ArticleResearch report (Health Effects Institute)2024
Estimating Model-Based Marginal Societal Health Benefits of Air Pollution Emission Reductions in the United States and Canada.
Article in Research report (Health Effects Institute), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accounting for the Health Benefits of Air Pollution Regulations in China, 2008-2019.Research report (Health Effects Institute) · 2026Article
- Source Attribution of PMGeoHealth · 2026Article
- How Do Household Energy Transitions Work?Research report (Health Effects Institute) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We developed spatially detailed source-impact estimates of population health burden measures of air pollution for the United States and Canada by quantifying sources-receptor relationships using the benefit-per-ton (BPT The adjoint version of a widely used chemical transport model (CTM) allowed us to calculate location-specific BPTs at a high level of granularity for source-impact characterization. Location-specific BPTs provides a means for exploiting the disparities in source impact of emissions at different locations. For instance, estimated BPTs show that 20% of primary PM Sensitivity analyses evaluated the impact of our assumptions and study design on the estimated BPTs. The choice of concentration-response function had a substantial impact on the estimated BPTs and is likely to constitute the largest source of uncertainty in those estimates. Our method for constructing annual BPT estimates based on episodic simulations introduces low uncertainty, while uncertainties associated with the spatial resolution of the CTM were evaluated to be of medium importance. Finally, while recognizing that the use of BPTs entails an implied assumption of linearity, we show that BPTs for primary PM We used BPTs to provide location-specific and sectoral estimates for the cobenefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from a range of combustion sources. Cobenefit estimates rely heavily on the emission characteristics of the sector and therefore exhibit more pronounced sectoral fingerprints than do BPTs. We provide cobenefit estimates for various subsectors of on-road transportation, thermal electricity generation, and off-road engines. Off-road engines and various heavy-duty diesel vehicles had the largest cobenefits, which in most urban locations far exceeded estimates of the social cost of carbon. Based on our cobenefit estimations, we also provide per-vehicle burden estimates for different vintages of vehicle subsectors such as transit buses and short-haul trucks in major US cities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39397785PMC11476235What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.