Environmental health perspectives · 2015
Air Pollution and Lung Function in Dutch Children: A Comparison of Exposure Estimates and Associations Based on Land Use Regression and Dispersion Exposure Modeling Approaches.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Meng, Gehring Ulrike, Hoek Gerard, Keuken Menno, Jonkers Sander, Beelen Rob, Eeftens Marloes, Postma Dirkje S, Brunekreef Bert
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge about the extent to which estimates of air pollution effects on health are affected by the choice for a specific exposure model.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the correlation between long-term air pollution exposure estimates using two commonly used exposure modeling techniques [dispersion and land use regression (LUR) models] and, in addition, to compare the estimates of the association between long-term exposure to air pollution and lung function in children using these exposure modeling techniques.
METHODS: We used data of 1,058 participants of a Dutch birth cohort study with measured forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements at 8 years of age. For each child, annual average outdoor air pollution exposure [nitrogen dioxide (NO2), mass concentration of particulate matter with diameters ≤ 2.5 and ≤ 10 μm (PM2.5, PM10), and PM2.5 soot] was estimated for the current addresses of the participants by a dispersion and a LUR model. Associations between exposures to air pollution and lung function parameters were estimated using linear regression analysis with confounder adjustment.
RESULTS: Correlations between LUR- and dispersion-modeled pollution concentrations were high for NO2, PM2.5, and PM2.5 soot (R = 0.86-0.90) but low for PM10 (R = 0.57). Associations with lung function were similar for air pollutant exposures estimated using LUR and dispersion modeling, except for associations of PM2.5 with FEV1 and FVC, which were stronger but less precise for exposures based on LUR compared with dispersion model.
CONCLUSIONS: Predictions from LUR and dispersion models correlated very well for PM2.5, NO2, and PM2.5 soot but not for PM10. Health effect estimates did not depend on the type of model used to estimate exposure in a population of Dutch children.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the correlation between long-term air pollution exposure estimates using two commonly used exposure modeling techniques [dispersion and land use regression (LUR) models] and, in addition, to compare the estimates of the association between long-term exposure to air pollution and lung function in children using these exposure modeling techniques.
METHODS: We used data of 1,058 participants of a Dutch birth cohort study with measured forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurements at 8 years of age. For each child, annual average outdoor air pollution exposure [nitrogen dioxide (NO2), mass concentration of particulate matter with diameters ≤ 2.5 and ≤ 10 μm (PM2.5, PM10), and PM2.5 soot] was estimated for the current addresses of the participants by a dispersion and a LUR model. Associations between exposures to air pollution and lung function parameters were estimated using linear regression analysis with confounder adjustment.
RESULTS: Correlations between LUR- and dispersion-modeled pollution concentrations were high for NO2, PM2.5, and PM2.5 soot (R = 0.86-0.90) but low for PM10 (R = 0.57). Associations with lung function were similar for air pollutant exposures estimated using LUR and dispersion modeling, except for associations of PM2.5 with FEV1 and FVC, which were stronger but less precise for exposures based on LUR compared with dispersion model.
CONCLUSIONS: Predictions from LUR and dispersion models correlated very well for PM2.5, NO2, and PM2.5 soot but not for PM10. Health effect estimates did not depend on the type of model used to estimate exposure in a population of Dutch children.