Adverse health responses such as decreases in pulmonary function, alterations in the respiratory tract, and declines in lung function have been observed at O3 levels close to background concentrations (Chan and Wu 2005; WHO 2000).”

    From The Exposure–Response Curve for Ozone and Risk of Mortality and the Adequacy of Current Ozone Regulations (2006) · cites this paper as Chan and Wu 2005

    The Results report decreased peak expiratory flow in mail carriers exposed to ambient ozone, and the Discussion describes lung-function reductions at relatively low concentrations. The paper does not establish that those concentrations were close to background levels, nor does it report observed respiratory-tract alterations in the mail carriers; it discusses possible airway mechanisms instead. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chan, C.-C., & Wu, T.-H.
Affiliations
National Taiwan University (TW)
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2005-03-14
Volume
113
Issue
6
Pages
735-738
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2073189218
Cited by
45
References
26
Citations by year
2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
Keywords
ambient ozone, peak expiratory flow, lung function, mail carriers, occupational exposure, air pollution exposure, PM10, nitrogen dioxide, acute respiratory effects, air quality standards
MeSH terms
Adult, Air Pollutants, Environmental Monitoring, Female, Humans, Male, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, Particle Size, Peak Expiratory Flow Rate, Postal Service, Taiwan, Occupational Exposure, Epidemiological Monitoring

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