Data Entry: Please note that the research database will be replaced by UNIverse by the end of October 2023. Please enter your data into the system https://universe-intern.unibas.ch. Thanks
Comparing land use regression and dispersion modelling to assess residential exposure to ambient air pollution for epidemiological studies
Journal
Environment international : a journal of environmental science, risk and health
Volume
73
Pages / Article-Number
382-92
Keywords
Land use regression, Dispersion modelling, Air pollution, Exposure, Cohort
Mesh terms
Air Pollutants, analysis; Air Pollution; Environmental Exposure; Epidemiologic Studies; Female; Humans; Least-Squares Analysis; Models, Theoretical
Abstract
Land-use regression (LUR) and dispersion models (DM) are commonly used for estimating individual air pollution exposure in population studies. Few comparisons have however been made of the performance of these methods.; Within the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE) we explored the differences between LUR and DM estimates for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5.; The ESCAPE study developed LUR models for outdoor air pollution levels based on a harmonised monitoring campaign. In thirteen ESCAPE study areas we further applied dispersion models. We compared LUR and DM estimates at the residential addresses of participants in 13 cohorts for NO2; 7 for PM10 and 4 for PM2.5. Additionally, we compared the DM estimates with measured concentrations at the 20-40 ESCAPE monitoring sites in each area.; The median Pearson R (range) correlation coefficients between LUR and DM estimates for the annual average concentrations of NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 were 0.75 (0.19-0.89), 0.39 (0.23-0.66) and 0.29 (0.22-0.81) for 112,971 (13 study areas), 69,591 (7) and 28,519 (4) addresses respectively. The median Pearson R correlation coefficients (range) between DM estimates and ESCAPE measurements were of 0.74 (0.09-0.86) for NO2; 0.58 (0.36-0.88) for PM10 and 0.58 (0.39-0.66) for PM2.5.; LUR and dispersion model estimates correlated on average well for NO2 but only moderately for PM10 and PM2.5, with large variability across areas. DM predicted a moderate to large proportion of the measured variation for NO2 but less for PM10 and PM2.5.
