Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:19:08.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Prognostic Effect of Air Pollution in Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2024

Mustafa Sabak
Affiliation:
Gaziantep University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey
Muge Gulen*
Affiliation:
Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Adana, Turkey
Salim Satar
Affiliation:
Adana City Training and Research Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Adana, Turkey
Cuma Yildirim
Affiliation:
Gaziantep University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey
Ahmet Faruk Yildiz
Affiliation:
Gaziantep University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey
Suat Zengin
Affiliation:
Gaziantep University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Gaziantep, Turkey
*
Corresponding author: Muge Gulen; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Weather conditions such as low air temperatures, low barometric pressure, and low wind speed have been linked to more cases of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning. However, limited literature exists regarding the impact of air pollution. This study aims to investigate the relationship between outdoor air pollution and CO poisoning in 2 distinct cities in Turkey.

Methods

A prospective study was conducted at 2 tertiary hospitals, recording demographic data, presenting complaints, vital signs, blood gas and laboratory parameters, carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) levels, meteorological parameters, and pollutant parameters. Complications and outcomes were also documented.

Results

The study included 83 patients (Group 1 = 44, Group 2 = 39). The air quality index (AQI) in Group 2 (61.7 ± 27.7) (moderate AQI) was statistically significantly higher (dirtier AQI) than that in Group 1 (47.3 ± 26.4) (good AQI) (P = 0.018). The AQI was identified as an independent predictor for forecasting the need for hospitalization (OR = 1.192, 95% CI: 1.036 - 1.372, P = 0.014) and predicting the risk of developing cardiac complications (OR: 1.060, 95% CI: 1.017 - 1.104, P = 0.005).

Conclusions

The AQI, derived from the calculation of 6 primary air pollutants, can effectively predict the likelihood of hospitalization and cardiac involvement in patients presenting to the emergency department with CO poisoning.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a toxic gas that is emitted into the atmosphere as a result of incomplete combustion of carbon-containing components. Even at high concentrations, it is challenging to detect due to its colorless, tasteless, and odorless nature.Reference Tomaszewski, Nelson, Howland, Lewin, Smith, Goldfrank and Hoffman 1 The 2022 Annual Report of the National Poison Data System (NPDS) by the American Association of Poison Control Centers revealed that there were 13 760 isolated cases of CO poisoning, with 11 857 being accidental. Among these cases, 5750 individuals received treatment at health centers and 63 resulted in death.Reference Gummin, Mowry and Beuhler 2 Although headache, dizziness, weakness, nausea, vomiting, and chest pain are common symptoms, patients may also present with nonspecific symptoms. This could lead to a misdiagnosis or a delayed diagnosis. The primary cause of poisonings in residential settings is the use of gasoline-powered appliances, including heating systems, cooking appliances, and electric generators.Reference Sircar, Clower and kyong 3

Another important feature of CO in the air is that it affects greenhouse gases associated with global warming and climate change. Greenhouse gases can lead to higher soil and water temperatures, which can result in severe weather conditions or storms.Reference Emberson, Pleijel and Ainsworth 4 The negative consequences of air pollution make it a top concern in the modern world, posing threats to both humans and the natural world. The World Health Organization (WHO) report identifies 6 primary air pollutants that contribute to air pollution, including particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, and ozone (O3). The substantial amount of these substances presents a danger to the well-being of living creatures, as it can have severe impacts on both air quality and the surrounding environment, including soil and groundwater resources. 5 Air quality standards and guidelines have been adopted by the WHO and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as tools for managing air quality and controlling different pollutants. 6 , Reference Newlands 7 In concordance with this aim, the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change in Turkey has instituted a continuous monitoring center on the online platform. Its principal role is to facilitate easy retrieval of information for the populace on the air quality they are exposed to and to promote the comprehension of relevant data. The air quality index (AQI) was developed to classify the air quality of a particular location as good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, or dangerous. This information is updated hourly based on data collected from the field. 8

The purpose of this study was to determine the link between outdoor air pollution and the incidence of CO poisoning among patients admitted to emergency departments in 2 distinct cities in Turkey.

