You are here:
Exposure Measurement Error in PM2.5 Health Effects Studies: A Pooled Analysis of Eight Personal Exposure Validation Studies
Citation:
Kioumourtzoglou, M., D. Spiegelman, A. Szpiro, L. Sheppard, J. Kaufman, J. Yanosky, R. Williams, F. Laden, B. Hong, AND H. Suh. Exposure Measurement Error in PM2.5 Health Effects Studies: A Pooled Analysis of Eight Personal Exposure Validation Studies. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, 13(2):1-11, (2014).
Impact/Purpose:
The National Exposure Research Laboratory′s (NERL′s) Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (HEASD) conducts research in support of EPA′s mission to protect human health and the environment. HEASD′s research program supports Goal 1 (Clean Air) and Goal 4 (Healthy People) of EPA′s strategic plan. More specifically, our division conducts research to characterize the movement of pollutants from the source to contact with humans. Our multidisciplinary research program produces Methods, Measurements, and Models to identify relationships between and characterize processes that link source emissions, environmental concentrations, human exposures, and target-tissue dose. The impact of these tools is improved regulatory programs and policies for EPA.
Description:
Background: Exposure measurement error is a concern in long-term PM2.5 health studies using ambient concentrations as exposures. We assessed error magnitude by estimating calibration coefficients as the association between personal PM2.5 exposures from validation studies and typically available surrogate exposures. Methods: Daily personal and ambient PM2.5, and when available sulfate, measurements were compiled from nine cities, over 2 to 12 days. True exposure was defined as personal exposure to PM2.5 of ambient origin. Since PM2.5 of ambient origin could only be determined for five cities, personal exposure to total PM2.5 was also considered. Surrogate exposures were estimated as ambient PM2.5 at the nearest monitor or predicted outside subjects’ homes. We estimated calibration coefficients by regressing true on surrogate exposures in random effects models. Results: When monthly-averaged personal PM2.5 of ambient origin was used as the true exposure, calibration coefficients equaled 0.31 (95% CI:0.14, 0.47) for nearest monitor and 0.54 (95% CI:0.42, 0.65) for outdoor home predictions. Between-city heterogeneity was not found for outdoor home PM2.5 for either true exposure. Heterogeneity was significant for nearest monitor PM2.5, for both true exposures, but not after adjusting for city-average motor vehicle number for total personal PM2.5. Conclusions: Calibration coefficients were <1, consistent with previously reported chronic health risks using nearest monitor exposures being under-estimated when ambient concentrations are the exposure of interest. Calibration coefficients were closer to 1 for outdoor home predictions, likely reflecting less spatial error. Further research is needed to determine how our findings can be incorporated in future health studies.
URLs/Downloads:
FINAL FINAL VALST_EH_R1MAK3_CLEAN.PDF (PDF, NA pp, 337.379 KB, about PDF)Environmental Health
