In previous studies investigating the short-term health effects of ambient air pollution the exposure metric that is often used is the daily average across monitors, thus assuming that all individuals have the same daily exposure. Studies that incorporate space-time exposures of individuals are essential to further our understanding of the short-term health effects of ambient air pollution.Objectives:
As part of a longitudinal cohort study of the acute effects of air pollution that incorporated subject-specific information and medical histories of subjects throughout the follow-up, the purpose of this study was to develop and compare different prediction models using data from fixed-site monitors and other monitoring campaigns to estimate daily, spatially-resolved concentrations of ozone (O3) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) of participants’ residences in Montreal, 1991–2002.Methods:
We used the following methods to predict spatially-resolved daily concentrations of O3 and NO2 for each geographic region in Montreal (defined by three-character postal code areas): (1) assigning concentrations from the nearest monitor; (2) spatial interpolation using inverse-distance weighting; (3) back-extrapolation from a land-use regression model from a dense monitoring survey, and; (4) a combination of a land-use and Bayesian maximum entropy model. We used a variety of indices of agreement to compare estimates of exposure assigned from the different methods, notably scatterplots of pairwise predictions, distribution of differences and computation of the absolute agreement intraclass correlation (ICC). For each pairwise prediction, we also produced maps of the ICCs by these regions indicating the spatial variability in the degree of agreement.Results:
We found some substantial differences in agreement across pairs of methods in daily mean predicted concentrations of O3 and NO2. On a given day and postal code area the difference in the concentration assigned could be as high as 131 ppb for O3 and 108 ppb for NO2. For both pollutants, better agreement was found between predictions from the nearest monitor and the inverse-distance weighting interpolation methods, with ICCs of 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 0.89) for O3 and 0.81 (95%CI: 0.80, 0.81) for NO2, respectively. For this pair of methods the maximum difference on a given day and postal code area was 36 ppb for O3 and 74 ppb for NO2. The back-extrapolation method showed a higher degree of disagreement with the nearest monitor approach, inverse-distance weighting interpolation, and the Bayesian maximum entropy model, which were strongly constrained by the sparse monitoring network. The maps showed that the patterns of agreement differed across the postal code areas and the variability depended on the pair of methods compared and the pollutants. For O3, but not NO2, postal areas showing greater disagreement were mostly located near the city centre and along highways, especially in maps involving the back-extrapolation method.Conclusions:
In view of the substantial differences in daily concentrations of O3 and NO2 predicted by the different methods, we suggest that analyses of the health effects from air pollution should make use of multiple exposure assessment methods. Although we cannot make any recommendations as to which is the most valid method, models that make use of higher spatially resolved data, such as from dense exposure surveys or from high spatial resolution satellite data, likely provide the most valid estimates.