 n
the interview below, Prof. Dr. Bert Brunekreef discusses his
highly cited work in air pollution research. According to our
analysis on this topic, Prof. Dr. Brunekreef ranks at #6, with
55 papers cited a total of 967 times. He also co-authored the
papers at #8 and #11 on our list of the most-cited papers
published on air pollution in the past two years. In the ISI
Essential
Science Indicators
Web product, Prof. Dr. Brunekreef has many other papers
related to air pollution that were not included in our
analysis. His record includes 73 papers cited a total of 1,495
times to date in the field of Clinical Medicine and 12 papers
cited a total of 364 times to date in the field of
Environment/Ecology. Prof. Dr. Brunekreef is the Director of
the Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences at the University
of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
|
 Why,
in your view, is your work highly cited?
|
“When I started in the early 1980s outdoor air pollution was not even considered much of a public health
problem any more in Europe, something that has changed...” |
|
I guess papers get cited especially when something is shown for
the first time, or at least early on in a certain field. This
applies, I think, to our work on traffic-related pollution, on
personal exposure, and on anti-oxidant suppletion.
What
are the circumstances which led you to your work?
Health effects of air pollution have been of much regulatory and
scientific interest in Europe in the last 20 years. This was
catalyzed by the realization that ozone pollution had significant
effects in Europe as in the US, by the realization that winter air
pollution episodes had more harmful effects even at low levels of
exposure than previously thought, and by the generally increased
interest in the health effects of fine particles
How
would you describe the significance of this work for your field?
That one is better answered by somebody else, but I do think our
work on traffic and on personal exposure has had a fair amount of
impact on other scientists and on regulation as well.
How
much has this research advanced since you first started publishing on
it?
Tremendously. When I started in the early 1980s outdoor air
pollution was not even considered much of a public health problem
any more in Europe, something that has changed due to circumstances
briefly outlined before. Methodological advances in the analysis of
time series studies have been enormous. The same is true with
respect to exposure assessment methods.
Where
do you see this research going 10 years from now?
There are still major unanswered questions especially related to
the characteristics of fine particles in the air which are
responsible for the health effects seen in epidemiological and
toxicological studies. This will take much effort to resolve. Also,
I think we will focus more on the direct contribution of sources
(such as diesel engines) to adverse health effects. Finally, we will
be asked more and more to demonstrate in our epidemiology if, and if
so, to what extent, costly measures to reduce pollution have
resulted in public health benefits.
Prof. Dr. Bert Brunekreef
Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences
Utrecht University
Utrecht, the Netherlands
| Prof. Dr. Bert Brunekreef's
most-cited paper with 128
cites to date: |
|
Brunekreef, B., Dockery D.W., and Krzyzanowski, M., "Epidemiologic studies on short-term effects of low levels of major ambient air pollution components,"
(Environ. Health Perspect. 103: 3-13, Suppl. 2, March
1995). |
|
Source:
ISI
Essential Science Indicators |
|
|
ESI Special
Topics, September 2005
Citing URL - http://www.esi-topics.com/airpoll/interviews/BertBrunekreef.html
|
|
