Comparing the Health Effects of Ambient Particulate Matter Estimated Using Ground-Based versus Remote Sensing Exposure Estimates

• Michael Jerrett ^[8] ; Michelle C. Turner ^[9] ; Bernardo S. Beckerman ^[10] ; C. Arden Pope ^[1] ; Aaron van Donkelaar ^[2] ; Randall V. Martin ^[2] ; Marc Serre ^[3] ; Dan Crouse ^[4] ; Susan M. Gapstur ^[11] ; Daniel Krewski ^[5] ; W. Ryan Diver ^[11] ; Patricia F. Coogan ^[6] ; George D. Thurston ^[7] ; Richard T. Burnett ^[12]
  1. [1] Brigham Young University

     Brigham Young University

     Estados Unidos

     
  2. [2] Dalhousie University

     Dalhousie University

     Canadá

     
  3. [3] University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

     University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

     Township of Chapel Hill, Estados Unidos

     
  4. [4] University of New Brunswick

     University of New Brunswick

     Canadá

     
  5. [5] University of Ottawa

     University of Ottawa

     Canadá

     
  6. [6] Boston University

     Boston University

     City of Boston, Estados Unidos

     
  7. [7] New York University

     New York University

     Estados Unidos

     
  8. [8] 1 Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
  9. [9] 2 McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; 3 ISGlobal, Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain; 4 Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain; 5 CIBER Epidemiologia y Salud Publica (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
  10. [10] 6 Division of Environmental Health Sciences, Public Health Department, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA
  11. [11] 11 Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  12. [12] 15 Population Studies Division, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: Environmental health perspectives, ISSN 0091-6765, Vol. 125, Nº. 4, 2017, págs. 552-559
• Idioma: inglés
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Remote sensing (RS) is increasingly used for exposure assessment in epidemiological and burden of disease studies, including those investigating whether chronic exposure to ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is associated with mortality.

    We compared relative risk estimates of mortality from diseases of the circulatory system for PM2.5 modeled from RS with that for PM2.5 modeled using ground-level information.

    We geocoded the baseline residence of 668,629 American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) cohort participants followed from 1982 to 2004 and assigned PM2.5 levels to all participants using seven different exposure models. Most of the exposure models were averaged for the years 2002–2004, and one RS estimate was for a longer, contemporaneous period. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate relative risks (RRs) for the association of PM2.5 with circulatory mortality and ischemic heart disease.

    Estimates of mortality risk differed among exposure models. The smallest relative risk was observed for the RS estimates that excluded ground-based monitors for circulatory deaths [RR = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 1.04 per 10 μg/m3 increment in PM2.5]. The largest relative risk was observed for the land-use regression model that included traffic information (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.17 per 10 μg/m3 increment in PM2.5).

    We found significant associations between PM2.5 and mortality in every model; however, relative risks estimated from exposure models using ground-based information were generally larger than those estimated using RS alone.

    Jerrett M, Turner MC, Beckerman BS, Pope CA III, van Donkelaar A, Martin RV, Serre M, Crouse D, Gapstur SM, Krewski D, Diver WR, Coogan PF, Thurston GD, Burnett RT. 2017. Comparing the health effects of ambient particulate matter estimated using ground-based versus remote sensing exposure estimates. Environ Health Perspect 125:552–559; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP575