New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

California wildfire smoke linked to increased autism diagnoses, new study finds

Children born to mothers who were exposed to smoke in southern California showed increased rates of autism, although the reason why is unclear

wildfire

Svetlana Repnitskaya via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A new study of more than 200,000 children in southern California found a link between exposure to wildfire smoke in mothers and higher rates of autism in children. The causes of autism are not fully known and likely multifaceted, but the new research builds on existing evidence that air pollution may be tied to autism.

The study, published on Tuesday in Environmental Science & Technology, analyzed data for children born in the wildfire hot spot from 2006 to 2014. Pregnant women who were in their third trimester and exposed to as few as one to five smoke days were about 11 percent more likely to have a child who was diagnosed as autistic by age five than those who saw no smoke days. The more smoke days that mothers were exposed to, the higher the likelihood that their children would be diagnosed as autistic: women who were exposed to between six and 10 smoke days were 12 percent more likely to have a child who received such a diagnosis by age five, while this was 23 percent more likely among those who were exposed to more than 10 smoke days.

“This is one of the first large population-based studies to specifically examine prenatal wildfire smoke exposure and autism risk,” says Mostafijur Rahman, an assistant professor of environmental health sciences at Tulane University and an author of the new study. “Our findings suggest that wildfire smoke exposure during sensitive periods of pregnancy—particularly late pregnancy—may be associated with an increased risk of autism diagnosis in children.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Importantly, the study doesn’t identify a direct causal link between autism and wildfire smoke, Rahman says. Most experts believe autism is complex and likely arises from a combination of environmental and genetic factors.

Rather the study “highlights wildfire smoke as a potentially modifiable environmental risk factor that may contribute to risk in combination with other factors,” he says.

The study has several limitations. Some mothers included in the study may have had different levels of exposure to smoke than the researchers’ estimated. And wildfires can also be extremely stressful—an experience that may have also played a role.

David Mandell, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved in the study, says that the paper’s association between wildfire smoke and autism is “certainly concerning” and “worthy of further attention.”

Mandell notes, however, that some children of mothers who experienced higher concentrations of wildfire smoke in her third trimester and didn’t move house during the study period didn’t show higher rates of autism—which is not the “dose-response gradient that one might expect,” he says.

Autism and its causes have been a central focus of the Trump administration and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has, in the past, claimed that autism was most likely caused by a variety of environmental exposures, not all of which have been backed by solid science. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, around one in 31 children are diagnosed as autistic before age nine.

The new study jibes with past research showing children whose mothers were exposed to high rates of fine particulate pollution, as well as diesel exhaust and mercury, were more likely to be diagnosed as autistic than the children of those who breathed cleaner air.

Wildfires have become an ever-present risk in the U.S., especially for Californians. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, between 2003 and 2012, individual large wildfires in the western U.S. burned for an average of 52 days, up from just six days in the 1970s and 1980s.

“As wildfires become more frequent and intense due to climate change, understanding their potential long-term health impacts is increasingly important,” Rahman says.

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe