Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26670242›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2015

Comparison of Highly Resolved Model-Based Exposure Metrics for Traffic-Related Air Pollutants to Support Environmental Health Studies.

Shih Ying Chang, William Vizuete, Michael Breen, Vlad Isakov, Saravanan Arunachalam

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Finely Resolved On-Road PMRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shih Ying ChangInstitute for the Environment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 100 Europa Drive, Suite 490, Chapel Hill, NC 27517, USA. changsy5@live.unc.edu.
William VizueteDepartment of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. airquality@unc.edu.
Michael BreenNational Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA. breen.michael@epa.gov.
Vlad IsakovNational Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA. Isakov.vlad@epa.gov.
Saravanan ArunachalamInstitute for the Environment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 100 Europa Drive, Suite 490, Chapel Hill, NC 27517, USA. sarav@email.unc.edu.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USEnvironmental Protection Agency · US

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · NIEHS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Melissa A. Troester · 2001 to 2026
$36.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human exposure to air pollution in many studies is represented by ambient concentrations from space-time kriging of observed values. Space-time kriging techniques based on a limited number of ambient monitors may fail to capture the concentration from local sources. Further, because people spend more time indoors, using ambient concentration to represent exposure may cause error. To quantify the associated exposure error, we computed a series of six different hourly-based exposure metrics at 16,095 Census blocks of three Counties in North Carolina for CO, NO(x), PM(2.5), and elemental carbon (EC) during 2012. These metrics include ambient background concentration from space-time ordinary kriging (STOK), ambient on-road concentration from the Research LINE source dispersion model (R-LINE), a hybrid concentration combining STOK and R-LINE, and their associated indoor concentrations from an indoor infiltration mass balance model. Using a hybrid-based indoor concentration as the standard, the comparison showed that outdoor STOK metrics yielded large error at both population (67% to 93%) and individual level (average bias between -10% to 95%). For pollutants with significant contribution from on-road emission (EC and NO(x)), the on-road based indoor metric performs the best at the population level (error less than 52%). At the individual level, however, the STOK-based indoor concentration performs the best (average bias below 30%). For PM(2.5), due to the relatively low contribution from on-road emission (7%), STOK-based indoor metric performs the best at both population (error below 40%) and individual level (error below 25%). The results of the study will help future epidemiology studies to select appropriate exposure metric and reduce potential bias in exposure characterization.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAir PollutantsAir PollutionEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental HealthHumansNorth CarolinaVehicle EmissionsAir PollutantsVehicle Emissionsair quality modeldispersion modelexposure errorexposure metricspace-time krigingtraffic related air pollution

Identifiers

PMID26670242
PMCPMC4690943
OpenAlexW2191339679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.