Methods

Study Design and Setting

This study was conducted prospectively at tertiary hospitals in 2 different cities. Patients in Adana province were labeled as Group 1, while patients in Gaziantep province were labeled as Group 2. The study was started after the approval of the local ethics committee. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice. Written informed consent was obtained from the patients to participate in the study.

Selection of Study Patients

The study included individuals who visited both emergency medicine clinics for CO poisoning and had COHb levels greater than 5% (for nonsmokers) and 10% (for smokers) in their blood gas results. The study did not include patients who were under 18 years old, pregnant, experiencing poisoning from multiple substances (cyanide, etc.), lost to follow-up, deceased upon arrival at the emergency department from CO poisoning, admitted more than 24 hours after exposure, intentionally poisoned, or had a history of nervous system disease (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Flowchart of study.

Data Collection

The study data were documented in the pre-established data collection form by 6 esteemed emergency medicine experts, namely MS, MG, SS, CY, AFY, and SZ. In addition to the demographic data of the patients, their complaints, time of poisoning, CO source, vital signs, blood gas and laboratory parameters, COHb levels, length of stay in the emergency department, and outcomes were recorded. Hyperglycemia (>200 mg/dL), leukocytosis (>11.0x10^9/L), myocardial involvement (conditions affecting the heart, such as myocardial infarction, dysrhythmia, and heart failure), acute renal failure (an increase in serum creatinine level by 0.3 mg/dL or more within 48 hours), central nervous system depression, hypoxemia (<92%), and rhabdomyolysis complications were also recorded. Venous blood gas COHb level was measured with a Radiometer ABL90 flex (Radiometer, Copenhagen, Denmark) brand blood gas analyzer.

Detailed weather forecast (temperature, humidity, and average wind speed) and climate parameters (AQI, PM2.5, PM10, CO, SO2, NO2, and O3) were collected for the days that the patients were admitted. In accordance with the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization, and Climate Change of the Republic of Turkey, the data were sourced from the subsequent websites: https://www.mgm.gov.tr/tahmin/il-ve-ilceler.aspx?il= and https://www.havaizleme.gov.tr, correspondingly (Figure 2).

Figure 2. National Air Quality Monitoring Network and a sample of data pertaining to the province of Gaziantep on any given day.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of the study was the prediction of the development of cardiac complications arising from CO poisoning by analyzing meteorological and air pollutant parameters.

The secondary outcome was the estimation of the correlation between meteorological and air pollutant parameters with blood COHb levels in patients who had CO poisoning.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical evaluation of the data obtained in the study utilized the SPSS 22 software package (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Variables were divided into 2: categorical and continuous. Categorical data were presented as numbers and percentages and compared using the chi-square test. Whether continuous variables were normally distributed was determined using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Continuous variables were presented with mean and standard deviation. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to compare the averages of the parameters examined. The paired sample t test was used to compare 2 groups when the variables were normally distributed in the evaluations made with the histogram, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used when the variables were not normally distributed. Multivariate analysis of air pollution and air temperature parameters was performed to predict the need for hospitalization of patients and to estimate the risk of developing cardiac complications. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explain the relationship between COHb level and meteorological and air pollutant parameters. The statistical significance level was set at P < 0.05.

Results

Eighty-three patients were included in the study. 50.6% (n = 42) of the patients were male, and the average age was 45.4 ± 18.6 years. Patients were most frequently admitted in January, 44.6% (n = 37) (P < 0.001), and equally during the day shift 39.8% (n = 33), and night shift, 39.8% (n = 33) (P = 0.260). The stove used for heating was the most common cause of poisoning, accounting for 78.3%. The most common presenting symptoms were headache (53%, n = 44), nausea and vomiting (48.2%, n = 40), and dizziness (37.3%, n = 31). The most common comorbidity was hypertension (27.3%, n = 12) vs. 5.1%, n = 2), P = 0.007). When vital signs were examined, heart rate (96.2 ± 18.3 vs. 87.6 ± 17.4, P = 0.032), mean arterial pressure (93.4 ± 12.6 vs. 86.5 ± 11.1, P = 0.01), and respiratory rate (18.6 ± 3.4 vs. 16.9 ± 2.9, P = 0.016) were significantly higher in Group 1. The most common complications were hyperglycemia (25.3%, n = 21), leukocytosis (24.1%, n = 20), and myocardial involvement (24.1%, n = 20). The complication of acute renal failure was statistically significantly higher in Group 1 (15.9% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.04). The length of stay in the emergency department (5.1 ± 2.3 vs. 3 ± 1, P < 0.001) and the ICU admission rate (22.7% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.023) were statistically significantly higher in Group 1 (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of demographic and clinical data of CO poisoning cases by provinces

