The journal of climate change and health · 2026
Individual-level health effects of living near a gas-fired "Peaker" power plant.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jung Youn Soo, Allen Adrienne, Casey Joan, Henneman Lucas, Shan Xiaorong, Shirley Hugh, Nadeau Kari, Duhaime Ann-Christine
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: "Peaker" electrical power plants operate only during periods of peak energy needs. Rapid fossil-fuel combustion ramp-up produces high emissions, and peaker plants are significant sources of CO2 and particulate air pollution. We evaluated whether residents living near a gas-fired peaker plant experienced increased pollution-associated emergency department/urgent care (ED/UC) visits associated with air pollution related to the "on" phases of peaker operation.
METHODS: ED/UC visits for patients in a primary care practice serving the neighborhoods surrounding a peaker plant in Massachusetts were analyzed for 5 years (2017-2021) for visit diagnoses including respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, headache, and pregnancy complications. Daily exposure to peaker-related emissions using HyADS, an air-parcel trajectory model-derived unitless measure of exposure magnitude, was assigned by the zip code of each patient's residential address. A case-crossover design evaluated the association between daily peaker exposure and cause-specific ED/UC visits, adjusting for heat index, PM2.5 from other sources, holidays, and seasonality.
RESULTS: Average daily peaker plant exposure was 1.4 (unitless); large variability reflected plant intermittency (SD=16). Background PM2.5 exposure was 8.5 μg/m³ (SD=6.4). Analyses included 2,310 ED/UC visits for assessed diagnoses among patients residing ≤ 30 km from the plant. Main analyses showed a positive association between short-term peaker emissions and increased risk of ED/UC visits for respiratory conditions (OR 1.044; 95 % CI 1.001-1.090). In addition, we found respiratory disease-related visits were elevated among the non-white group (OR 1.347; 95 % CI 1.034-1.755). There was no association noted between peaker emissions and visits for cardiovascular, headache, or pregnancy diagnoses.
CONCLUSION: The peaker plant worsened air quality when turned on. Although we did not observe consistent associations across all assessed ED/UC visit categories, there was a positive same-day association between modeled peaker-plant exposure and respiratory-related visits. Replacing combustion-driven peaker plants with renewable energy in densely populated neighborhoods could yield measurable global and local air quality-related health benefits.
METHODS: ED/UC visits for patients in a primary care practice serving the neighborhoods surrounding a peaker plant in Massachusetts were analyzed for 5 years (2017-2021) for visit diagnoses including respiratory and cardiovascular conditions, headache, and pregnancy complications. Daily exposure to peaker-related emissions using HyADS, an air-parcel trajectory model-derived unitless measure of exposure magnitude, was assigned by the zip code of each patient's residential address. A case-crossover design evaluated the association between daily peaker exposure and cause-specific ED/UC visits, adjusting for heat index, PM2.5 from other sources, holidays, and seasonality.
RESULTS: Average daily peaker plant exposure was 1.4 (unitless); large variability reflected plant intermittency (SD=16). Background PM2.5 exposure was 8.5 μg/m³ (SD=6.4). Analyses included 2,310 ED/UC visits for assessed diagnoses among patients residing ≤ 30 km from the plant. Main analyses showed a positive association between short-term peaker emissions and increased risk of ED/UC visits for respiratory conditions (OR 1.044; 95 % CI 1.001-1.090). In addition, we found respiratory disease-related visits were elevated among the non-white group (OR 1.347; 95 % CI 1.034-1.755). There was no association noted between peaker emissions and visits for cardiovascular, headache, or pregnancy diagnoses.
CONCLUSION: The peaker plant worsened air quality when turned on. Although we did not observe consistent associations across all assessed ED/UC visit categories, there was a positive same-day association between modeled peaker-plant exposure and respiratory-related visits. Replacing combustion-driven peaker plants with renewable energy in densely populated neighborhoods could yield measurable global and local air quality-related health benefits.