| | 
Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 II, 5. 2. 6| Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Buck G, Pollicino
2 II, 5. 4. 8| S, Cederholm J, Nilsson PM, Eliasson B; Steering Committee
3 II, 5. 4. 8| 45(7): S5-12.~ ~Jonsson PM (2000), Marke LA, Nystrom
4 II, 5. 5. 3| Epilepsia 19:343-350.~Callenbach PM, Westendorp RG, Geertz AT,
5 II, 5. 5. 3| Neurology 26:20-22.~Rothwell PM, Charlton D (1998): High
6 II, 5. 5. 3| Sullivan DJ, Williamson PM (1999): The sydney multicentre
7 II, 5. 6. 6| Soc Med 26:34-43~Brooks PM (1997): MJA Practice Essentials -
8 II, 5. 9. 4| chemical composition of PM on release of cytokines
9 II, 5. 9. 4| the potential hazard of PM. The present study also
10 II, 5. 9. 4| chemical constituents of PM based on the overall response
11 II, 5. 9. 4| that biological effect of PM can be linked to one or
12 II, 5. 9. 4| be linked to one or more PM emission sources and that
13 II, 5. 9. 4| Steerenberg PA 2006)~Fine ambient PM exerted significantly greater
14 II, 5. 9. 4| per unit mass than coarse PM. No significant differences
15 II, 5. 9. 4| of specific elements of PM such as vanadium (V), nickel (
16 II, 5. 9. 4| fine compared to coarse PM fractions. However, differences
17 II, 5. 9. 4| these elements among fine PM fractions did not reflect
18 II, 5. 9. 4| number) to Ova and ambient PM in combination were significantly
19 II, 5. 9. 4| significantly higher than to Ova or PM alone. Still, the PLN assay
20 II, 5. 9. 4| conclusion, fine ambient PM fractions were consistently
21 II, 5. 9. 4| fine and ultrafine ambient PM as the most important fractions
22 II, 5. 9. 4| the particulate matter (PM) it contains. In collaboration
23 II, 5. 9. 4| sampling and analysing ambient PM and freshly generated diesel
24 II, 5. 9. 4| diesel and gasoline engine PM. They are screening the
25 II, 5. 9. 4| physico-chemical characteristics of the PM to the results of the various
26 II, 9. 1. 1| 2004(24):14-22.~Olausson PM, Cnattingius S, Goldenberg
27 II, 9. 3. 2| 110(1):72-80.~ ~Olausson PM, Cnattingius S, Goldenberg
28 III, 10. 1 | Cancer~air pollution (PM), mainly PM2.5 or less~smoking
29 III, 10. 1 | carbon monoxide, ozon, PM)~smoking and ETS~carbon
30 III, 10. 1. 3| BH, Williams DM, Dubbert PM, Sallis JF, King AC, Yancey
31 III, 10. 2. 1| Dorosty AR, Reilly JJ, Emmett PM, for the Child health information
32 III, 10. 2. 4| RP, Rollinson S, Bracci PM, Cerhan JR, Whitby D, Moore
33 III, 10. 3. 2| Cancer~air pollution (PM), mainly PM2.5 or less~smoking
34 III, 10. 3. 2| carbon monoxide, ozon, PM)~smoking and ETS~carbon
35 III, 10. 4. 1| Nitrogen Dioxide~O3~Ozone~PM~Particulate Matter~SCALE~
36 III, 10. 4. 1| are particulate matter (PM), especially fine and ultra-fine
37 III, 10. 4. 1| EU citizen. Exposure to PM is also linked to an increased
38 III, 10. 4. 1| the health impact due to PM between 2000 and 2020, which
39 III, 10. 4. 1| In addition to particles (PM), many studies indicate
40 III, 10. 4. 1| Chronic exposure:~o Mortality (PM) – the dominant effect~o
41 III, 10. 4. 1| Development of bronchitis (PM)~ ~· Acute exposure (daily
42 III, 10. 4. 1| admissions~ ~· Respiratory (PM,O3); Cardiovascular (PM)~
43 III, 10. 4. 1| PM,O3); Cardiovascular (PM)~o Days of restricted activity;
44 III, 10. 4. 1| activity; days off work (PM,O3 )~o Days with symptoms (
45 III, 10. 4. 1| o Days with symptoms (PM, O3 )~ ~ In people with
46 III, 10. 5. 1| Reduction potential of urban PM 25 mortality risk using
47 III, 10. 5. 1| Polychlorinated Biphenyls~PM~Particulate Matter~THE PEP~
|
|
| |