Group 1: Patients from Adana province. Group 2: Patients from Gaziantep province.

CO = carbon monoxide; COPD = chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; HR = heart rate; MAP = mean arterial pressure; RR = respiratory rate; SO2 = oxygen saturation; CNS = central nervous system; GCS = Glasgow Coma Scale; ICU = intensive care unit.

Bold values indicates a statistically significant difference with a p value <0.05.

Upon admission, patients were evaluated for meteorological, pollutant, laboratory, and blood gas parameters, all of which are listed in Table 2. According to the meteorological parameters, the air temperature (7.8 ± 4.7 vs. 4.8 ± 3, P = 0.001) and wind speed (12.3 ± 6.9 vs. 6.2 ± 4.8, P < 0.001) of the center where Group 1 patients applied were statistically significantly higher than those in Group 2. The AQI cutoff values, which are determined based on the concentrations of pollutants in the air, are shown in Table 3. When the AQI was evaluated, the air quality in Group 2 (61.7 ± 27.7) (moderate AQI) was significantly higher than that in Group 1 (47.3 ± 26.4) (good AQI) (P = 0.018). The data indicate that Group 2’s AQI has a higher level of dirtiness. When the 2 groups were compared in terms of pollutant parameters, Group 2 showed significantly higher levels of NO2 (89 ± 38.5 vs. 43.5 ± 36.6, P < 0.001) and SO2 (81.6 ± 60.7 vs. 22 ± 21.9, P < 0.001) and lower levels of O3 (41.7 ± 22.5 vs. 27.9 ± 22.2, P = 0.006) than Group 1. In Table 2, the analysis of air pollutants (CO, PM10, and PM2.5) in different provinces is presented.

Table 2. Distribution of meteorological parameters, pollutant parameters, and laboratory and blood gas parameters of CO poisoning cases by province

Group 1: Patients from Adana province. Group 2: Patients from Gaziantep province.

WBC = white blood cell; Hs-cTn = high sensitive cardiac troponin; CRP = C-reactive protein; HCO3 = bicarbonate; COHb = carboxyhemoglobin; CO = carbon monoxide; So2 = sulfur dioxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM = particulate matter; O3 = ozone.

Normal range of the parameters: WBC: 3.7-8.7x103 /μL, glucose: 74-106 mg/dL, Hs-cTn: 0-11.6 ng/L, CRP: 0-5 mg/L, pH: 7.35-7.45, COHb: 0.5-1.5%, HCO3: 21,8-26,2 mmol/L, lactate: 0.5-1.6 mmol/L.

National cutoff values: Air quality index: good (0-50), moderate (50-100), unhealthy for sensitive groups (100-150), unhealthy (150-200), very unhealthy (200-300), hazardous (300-500) CO: 10.000 μg/m3 (8h average) SO2: 350 μg/m3 (1h average), NO2: 250 μg/m3 (1h average), PM10: 50μg/m3 (24h average), O3: 120 μg/m3 (8h average).

Bold values indicates a statistically significant difference with a p value <0.05.

Table 3. Air Quality Index (AQI) cut-off values*

* The national air quality index (AQI) was created by adapting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) AQI to our national legislation and limit values. AQI is calculated for 6 basic pollutants: particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3).

Multivariate analysis of meteorological and pollutant parameters to predict the need for hospitalization and the need for cardiac complications is shown in Table 4. It has been determined that the AQI is a reliable predictor for hospitalization (OR = 1.192, 95% CI: 1.036 - 1.372, P = 0.014) and the risk of developing cardiac complications (OR = 1.060, 95% CI: 1.017 - 1.104, P = 0.005) (Table 4).

