Associations between PM2.5 from prescribed burning and emergency department visits in 11 Southeastern US states

Longer, more severe wildfire seasons are becoming the norm in fire-prone areas. Prescribed burning is a tool used to mitigate wildfire spread. However, prescribed burning also contributes to air pollution, including PM<sub>2.5</sub> (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 2.5 µm). While the health impacts of wildfire smoke (WFS) are well-studied, relatively less is known about the effects of prescribed fire smoke (PFS). Our study leverages healthcare claims available for residents of 11 Southeastern US states (2013-2021) to investigate the health impacts associated with PFS. We used a chemical transport model (CTM) and data fusion-based method to estimate county-level outdoor PFS-specific PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations and employed a time-stratified case-crossover design to quantify the relative risk of emergency department (ED) visits associated with PM<sub>2.5</sub> levels lagged 0-3 days. Models adjusted for non-prescribed fire PM<sub>2.5</sub> and O<sub>3</sub>, temperature, humidity, and holidays. We also examined how relative risks varied across population subgroups. PFS-specific PM<sub>2.5</sub> was associated with a relative risk of ED visits for non-external causes (1.01, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.01, 1.02) comparing 4.3 µg/m<sub>3</sub> (95th percentile) versus 0 µg/m<sup>3</sup>, upper respiratory infections (1.04, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.07), and ischemic heart disease (1.06, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.11). We did not observe an increased risk for overall respiratory outcomes, asthma, or COPD, which differs from published WFS findings. Relative risks varied across outcomes and modestly across population subgroups defined by age and markers of social vulnerability. However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, these differences were not significant. Some findings differed from associations previously reported elsewhere for WFS, highlighting the need for direct comparisons of the health impacts of WFS versus PFS for evaluating safety of prescribed burning as a fire management tool.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environment International
Published
2025-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109770
Primary Topic
Air Quality and Health Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Associations between PM2.5 from prescribed burning and emergency department visits in 11 Southeastern US states

Kamal Jyoti Maji, Yongtao Hu, Chad Milando, Patrick L. Kinney et al.
Environment International
Air Quality and Health Impacts
article

Associations between PM2.5 from prescribed burning and emergency department visits in 11 Southeastern US states

Kamal Jyoti Maji, Yongtao Hu, Chad Milando, Patrick L. Kinney, A. Vaidyanathan, Armistead G. Russell, M. Talat Odman, Jennifer Stowell, Gregory A. Wellenius
article en

Abstract

Longer, more severe wildfire seasons are becoming the norm in fire-prone areas. Prescribed burning is a tool used to mitigate wildfire spread. However, prescribed burning also contributes to air pollution, including PM<sub>2.5</sub> (particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 2.5 µm). While the health impacts of wildfire smoke (WFS) are well-studied, relatively less is known about the effects of prescribed fire smoke (PFS). Our study leverages healthcare claims available for residents of 11 Southeastern US states (2013-2021) to investigate the health impacts associated with PFS. We used a chemical transport model (CTM) and data fusion-based method to estimate county-level outdoor PFS-specific PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations and employed a time-stratified case-crossover design to quantify the relative risk of emergency department (ED) visits associated with PM<sub>2.5</sub> levels lagged 0-3 days. Models adjusted for non-prescribed fire PM<sub>2.5</sub> and O<sub>3</sub>, temperature, humidity, and holidays. We also examined how relative risks varied across population subgroups. PFS-specific PM<sub>2.5</sub> was associated with a relative risk of ED visits for non-external causes (1.01, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.01, 1.02) comparing 4.3 µg/m<sub>3</sub> (95th percentile) versus 0 µg/m<sup>3</sup>, upper respiratory infections (1.04, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.07), and ischemic heart disease (1.06, 95 % CI: 1.01, 1.11). We did not observe an increased risk for overall respiratory outcomes, asthma, or COPD, which differs from published WFS findings. Relative risks varied across outcomes and modestly across population subgroups defined by age and markers of social vulnerability. However, after correcting for multiple comparisons, these differences were not significant. Some findings differed from associations previously reported elsewhere for WFS, highlighting the need for direct comparisons of the health impacts of WFS versus PFS for evaluating safety of prescribed burning as a fire management tool.

Environment InternationalVol. 203
Boston University (US), University of London (GB), Georgia Institute of Technology (US), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 69%
Air Quality and Health Impacts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.