BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies that assess the health effects of long-term exposure to ambient air pollution are used to inform public policy. These studies rely on exposure models that use data collected from pollution monitoring sites to predict exposures at subject locations. Land use regression (LUR) and universal kriging (UK) have been suggested as potential prediction methods. We evaluate these approaches on a dataset including measurements from three seasons in Los Angeles, CA. METHODS: The measurements of gaseous oxides of nitrogen (NOx) used in this study are from a "snapshot" sampling campaign that is part of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution (MESA Air). The measurements in Los Angeles were collected during three two-week periods in the summer, autumn, and winter, each with about 150 sites. The design included clusters of monitors on either side of busy roads to capture near-field gradients of traffic-related pollution. LUR and UK prediction models were created using geographic information system (GIS)-based covariates. Selection of covariates was based on 10-fold cross-validated (CV) R(2) and root mean square error (RMSE). Since UK requires specialized software, a computationally simpler two-step procedure was also employed to approximate fitting the UK model using readily available regression and GIS software. RESULTS: UK models consistently performed as well as or better than the analogous LUR models. The best CV R(2) values for season-specific UK models predicting log(NOx) were 0.75, 0.72, and 0.74 (CV RMSE 0.20, 0.17, and 0.15) for summer, autumn, and winter, respectively. The best CV R(2) values for season-specific LUR models predicting log(NOx) were 0.74, 0.60, and 0.67 (CV RMSE 0.20, 0.20, and 0.17). The two-stage approximation to UK also performed better than LUR and nearly as well as the full UK model with CV R(2) values 0.75, 0.70, and 0.70 (CV RMSE 0.20, 0.17, and 0.17) for summer, autumn, and winter, respectively. CONCLUSION: High quality LUR and UK prediction models for NOx in Los Angeles were developed for the three seasons based on data collected for MESA Air. In our study, UK consistently outperformed LUR. Similarly, the 2-step approach was more effective than the LUR models, with performance equal to or slightly worse than UK.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies that assess the health effects of long-term exposure to ambient air pollution are used to inform public policy. These studies rely on exposure models that use data collected from pollution monitoring sites to predict exposures at subject locations. Land use regression (LUR) and universal kriging (UK) have been suggested as potential prediction methods. We evaluate these approaches on a dataset including measurements from three seasons in Los Angeles, CA. METHODS: The measurements of gaseous oxides of nitrogen (NOx) used in this study are from a "snapshot" sampling campaign that is part of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution (MESA Air). The measurements in Los Angeles were collected during three two-week periods in the summer, autumn, and winter, each with about 150 sites. The design included clusters of monitors on either side of busy roads to capture near-field gradients of traffic-related pollution. LUR and UK prediction models were created using geographic information system (GIS)-based covariates. Selection of covariates was based on 10-fold cross-validated (CV) R(2) and root mean square error (RMSE). Since UK requires specialized software, a computationally simpler two-step procedure was also employed to approximate fitting the UK model using readily available regression and GIS software. RESULTS: UK models consistently performed as well as or better than the analogous LUR models. The best CV R(2) values for season-specific UK models predicting log(NOx) were 0.75, 0.72, and 0.74 (CV RMSE 0.20, 0.17, and 0.15) for summer, autumn, and winter, respectively. The best CV R(2) values for season-specific LUR models predicting log(NOx) were 0.74, 0.60, and 0.67 (CV RMSE 0.20, 0.20, and 0.17). The two-stage approximation to UK also performed better than LUR and nearly as well as the full UK model with CV R(2) values 0.75, 0.70, and 0.70 (CV RMSE 0.20, 0.17, and 0.17) for summer, autumn, and winter, respectively. CONCLUSION: High quality LUR and UK prediction models for NOx in Los Angeles were developed for the three seasons based on data collected for MESA Air. In our study, UK consistently outperformed LUR. Similarly, the 2-step approach was more effective than the LUR models, with performance equal to or slightly worse than UK.
Authors: D J Briggs; C de Hoogh; J Gulliver; J Wills; P Elliott; S Kingham; K Smallbone Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2000-05-15 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Adam A Szpiro; Paul D Sampson; Lianne Sheppard; Thomas Lumley; Sara D Adar; Joel Kaufman Journal: Environmetrics Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: D W Dockery; C A Pope; X Xu; J D Spengler; J H Ware; M E Fay; B G Ferris; F E Speizer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1993-12-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Arden Pope; Richard T Burnett; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle; Daniel Krewski; Kazuhiko Ito; George D Thurston Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sara D Adar; Ronald Klein; Barbara E K Klein; Adam A Szpiro; Mary Frances Cotch; Tien Y Wong; Marie S O'Neill; Sandi Shrager; R Graham Barr; David S Siscovick; Martha L Daviglus; Paul D Sampson; Joel D Kaufman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Jason G Su; Michael Jerrett; Bernardo Beckerman; Michelle Wilhelm; Jo Kay Ghosh; Beate Ritz Journal: Environ Res Date: 2009-06-21 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Nino Künzli; Michael Jerrett; Wendy J Mack; Bernardo Beckerman; Laurie LaBree; Frank Gilliland; Duncan Thomas; John Peters; Howard N Hodis Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Johan Lindström; Adam A Szpiro; Paul D Sampson; Assaf P Oron; Mark Richards; Tim V Larson; Lianne Sheppard Journal: Environ Ecol Stat Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.119
Authors: Michael T Young; Matthew J Bechle; Paul D Sampson; Adam A Szpiro; Julian D Marshall; Lianne Sheppard; Joel D Kaufman Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Paul D Sampson; Mark Richards; Adam A Szpiro; Silas Bergen; Lianne Sheppard; Timothy V Larson; Joel D Kaufman Journal: Atmos Environ (1994) Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Joel D Kaufman; Elizabeth W Spalt; Cynthia L Curl; Anjum Hajat; Miranda R Jones; Sun-Young Kim; Sverre Vedal; Adam A Szpiro; Amanda Gassett; Lianne Sheppard; Martha L Daviglus; Sara D Adar Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2016-09
Authors: Xiaoxiao Liu; Stefania Bertazzon; Paul J Villeneuve; Markey Johnson; Dave Stieb; Stephanie Coward; Divine Tanyingoh; Joseph W Windsor; Fox Underwood; Michael D Hill; Doreen Rabi; William A Ghali; Stephen B Wilton; Matthew T James; Michelle Graham; M Sean McMurtry; Gilaad G Kaplan Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-10-09
Authors: Wei Xu; Erin A Riley; Elena Austin; Miyoko Sasakura; Lanae Schaal; Timothy R Gould; Kris Hartin; Christopher D Simpson; Paul D Sampson; Michael G Yost; Timothy V Larson; Guangli Xiu; Sverre Vedal Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 5.563
Authors: Jill K Schulte; Julie R Fox; Assaf P Oron; Timothy V Larson; Christopher D Simpson; Michael Paulsen; Nancy Beaudet; Joel D Kaufman; Sheryl Magzamen Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 9.028