Table 4. Multivariate analysis to predict the need for hospitalization of patients and the risk of developing cardiac complications

OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; COHb = carboxyhemoglobin; CO = carbon monoxide; So2 = sulfur dioxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM = particulate matter; O3 = ozone.

National cutoff values: Air quality index: good (0-50), moderate (50-100), unhealthy for sensitive groups (100-150), unhealthy (150-200), very unhealthy (200-300), hazardous (300-500) CO:10.000 μg/m3 (8h average) SO2: 350 μg/m3 (1h average), NO2: 250 μg/m3 (1h average), PM10:50μg/m3 (24h average), O3: 120 μg/m3 (8h average).

The correlations between COHb levels and meteorological and air pollutant parameters are outlined in Table 5. When meteorological parameters were examined, it was found that the COHb levels of the patients had a statistically significant but weak correlation with air humidity (r = 0.276, P = 0.011). When the pollutant parameters were examined, it was found that the COHb levels of the patients had a statistically significant but weak negative correlation with the air O3 level (r = –0.218, P = 0.048).

Table 5. Correlation values between COHb levels and meteorological and pollutant parameters

r: Correlation coefficient

COHb = carboxyhemoglobin; CO = carbon monoxide; So2 = sulfur dioxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM = particulate matter; O3 = ozone.

Bold values indicates a statistically significant difference with a p value <0.05.

Discussion

This study reveals that AQI, calculated based on the concentration of pollutants in the air, is an independent predictor for determining the probability of hospitalization and cardiac complications in emergency department patients with CO poisoning.

The cause of CO poisoning cannot be attributed to a single factor. The severity of CO poisoning depends on the amount of CO exposure, the concentration of CO in the air breathed in, the duration of exposure, and the patient’s breathing rate.Reference Ruan, Deng and Wang 9 Reference Scherer 11 Both outdoor pollution (ambient air pollution) and indoor pollution (pollution produced by indoor fuels, exhaust, poor ventilation, leakage of outdoor air pollutants) affect the concentration of CO in inhaled air.Reference Manisalidis, Stavropoulou and Stavropoulos 12 , 13 The presence of indoor smoke may result in an elevation of basal COHb levels.Reference Varon, Marik and Fromm 10 , Reference Scherer 11 This study indicates that despite the lower AQI in Adana province (Group 1), patients are prone to extended stays in the emergency department and prolonged hospitalization due to the prevalence of indoor pollution.

The National AQI was developed by modifying the EPA AQI to national legislation and limit values. The AQI is calculated based on six basic pollutants: PM2.5, PM10, CO, SO2, NO2, and O3. 8 Particulate matter often forms in the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions between various pollutants.Reference Wilson and Suh 14 Particles with aerodynamic diameters of 2.5 μm (PM2.5) or 10 μm (PM10) seem to be the main cause of the cardiovascular effects observed from air pollution.Reference Dennekamp, Akram and Abramson 15 The review of several studies revealed that the cardiovascular death rates increased by about 1% for every 10 μg/m3 rise in PM2.5.Reference Pope and Dockery 16 The penetration of particles generally depends on their size. Particulate matter comprises small liquid or solid droplets that can be breathed in.Reference Cheung, Daher and Kam 17

