umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparing land use regression and dispersion modelling to assess residential exposure to ambient air pollution for epidemiological studies
Show others and affiliations
2014 (English)In: Environment International, ISSN 0160-4120, E-ISSN 1873-6750, Vol. 73, 382-392 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BACKGROUND: 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.

OBJECTIVES: 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.

METHODS: 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.

RESULTS: 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.

CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2014. Vol. 73, 382-392 p.
Keyword [en]
air pollution, cohort, dispersion modelling, exposure, land use regression
National Category
Environmental Health and Occupational Health
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-95718DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.08.011ISI: 000345540700043PubMedID: 25233102Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-8490772638OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-95718DiVA: diva2:760557
Funder
EU, FP7, Seventh Framework Programme, ENV.2009.1.2.2.1
Available from: 2014-11-04 Created: 2014-11-04 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Forsberg, BertilModig, Lars

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Forsberg, BertilModig, Lars
By organisation
Occupational and Environmental Medicine
In the same journal
Environment International
Environmental Health and Occupational Health

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 73 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf