ArticleEnvironment international2019
Health benefits and control costs of tightening particulate matter emissions standards for coal power plants - The case of Northeast Brazil.
Article in Environment international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Air Pollution Mitigation Strategies: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Emission reduction strategies and health: a systematic review on the tools and methods to assess co-benefits.BMJ open · 2024Pooled it
- The costs, health and economic impact of air pollution control strategies: a systematic review.Global health research and policy · 2024Pooled it
- Estimation of mortality and economic burden attributable to ground-level OBMC public health · 2026Article
- Health and Economic Impact Estimation of Ambient Air Particulate Matter (PMEnvironmental health insights · 2025Article
- A new prediction method of industrial atmospheric pollutant emission intensity based on pollutant emission standard quantification.Frontiers of environmental science & engineering · 2023Article
- Effective options for addressing air quality- related environmental public health burdens in Saudi Arabia.Heliyon · 2022Review
- Health impact assessment of air pollution in an area of the largest coal mine in Brazil.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Article
- The use of machine translation algorithm based on residual and LSTM neural network in translation teaching.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Exposure to ambient particulate matter (PM) caused an estimated 4.2 million deaths worldwide in 2015. However, PM emission standards for power plants vary widely. To explore if the current levels of these standards are sufficiently stringent in a simple cost-benefit framework, we compared the health benefits (avoided monetized health costs) with the control costs of tightening PM emission standards for coal-fired power plants in Northeast (NE) Brazil, where ambient PM concentrations are below World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. We considered three Brazilian PM
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.