4.7 Article

A land-use regression model for estimating microenvironmental diesel exposure given multiple addresses from birth through childhood

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 404, 期 1, 页码 139-147

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.05.051

关键词

Land-use; Regression; Diesel; Traffic; Children; Pollution

资金

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [ES11170, ES10957]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Cincinnati Childhood Allergy and Air Pollution Study (CCAAPS) is a prospective birth cohort whose purpose is to determine if exposure to high levels of diesel exhaust particles (DEP) during early childhood increases the risk for developing allergic diseases. In order to estimate exposure to DEP, a land-use regression (LUR) model was developed using geographic data as independent variables and sampled levels of a marker of DEP as the dependent variable. A continuous wind direction variable was also created. The LUR model predicted 74% of the variability in sampled values with four variables: wind direction, length of bus routes within 300 in of the sample site, a measure of truck intensity within 300 in of the sampling site, and elevation. The LUR model was subsequently applied to all locations where the child had spent more than eight hours per week from through age three. A time-weighted average (TWA) microenvironmental exposure estimate was derived for four time periods: 0-6 months, 7-12 months, 13-24 months, 25-36 months. By age two, one third of the children were spending significant time at locations other than home and by 36 months, 39% of the children had changed their residential addresses. The mean cumulative DEP exposure estimate increased from age 6 to 36 months from 70 to 414 mu g/m(3)-days. Findings indicate that using birth addresses to estimate a child's exposure may result in exposure misclassification for some children who spend a significant amount of time at a location with high exposure to DEP. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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