Estimating error in using residential outdoor PM2.5 concentrations as proxies for personal exposures: a meta-analysis.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	Estimating error in using residential outdoor PM2.5 concentrations as proxies for personal exposures: a meta-analysis.
Authors:	Avery CL (AUTHOR), Mills KT (AUTHOR), Williams R (AUTHOR), McGraw KA (AUTHOR), Poole C (AUTHOR), Smith RL (AUTHOR), Whitsel EA (AUTHOR)
Source:	Environmental Health Perspectives. May2010, Vol. 118 Issue 5, p673-678. 6p.
Abstract:	Background: Studies examining the health effects of particulate matter <= 2.5 [mu]m in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) commonly use ambient PM2.5 concentrations measured at distal monitoring sites as proxies for personal exposure and assume spatial homogeneity of ambient PM2.5. An alternative proxy-the residential outdoor PM2.5 concentration measured adjacent to participant homes-has few advantages under this assumption. Objectives: We systematically reviewed the correlation between residential outdoor PM2.5 and personal PM2.5 (rj) as a means of comparing the magnitude and sources of measurement error associated with their use as exposure surrogates. Methods: We searched seven electronic reference databases for studies of the within-participant residential outdoor-personal PM2.5 correlation. Results: The search identified 567 candidate studies, nine of which were abstracted in duplicate, that were published between 1996 and 2008. They represented 329 nonsmoking participants 6-93 years of age in eight U.S. cities, among whom -rj was estimated (median, 0.53; range, 0.25-0.79) based on a median of seven residential outdoor-personal PM2.5 pairs per participant. We found modest evidence of publication bias (symmetric funnel plot; pBegg = 0.4; pEgger = 0.2); however, we identified evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran's Q-test p = 0.05). Of the 20 characteristics examined, earlier study midpoints, eastern longitudes, older mean age, higher outdoor temperatures, and lower personal-residential outdoor PM2.5 differences were associated with increased within-participant residential outdoor-personal PM2.5 correlations. Conclusions: These findings were similar to those from a contemporaneous meta-analysis that examined ambient-personal PM2.5 correlations (rj = median, 0.54; range, 0.09-0.83). Collectively, the meta-analyses suggest that residential outdoor-personal and ambient-personal PM2.5 correlations merit greater consideration when evaluating the potential for bias in studies of PM2.5- mediated health effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Environmental Health Perspectives is the property of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
URL:	52501284
Database:	GreenFILE

Description
Abstract:	Background: Studies examining the health effects of particulate matter <= 2.5 [mu]m in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) commonly use ambient PM2.5 concentrations measured at distal monitoring sites as proxies for personal exposure and assume spatial homogeneity of ambient PM2.5. An alternative proxy-the residential outdoor PM2.5 concentration measured adjacent to participant homes-has few advantages under this assumption. Objectives: We systematically reviewed the correlation between residential outdoor PM2.5 and personal PM2.5 (rj) as a means of comparing the magnitude and sources of measurement error associated with their use as exposure surrogates. Methods: We searched seven electronic reference databases for studies of the within-participant residential outdoor-personal PM2.5 correlation. Results: The search identified 567 candidate studies, nine of which were abstracted in duplicate, that were published between 1996 and 2008. They represented 329 nonsmoking participants 6-93 years of age in eight U.S. cities, among whom -rj was estimated (median, 0.53; range, 0.25-0.79) based on a median of seven residential outdoor-personal PM2.5 pairs per participant. We found modest evidence of publication bias (symmetric funnel plot; pBegg = 0.4; pEgger = 0.2); however, we identified evidence of heterogeneity (Cochran's Q-test p = 0.05). Of the 20 characteristics examined, earlier study midpoints, eastern longitudes, older mean age, higher outdoor temperatures, and lower personal-residential outdoor PM2.5 differences were associated with increased within-participant residential outdoor-personal PM2.5 correlations. Conclusions: These findings were similar to those from a contemporaneous meta-analysis that examined ambient-personal PM2.5 correlations (rj = median, 0.54; range, 0.09-0.83). Collectively, the meta-analyses suggest that residential outdoor-personal and ambient-personal PM2.5 correlations merit greater consideration when evaluating the potential for bias in studies of PM2.5- mediated health effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	00916765
DOI:	10.1289/ehp.0901158