After inhaling, particles with a diameter of 10 micrometers (PM10) can enter the lungs and even reach the circulatory system. Fine particles (PM2.5) pose a greater risk to health.Reference Kelishadi and Poursafa 18 , Reference Zhang, Yang and Li 19 While it causes nasopharyngitis in the short term, it has been associated with cardiovascular diseases and infant deaths in the long term.Reference Manisalidis, Stavropoulou and Stavropoulos 12 , Reference Dennekamp, Akram and Abramson 15 Individuals with asthma, pneumonia, diabetes, respiratory, and cardiovascular diseases may be more vulnerable to the effects of PM because it affects respiratory health and the immune system. 20 Ozone is a gas created from oxygen through high voltage electrical discharge.Reference Bezirtzoglou, Alexopoulos and Bakker 21 It is taken by inhalation. It affects the upper layers of the skin, tear ducts, and lungs.Reference Amann, Derwent and Forsberg 22 , Reference Hatch, Slade and Harris 23 Ozone increases DNA damage in epidermal keratinocytes, leading to biochemical, morphological, functional, and immunological disorders.Reference McCarthy, Pelle and Dong 24 Automobile engines emit NO2, a harmful pollutant associated with traffic.Reference Richmond-Bryant, Chris Owen and Graham 25 , Reference Hesterberg, Bunn and McClellan 26 Inhaling at high levels (above 0.2 ppm) can cause coughing, wheezing, difficulty breathing, bronchospasm, and even pulmonary edema. In addition, high concentrations may have an effect on T-cells that play a crucial role in immune response, including CD8+ cells and natural killer cells. Chronic exposure can lead to chronic lung disease.Reference Chen, Kuschner and Gokhale 27 The release of SO2 is a hazardous byproduct commonly associated with the burning of fossil fuels or industrial processes. The level of the annual SO2 standard is 0.03 ppm. 28 Inhaling can cause shortness of breath, wheezing, acute bronchitis, and increased mucus secretion. It can cause urticaria, lacrimation, corneal opacity, and worsening of pre-existing cardiovascular diseases.Reference Chen, Kuschner and Gokhale 27 Air quality index is calculated based on the proportions of these 6 harmful gases in the air.

Carbon monoxide concentrations usually range from 0.02 to 1.0 ppm in clean air. However, in urban areas, CO concentrations can increase 10-fold during periods of atmospheric stagnation, such as when temperature inversions occur in winter or in situ air masses form in summer. 29 , Reference Campbell, Benson and Muir 30 Research in the literature has extensively explored the impact of meteorological factors such as temperature, humidity, and wind speed on CO poisoning.Reference Lin and Liao 31 In recent years, studies have been evaluating cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and CO poisoning, as well as air pollutants such as PM2.5, PM10, CO, SO2, NO2, and O3, along with meteorological factors.Reference Ruan, Deng and Wang 9 Reference Dennekamp, Akram and Abramson 15 In the study on CO poisoning, the researchers attempted to estimate the elevated risk of poisoning by creating models that incorporated both meteorological and pollutant parameters. The model, which considers both atmospheric conditions and pollutant variables, is effective in predicting cases of CO poisoning. It outperforms the model based only on weather factors in terms of precision and forecasting potential for severe poisoning levels.Reference Ruan, Deng and Wang 9 This study differs from previous studies in that it examined the potential of meteorological factors and air pollution to predict the onset of complications and the likelihood of hospitalization. This study concluded that AQI was a significant factor in predicting both hospitalization and myocardial involvement. This discovery has the potential to be advantageous in mitigating unintentional CO poisoning, which carries a significant fatality risk. By including AQI value estimates in weather forecasts, public awareness of potential CO poisoning can be heightened.Reference Gijsenbergh, Vispoel and Poppe 32 Moreover, the dissemination of public service warnings through public transportation, news releases, and government surveillance can effectively reduce the occurrence of poisoning incidents, particularly during storms.Reference Hampson, Piantadosi and Thom 33 Additionally, imparting training in schools to heighten cognizance about CO poisoning and techniques for diminishing CO production in both indoor and outdoor settings will serve as an efficacious measure in preventing both atmospheric pollution and CO poisoning in its nascent stages. In the event of poisoning, the primary objective is to reduce the number of fatalities by promptly and precisely identifying and treating the condition.

Limitations

This study had some limitations. The first limitation regards the sample group. The study gathered data from 2 tertiary hospitals situated in 2 distinct provinces. These 2 hospitals rank among the biggest in the area. Nevertheless, other hospitals in the same area may have also seen instances of poisoning. This situation might have impeded the availability of a comprehensive dataset. The second limitation was related to continuous monitoring centers. Meteorological observation stations provide information by collecting average measurements of specific districts within each metropolis. The data were procured from the surveillance hubs within the vicinities of the patient’s residence or the immediate vicinity.

