Authors
Kees De Hoogh, Michal Korek, Danielle Vienneau, Menno Keuken, Jaakko Kukkonen, Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen, Chiara Badaloni, Rob Beelen, Andrea Bolignano, Giulia Cesaroni, Marta Cirach Pradas, Josef Cyrys, John Douros, Marloes Eeftens, Francesco Forastiere, Bertil Forsberg, Kateryna Fuks, Ulrike Gehring, Alexandros Gryparis, John Gulliver, Anna L Hansell, Barbara Hoffmann, Christer Johansson, Sander Jonkers, Leena Kangas, Klea Katsouyanni, Nino Künzli, Timo Lanki, Michael Memmesheimer, Nicolas Moussiopoulos, Lars Modig, Göran Pershagen, Nicole Probst-Hensch, Christian Schindler, Tamara Schikowski, Dorothee Sugiri, Oriol Teixidó, Ming-Yi Tsai, Tarja Yli-Tuomi, Bert Brunekreef, Gerard Hoek, Tom Bellander
Publication date
2014/12/1
Journal
Environment international
Volume
73
Pages
382-392
Publisher
Pergamon
Description
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 …
Scholar articles
K De Hoogh, M Korek, D Vienneau, M Keuken… - Environment international, 2014