Danielle Vienneau1, Harris Héritier2, Maria Foraster3, Ikenna C Eze2, Emmanuel Schaffner2, Laurie Thiesse4, Franziska Rudzik4, Manuel Habermacher5, Micha Köpfli5, Reto Pieren6, Mark Brink7, Christian Cajochen4, Jean Marc Wunderli6, Nicole Probst-Hensch2, Martin Röösli2. 1. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. Electronic address: danielle.vienneau@swisstph.ch. 2. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 3. Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Centre for Chronobiology, Psychiatric Hospital of the University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Transfaculty Research Platform Molecular and Cognitive Neurosciences, University of Basel, Switzerland. 5. N-sphere AG, Zürich, Switzerland. 6. Empa, Laboratory for Acoustics/Noise control, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Dubendorf, Switzerland. 7. Federal Office for the Environment, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological research on transportation noise uses different exposure assessment strategies based on façade point estimates or regulatory noise maps. The degree of exposure measurement error and subsequent potentially biased risk estimates related to exposure definition is unclear. We aimed to evaluate associations between transportation noise exposure and myocardial infarction (MI) mortality considering: assumptions about residential floor, façade point selection (loudest, quietest, nearest), façade point vs. noise map estimates, and influence of averaging exposure at coarser spatial scales (e.g. in ecological health studies). METHODS: Lden from the façade points were assigned to >4 million eligible adults in the Swiss National Cohort for the best match residential floor (reference), middle floor, and first floor. For selected floors, the loudest and quietest exposed façades per dwelling, plus the nearest façade point to the residential geocode, were extracted. Exposure was also assigned from 10 × 10 m noise maps, using "buffers" from 50 to 500 m derived from the maps, and by aggregating the maps to larger areas. Associations between road traffic and railway noise and MI mortality were evaluated by multi-pollutant Cox regression models, adjusted for aircraft noise, NO2 and socio-demographic confounders, following individuals from 2000 to 2008. Bias was calculated to express differences compared to the reference. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for the best match residential floor were 1.05 (1.02-1.07) and 1.03 (1.01-1.05) per IQR (11.3 and 15.0 dB) for road traffic and railway noise, respectively. In most situations, comparing the alternative exposure definitions to this reference resulted in attenuated HRs. For example, assuming everyone resided on the middle or everyone on first floor introduced little bias (%Bias in excess risk: -1.9 to 4.4 road traffic and -4.4 to 10.7 railway noise). Using the noise grids generated a bias of approximately -26% for both sources. Averaging the maps at a coarser spatial scale led to bias from -19.4 to -105.1% for road traffic and 17.6 to -34.3% for railway noise and inflated the confidence intervals such that some HRs were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Changes in spatial scale introduced more bias than changes in residential floor. Use of noise maps to represent residential exposure may underestimate noise-induced health effects, in particular for small-scale heterogeneously distributed road traffic noise in urban settings.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological research on transportation noise uses different exposure assessment strategies based on façade point estimates or regulatory noise maps. The degree of exposure measurement error and subsequent potentially biased risk estimates related to exposure definition is unclear. We aimed to evaluate associations between transportation noise exposure and myocardial infarction (MI) mortality considering: assumptions about residential floor, façade point selection (loudest, quietest, nearest), façade point vs. noise map estimates, and influence of averaging exposure at coarser spatial scales (e.g. in ecological health studies). METHODS: Lden from the façade points were assigned to >4 million eligible adults in the Swiss National Cohort for the best match residential floor (reference), middle floor, and first floor. For selected floors, the loudest and quietest exposed façades per dwelling, plus the nearest façade point to the residential geocode, were extracted. Exposure was also assigned from 10 × 10 m noise maps, using "buffers" from 50 to 500 m derived from the maps, and by aggregating the maps to larger areas. Associations between road traffic and railway noise and MI mortality were evaluated by multi-pollutant Cox regression models, adjusted for aircraft noise, NO2 and socio-demographic confounders, following individuals from 2000 to 2008. Bias was calculated to express differences compared to the reference. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (HRs) for the best match residential floor were 1.05 (1.02-1.07) and 1.03 (1.01-1.05) per IQR (11.3 and 15.0 dB) for road traffic and railway noise, respectively. In most situations, comparing the alternative exposure definitions to this reference resulted in attenuated HRs. For example, assuming everyone resided on the middle or everyone on first floor introduced little bias (%Bias in excess risk: -1.9 to 4.4 road traffic and -4.4 to 10.7 railway noise). Using the noise grids generated a bias of approximately -26% for both sources. Averaging the maps at a coarser spatial scale led to bias from -19.4 to -105.1% for road traffic and 17.6 to -34.3% for railway noise and inflated the confidence intervals such that some HRs were no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Changes in spatial scale introduced more bias than changes in residential floor. Use of noise maps to represent residential exposure may underestimate noise-induced health effects, in particular for small-scale heterogeneously distributed road traffic noise in urban settings.
Authors: Jesse D Thacher; Aslak H Poulsen; Ulla A Hvidtfeldt; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Jørgen Brandt; Camilla Geels; Jibran Khan; Thomas Münzel; Mette Sørensen Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Li Bai; Saeha Shin; Tor H Oiamo; Richard T Burnett; Scott Weichenthal; Michael Jerrett; Jeffrey C Kwong; Ray Copes; Alexander Kopp; Hong Chen Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2020-08-12 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Mark Brink; Beat Schäffer; Danielle Vienneau; Reto Pieren; Maria Foraster; Ikenna C Eze; Franziska Rudzik; Laurie Thiesse; Christian Cajochen; Nicole Probst-Hensch; Martin Röösli; Jean Marc Wunderli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nina Roswall; Andrei Pyko; Mikael Ögren; Anna Oudin; Annika Rosengren; Anton Lager; Aslak H Poulsen; Charlotta Eriksson; David Segersson; Debora Rizzuto; Eva M Andersson; Gunn Marit Aasvang; Gunnar Engström; Jeanette T Jørgensen; Jenny Selander; Jesper H Christensen; Jesse Thacher; Karin Leander; Kim Overvad; Kristina Eneroth; Kristoffer Mattisson; Lars Barregård; Leo Stockfelt; Maria Albin; Matthias Ketzel; Mette K Simonsen; Mårten Spanne; Ole Raaschou-Nielsen; Patrik K E Magnusson; Pekka Tiittanen; Peter Molnar; Petter Ljungman; Timo Lanki; Youn-Hee Lim; Zorana J Andersen; Göran Pershagen; Mette Sørensen Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 9.031