Health benefits from large-scale ozone reduction in the United States

Jesse D. Berman, Neal Fann, John W. Hollingsworth, Kent E Pinkerton, William N. Rom, Anthony M. Szema, Patrick N. Breysse, Ronald H. White, Frank C. Curriero

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

56 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Exposure to ozone has been associated with adverse health effects, including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary and respiratory morbidity. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 75 ppb, expressed as the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average over a 24-hr period. Based on recent monitoring data, U.S. ozone levels still exceed this standard in numerous locations, resulting in avoidable adverse health consequences. Objectives: We sought to quantify the potential human health benefits from achieving the current primary NAAQS standard of 75 ppb and two alternative standard levels, 70 and 60 ppb, which represent the range recommended by the U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Methods: We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration-response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature. Results: We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75-ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC-recommended range of standards (70-60 ppb) had been met. Conclusions: Attaining a more stringent primary ozone standard would significantly reduce ozone-related premature mortality and morbidity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1404-1410
Number of pages7
JournalEnvironmental Health Perspectives
Volume120
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ozone
Insurance Benefits
Air
Premature Mortality
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Health
Advisory Committees
Health Impact Assessment
Morbidity

Keywords

  • Health benefits
  • Health impact assessment
  • Ozone
  • Standards

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Berman, J. D., Fann, N., Hollingsworth, J. W., Pinkerton, K. E., Rom, W. N., Szema, A. M., ... Curriero, F. C. (2012). Health benefits from large-scale ozone reduction in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10), 1404-1410. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104851

Health benefits from large-scale ozone reduction in the United States. / Berman, Jesse D.; Fann, Neal; Hollingsworth, John W.; Pinkerton, Kent E; Rom, William N.; Szema, Anthony M.; Breysse, Patrick N.; White, Ronald H.; Curriero, Frank C.

In: Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 120, No. 10, 10.2012, p. 1404-1410.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Berman, JD, Fann, N, Hollingsworth, JW, Pinkerton, KE, Rom, WN, Szema, AM, Breysse, PN, White, RH & Curriero, FC 2012, 'Health benefits from large-scale ozone reduction in the United States', Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 120, no. 10, pp. 1404-1410. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104851
Berman, Jesse D. ; Fann, Neal ; Hollingsworth, John W. ; Pinkerton, Kent E ; Rom, William N. ; Szema, Anthony M. ; Breysse, Patrick N. ; White, Ronald H. ; Curriero, Frank C. / Health benefits from large-scale ozone reduction in the United States. In: Environmental Health Perspectives. 2012 ; Vol. 120, No. 10. pp. 1404-1410.
@article{7a3ad0ce57d54657ac4382f66cdfdad6,
title = "Health benefits from large-scale ozone reduction in the United States",
abstract = "Background: Exposure to ozone has been associated with adverse health effects, including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary and respiratory morbidity. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 75 ppb, expressed as the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average over a 24-hr period. Based on recent monitoring data, U.S. ozone levels still exceed this standard in numerous locations, resulting in avoidable adverse health consequences. Objectives: We sought to quantify the potential human health benefits from achieving the current primary NAAQS standard of 75 ppb and two alternative standard levels, 70 and 60 ppb, which represent the range recommended by the U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Methods: We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration-response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature. Results: We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75-ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC-recommended range of standards (70-60 ppb) had been met. Conclusions: Attaining a more stringent primary ozone standard would significantly reduce ozone-related premature mortality and morbidity.",
keywords = "Health benefits, Health impact assessment, Ozone, Standards",
author = "Berman, {Jesse D.} and Neal Fann and Hollingsworth, {John W.} and Pinkerton, {Kent E} and Rom, {William N.} and Szema, {Anthony M.} and Breysse, {Patrick N.} and White, {Ronald H.} and Curriero, {Frank C.}",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1289/ehp.1104851",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "120",
pages = "1404--1410",
journal = "Environmental Health Perspectives",
issn = "0091-6765",
publisher = "Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Health benefits from large-scale ozone reduction in the United States

AU - Berman, Jesse D.

AU - Fann, Neal

AU - Hollingsworth, John W.

AU - Pinkerton, Kent E

AU - Rom, William N.

AU - Szema, Anthony M.

AU - Breysse, Patrick N.

AU - White, Ronald H.

AU - Curriero, Frank C.

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - Background: Exposure to ozone has been associated with adverse health effects, including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary and respiratory morbidity. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 75 ppb, expressed as the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average over a 24-hr period. Based on recent monitoring data, U.S. ozone levels still exceed this standard in numerous locations, resulting in avoidable adverse health consequences. Objectives: We sought to quantify the potential human health benefits from achieving the current primary NAAQS standard of 75 ppb and two alternative standard levels, 70 and 60 ppb, which represent the range recommended by the U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Methods: We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration-response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature. Results: We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75-ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC-recommended range of standards (70-60 ppb) had been met. Conclusions: Attaining a more stringent primary ozone standard would significantly reduce ozone-related premature mortality and morbidity.

AB - Background: Exposure to ozone has been associated with adverse health effects, including premature mortality and cardiopulmonary and respiratory morbidity. In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lowered the primary (health-based) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 75 ppb, expressed as the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hr average over a 24-hr period. Based on recent monitoring data, U.S. ozone levels still exceed this standard in numerous locations, resulting in avoidable adverse health consequences. Objectives: We sought to quantify the potential human health benefits from achieving the current primary NAAQS standard of 75 ppb and two alternative standard levels, 70 and 60 ppb, which represent the range recommended by the U.S. EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). Methods: We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration-response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature. Results: We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75-ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC-recommended range of standards (70-60 ppb) had been met. Conclusions: Attaining a more stringent primary ozone standard would significantly reduce ozone-related premature mortality and morbidity.

KW - Health benefits

KW - Health impact assessment

KW - Ozone

KW - Standards

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867152109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867152109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1289/ehp.1104851

DO - 10.1289/ehp.1104851

M3 - Article

C2 - 22809899

AN - SCOPUS:84867152109

VL - 120

SP - 1404

EP - 1410

JO - Environmental Health Perspectives

JF - Environmental Health Perspectives

SN - 0091-6765

IS - 10

ER -