Conclusion

This study highlights the critical importance of air pollution in emergency department visits due to CO poisoning. The identification of the AQI as an independent predictor for hospitalization necessity and cardiac complications in patients with CO poisoning presenting at the emergency department highlights the significant impact of environmental factors on public health. These findings provide a fundamental guide for the development of public health strategies and the implementation of measures to improve air quality. Combating air pollution is urgent not only for the environment but also to protect the health of individuals.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

None.

Author contribution

MG, MS: Concept, review, data searching, design, statistical extractions, analysis, and final approval. SS, CY, AFY, SZ: Concept, review, analysis, data searching, analysis, and final approval.

Competing interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical standard

The Ethics Committee of Gaziantep University of Medical Sciences, (Meeting date: February 23, 2022, Ethics committee decision no:2022/09) approved this study.

References

Tomaszewski, C. Carbon monoxide. In: Nelson, LS, Howland, MA, Lewin, NA, Smith, SW, Goldfrank, LR, Hoffman, RS, eds. Goldfrank’s Toxicologic Emergencies. Vol 1. 11th ed. McGraw Hill; 2019:16631675.Google Scholar
Gummin, DD, Mowry, JB, Beuhler, MC, et al. 2022 Annual Report of the National Poison Data System® (NPDS) from America’s Poison Centers®: 40th Annual Report. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2023 Oct;61(10):717939. doi:10.1080/15563650.2023.2268981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sircar, K, Clower, J, kyong, Shin M, et al. Carbon monoxide poisoning deaths in the United States, 1999 to 2012. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(9):11401145. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2015.05.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emberson, LD, Pleijel, H, Ainsworth, EA, et al. Ozone effects on crops and consideration in crop models. Eur J Agron. 2018;100:1934. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2018.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines. Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. Geneva. Published 2021. Accessed December 2, 2022. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/345329/9789240034228-eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. Type of Pollutants. Publising Date: 22 September 2021. Accessed October 5, 2023. https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/air-quality-and-health/health-impacts/types-of-pollutantsGoogle Scholar
Newlands, M. Environmental Activism, Environmental Politics, and Representation: The Framing of the British Environmental Activist Movement. University of East London; 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.15123/PUB.3046Google Scholar
T.C. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Environment U and CC. Ulusal Hava Kalite İzleme Ağı. Accessed December 3, 2023. https://www.havaizleme.gov.trGoogle Scholar
Ruan, HL, Deng, WS, Wang, Y, et al. Carbon monoxide poisoning: a prediction model using meteorological factors and air pollutant. BMC Proc. 2021;15. doi:10.1186/s12919-021-00206-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varon, J, Marik, PE, Fromm, RE, et al. Selected topics: critical care carbon monoxide poisoning: a review for clinicians. J Emerg Med. 1999;17(1):8793. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-4679(98)00128-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, G. Carboxyhemoglobin and thiocyanate as biomarkers of exposure to carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide in tobacco smoke. Exp Toxicol Pathol. 2006;58(2-3):101124. doi:10.1016/J.ETP.2006.07.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manisalidis, I, Stavropoulou, E, Stavropoulos, A, et al. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: a review. Front Public Health. 2020;8. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Exposure Guidelines for Residential Indoor Air Quality: A Report of the Federal. Minister of Supply and Services. 1995. Accessed December 3, 2023. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/H46-2-90-156E.pdfGoogle Scholar
Wilson, WE, Suh, HH. Fine particles and coarse particles: concentration relationships relevant to epidemiologic studies. J Air Waste Manage Assoc. 1997;47(12):12381249. doi:10.1080/10473289.1997.10464074CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennekamp, M, Akram, M, Abramson, MJ, et al. Outdoor air pollution as a trigger for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Epidemiology. 2010;21(4):494500. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e093dbCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pope, CA, Dockery, DW. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J Air Waste Manage Assoc. 