4.5 Article

From measures to models: an evaluation of air pollution exposure assessment for epidemiological studies of pregnant women

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 65, 期 9, 页码 579-586

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oem.2007.035337

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To evaluate exposure estimation methods such as spatially resolved land-use regression models and ambient monitoring data in the context of epidemiological studies of the impact of air pollution on pregnancy outcomes. Methods: The study measured personal 48 h exposures (NO, NO2, PM2.5 mass and absorbance) and mobility (time activity and GPS) for 62 pregnant women during 2005-2006 in Vancouver, Canada, one to three times during pregnancy. Measurements were compared to modelled (using land-use regression and interpolation of ambient monitors) outdoor concentrations at subjects' home and work locations. Results: Personal NO and absorbance (ABS) measurements were moderately correlated (NO: r = 0.54, ABS: r = 0.29) with monitor interpolations and explained primarily within-subject (temporal) variability. Land-use regression estimates including work location improved correlations for NO over those based on home postal code (for NO: r = 0.49 changed to NO: r = 0.55) and explained more between-subject variance (4-20%); limiting to a subset of samples (n = 61) when subjects spent >65% time at home also improved correlations (NO: r = 0.72). Limitations of the GPS equipment precluded assessment of including complete GPS-based mobility information. Conclusions: The study found moderate agreement between short-term personal measurements and estimates of ambient air pollution at home based on interpolation of ambient monitors and land-use regression. These results support the use of land-use regression models in epidemiological studies, as the ability of such models to characterise high resolution spatial variability is reflected'' in personal exposure measurements, especially when mobility is characterised.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据