PM2.5 oxidative potential modifies heart-attack risk

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

• SupportsParticulate matterconcept

  This library holds 10 empirical papers on particulate matter with measured outcomes rather than reviews.

  Evidence for the claim as stated.

• SupportsParticulate matterconcept

  Same-day PM2.5 raises myocardial-infarction visits more where particles deplete glutathione, and NOx–ozone oxidant capacity adds further risk.

  Evidence for the claim as stated.

• SupportsParticulate matterconcept

  A time-series in one city or a prenatal cohort is not a global mortality function.

  Evidence for the claim as stated.

• SupportsAir Quality Monitoringmethod

  Among 30,101 MI emergency visits in 16 Canadian cities, mean PM₂.₅ was only 6.91 μg/m³. Glutathione oxidative burden fit better than mass alone (AIC 87,710 vs 87,718). OPGSH modified the PM₂.₅–MI association (p = 0.026); ascorbate OP (OPAA) did not (p = 0.164). Combined Ox stayed associated after adjusting for glutathione burden. Oxidative potential was a 2012–2013 regional average, not day-specific chemistry.

  Evidence for the claim as stated.

• SupportsAir Quality Monitoringmethod

  Assigned 'PM₂.₅' does not predict one health number. North Carolina fused surfaces give a 3.1 g birth-weight decrement per IQR beside a 187.5 g racial gap; Rome's tiny panel finds COPD sensitive to PM₂.₅/metals but asthmatics to NO₂; Canadian MI visits at mean 6.91 μg/m³ are modified by glutathione oxidative potential, not ascorbate OP. Dust days change coarse-PM cardiac effects (9.73% vs 0.86%) with no fine-PM interaction. Mass from a monitor is not a portable toxicity.

  Evidence for the claim as stated.

Open questions

Tensions this paper is part of

From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.

• Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

  SupportsParticulate matter

  A time-series in one city or a prenatal cohort is not a global mortality function.

  Also on this tension

  • Supports · Prenatal PM2.5 linked to preterm birth in Puerto Rico

• Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

  SupportsAir Quality Monitoring

  Assigned 'PM₂.₅' does not predict one health number. North Carolina fused surfaces give a 3.1 g birth-weight decrement per IQR beside a 187.5 g racial gap; Rome's tiny panel finds COPD sensitive to PM₂.₅/metals but asthmatics to NO₂; Canadian MI visits at mean 6.91 μg/m³ are modified by glutathione oxidative potential, not ascorbate OP. Dust days change coarse-PM cardiac effects (9.73% vs 0.86%) with no fine-PM interaction. Mass from a monitor is not a portable toxicity.

  Also on this tension

  • Supports · PM2.5 and ozone trim North Carolina birth weights
  • Supports · PM2.5 lowers lung function in COPD, NO2 in asthma
  • Supports · Saharan dust days worsen coarse-PM mortality

Study at a glance

Design

Case-control — Case-crossover of MI ED visits vs daily PM2.5 weighted by city oxidative potential

N

N=30101 · 30,101 myocardial infarction emergency visits in 16 Canadian cities

Population

MI emergency visits across 16 Canadian cities

Outcome

MI visit risk per PM2.5 and redox-weighted PM2.5

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.

• PM2.5 components and hospital admissions
• Short-term PM2.5 raises deaths and Parkinson’s admissions
• Low PM2.5 still tracks Canadian mortality
• Traffic PM and nearby roads raised diabetes incidence
• Beijing PM2.5 and influenza-like illness