2006;56(6):709742. doi:10.1080/10473289.2006.10464485CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, K, Daher, N, Kam, W, et al. Spatial and temporal variation of chemical composition and mass closure of ambient coarse particulate matter (PM10–2.5) in the Los Angeles area. Atmos Environ. 2011;45(16):26512662. doi:10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2011.02.066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelishadi, R, Poursafa, P. Air pollution and non-respiratory health hazards for children. Arch Med Sci. 2010;6(4):483. doi:10.5114/AOMS.2010.14458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, L, Yang, Y, Li, Y, et al. Short-term and long-term effects of PM 2.5 on acute nasopharyngitis in 10 communities of Guangdong, China. Sci Total Environ. 2019;688:136142. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.470CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Current and Forecasted Air Quality in New Hampshire. Environmental Fact Sheet. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Published 2019. Accessed December 2, 2023. https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/commissioner/pip/factsheets/ard/documents/ard-16.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bezirtzoglou, E, Alexopoulos, A. Ozone history and ecosystems: a goliath from impacts to advance industrial benefits and interests, to environmental and therapeutical strategies. In: Bakker, SH, ed. Ozone Depletion, Chemistry and Impacts. Nova Science Publishers; 2009:135145.Google Scholar
Amann, M, Derwent, D, Forsberg, B, et al. Health Risks of Ozone from Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. 2008. Accessed December 2, 2023. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/326496/9789289042895-eng.pdf?sequence=1Google Scholar
Hatch, GE, Slade, R, Harris, LP, et al. Ozone dose and effect in humans and rats. A comparison using oxygen-18 labeling and bronchoalveolar lavage. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994;150(3):676683. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.150.3.8087337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, JT, Pelle, E, Dong, K, et al. Effects of ozone in normal human epidermal keratinocytes. Exp Dermatol. 2013;22(5):360361. doi:10.1111/exd.12125CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richmond-Bryant, J, Chris Owen, R, Graham, S, et al. Estimation of on-road NO2 concentrations, NO2/NOX ratios, and related roadway gradients from near-road monitoring data. Air Qual Atmos Health. 2017;10(5):611625. doi:10.1007/s11869-016-0455-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesterberg, TW, Bunn, WB, McClellan, RO, et al. Critical review of the human data on short-term nitrogen dioxide (NO2) exposures: evidence for NO2 no-effect levels. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2009;39(9):743781. doi:10.3109/10408440903294945CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, TM, Kuschner, WG, Gokhale, J, et al. Outdoor air pollution: nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide health effects. Am J Med Sci. 2007;333(4):249256. doi:10.1097/MAJ.0b013e31803b900fCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Accessed December 2, 2023. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/s_so2_history.htmlGoogle Scholar
National Ambient Air Quality Objectives for Carbon Monoxide: Desirable, Acceptable and Tolerable Levels. CEPA/FPAC Working Group on Air Quality Objectives and Guidelines. 1994. Accessed December 2, 2023. https://publications.gc.ca/Collection/En42-17-8-1994E.pdfGoogle Scholar
Campbell, ME, Benson, BA, Muir, MA. Urban air quality and human health: a Toronto perspective. Can J Public Health. 1995;86(5):351357.Google Scholar
Lin, CM, Liao, CM. Temperature-dependent association between mortality rate and carbon monoxide level in a subtropical city: Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Int J Environ Health Res. 2009;19(3):163174. doi:10.1080/09603120802460384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gijsenbergh, FP, Vispoel, M, Poppe, H, et al. Weather influence on the prevalence of carbon monoxide intoxications. Acta Clin Belg Suppl. 1990;13:9697.Google ScholarPubMed
Hampson, NB, Piantadosi, CA, Thom, SR, et al. Practice recommendations in the diagnosis, management, and prevention of carbon monoxide poisoning. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012;186(11):10951101. doi:10.1164/rccm.201207-1284CICrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Flowchart of study.

Figure 1

Figure 2. National Air Quality Monitoring Network and a sample of data pertaining to the province of Gaziantep on any given day.

Figure 2

Table 1. Distribution of demographic and clinical data of CO poisoning cases by provinces

Figure 3

Table 2. Distribution of meteorological parameters, pollutant parameters, and laboratory and blood gas parameters of CO poisoning cases by province

Figure 4

Table 3. Air Quality Index (AQI) cut-off values*

Figure 5

Table 4. Multivariate analysis to predict the need for hospitalization of patients and the risk of developing cardiac complications

Figure 6

Table 5. Correlation values between COHb levels and meteorological and pollutant parameters