OBJECTIVES: Land use regression (LUR) modelling is a popular method to estimate outdoor air pollution concentrations at the home and/or work addresses of individual subjects in epidemiological studies. Typically, such models are constructed using measurements from dedicated monitoring campaigns lasting up to 1 year. It is unknown to what extent such models can adequately predict concentrations in earlier or later time periods. We tested the stability of measured and modelled spatial contrasts in outdoor nitrogen dioxide (NO(2)) pollution across the Netherlands over 8 years. METHODS: NO(2) measurements were conducted at 40 locations in the Netherlands in 1999-2000. In 2007, NO(2) was again measured at 144 locations, of which 35 were the same as in 1999-2000. This enabled us to compare measurements as well as model predictions between the two time periods. RESULTS: NO(2) measurements conducted in 2007 agreed well with NO(2) measurements taken in 1999-2000 at the same locations (R(2)=0.86). LUR models from 1999-2000 and 2007 explained 85% and 86% of observed spatial variance, respectively. The 2007 LUR model explained 77% of spatial variability in the 1999-2000 measurements and the 1999-2000 model explained 81% of variability in the 2007 measurements. CONCLUSION: We found good agreement between measured spatial contrasts in outdoor NO(2) in 1999-2000 and 2007. LUR models predicted spatial contrast 8 years in the past (2007 model) and 8 years in the future (1999-2000 model) well. This supports the use of LUR models in epidemiological studies with health data available for a later or earlier timepoint.
OBJECTIVES: Land use regression (LUR) modelling is a popular method to estimate outdoor air pollution concentrations at the home and/or work addresses of individual subjects in epidemiological studies. Typically, such models are constructed using measurements from dedicated monitoring campaigns lasting up to 1 year. It is unknown to what extent such models can adequately predict concentrations in earlier or later time periods. We tested the stability of measured and modelled spatial contrasts in outdoor nitrogen dioxide (NO(2)) pollution across the Netherlands over 8 years. METHODS: NO(2) measurements were conducted at 40 locations in the Netherlands in 1999-2000. In 2007, NO(2) was again measured at 144 locations, of which 35 were the same as in 1999-2000. This enabled us to compare measurements as well as model predictions between the two time periods. RESULTS: NO(2) measurements conducted in 2007 agreed well with NO(2) measurements taken in 1999-2000 at the same locations (R(2)=0.86). LUR models from 1999-2000 and 2007 explained 85% and 86% of observed spatial variance, respectively. The 2007 LUR model explained 77% of spatial variability in the 1999-2000 measurements and the 1999-2000 model explained 81% of variability in the 2007 measurements. CONCLUSION: We found good agreement between measured spatial contrasts in outdoor NO(2) in 1999-2000 and 2007. LUR models predicted spatial contrast 8 years in the past (2007 model) and 8 years in the future (1999-2000 model) well. This supports the use of LUR models in epidemiological studies with health data available for a later or earlier timepoint.
Authors: Nicholas C Newman; Patrick H Ryan; Bin Huang; Andrew F Beck; Hadley S Sauers; Robert S Kahn Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Elaina A MacIntyre; Christopher Carlsten; Meaghan MacNutt; Elaine Fuertes; Eric Melén; Carla M T Tiesler; Ulrike Gehring; Ursula Krämer; Claudia Klümper; Marjan Kerkhof; Moira Chan-Yeung; Anita L Kozyrskyj; Dietrich Berdel; Carl Peter Bauer; Olf Herbarth; Mario Bauer; Beate Schaaf; Sibylle Koletzko; Goran Pershagen; Bert Brunekreef; Joachim Heinrich; Michael Brauer Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-07-24 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: R Gacesa; A Kurilshikov; A Vich Vila; T Sinha; M A Y Klaassen; L A Bolte; S Andreu-Sánchez; L Chen; V Collij; S Hu; J A M Dekens; V C Lenters; J R Björk; J C Swarte; M A Swertz; B H Jansen; J Gelderloos-Arends; S Jankipersadsing; M Hofker; R C H Vermeulen; S Sanna; H J M Harmsen; C Wijmenga; J Fu; A Zhernakova; R K Weersma Journal: Nature Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Patricia F Coogan; Laura F White; Jeffrey Yu; Richard T Burnett; Julian D Marshall; Edmund Seto; Robert D Brook; Julie R Palmer; Lynn Rosenberg; Michael Jerrett Journal: Environ Res Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Jo Kay C Ghosh; Julia E Heck; Myles Cockburn; Jason Su; Michael Jerrett; Beate Ritz Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-08-28 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Konstantina Dimakopoulou; Evangelia Samoli; Rob Beelen; Massimo Stafoggia; Zorana Jovanovic Andersen; Barbara Hoffmann; Paul Fischer; Mark Nieuwenhuijsen; Paolo Vineis; Wei Xun; Gerard Hoek; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Anna Oudin; Bertil Forsberg; Lars Modig; Pekka Jousilahti; Timo Lanki; Anu Turunen; Bente Oftedal; Per Nafstad; Per E Schwarze; Johanna Penell; Laura Fratiglioni; Niklas Andersson; Nancy Pedersen; Michal Korek; Ulf De Faire; Kirsten Thorup Eriksen; Anne Tjønneland; Thomas Becker; Meng Wang; Bas Bueno-de-Mesquita; Ming-Yi Tsai; Marloes Eeftens; Petra H Peeters; Kees Meliefste; Alessandro Marcon; Ursula Krämer; Thomas A J Kuhlbusch; Mohammad Vossoughi; Timothy Key; Kees de Hoogh; Regina Hampel; Annette Peters; Joachim Heinrich; Gudrun Weinmayr; Hans Concin; Gabriele Nagel; Alex Ineichen; Bénédicte Jacquemin; Morgane Stempfelet; Alice Vilier; Fulvio Ricceri; Carlotta Sacerdote; Xanthi Pedeli; Michalis Katsoulis; Antonia Trichopoulou; Bert Brunekreef; Klea Katsouyanni Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 21.405