Exposure measurement error in air pollution health effect studies: a pooled analysis of personal exposure validation studies in 17 communities across the United States

Despite demonstrated adverse health effects of air pollution, the impact of exposure measurement error on these associations remains unexplored, especially for NO<sub>2</sub> and PM<sub>2.5</sub> components. We compiled daily personal measurements of PM<sub>2.5</sub>, NO<sub>2</sub>, and PM<sub>2.5</sub> components - including Al, Cd, Fe, K, Ni, Pb, S, and Si - from previous studies as true exposure indicators. These were compared against ambient concentrations from the nearest monitors. We used Spearman correlation to examine relationships between monthly averages of personal exposures and ambient concentrations. Calibration coefficients were derived using linear mixed models to quantify measurement errors. Results showed strong correlations between monthly personal exposures and ambient concentrations for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, NO<sub>2</sub>, Cd, Ni, S, and Si across the US. Calibration coefficients for personal PM<sub>2.5</sub> and NO<sub>2</sub> were 0.46 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.78) and 0.97 (0.35, 1.59), respectively. Significant coefficients were also found for S (0.48; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.68), Cd (0.47; 0.17, 0.76), and Ni (0.17; 0.02, 0.32). Point estimates for calibration coefficients were all below one, indicating that using the nearest monitors as exposure surrogates would attenuate associations with health risks. The measurement error in component-wise analysis highlights the need for incorporating these calibration coefficients into future studies to adjust for such errors adequately.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Environmental Health Research
Published
2025-04-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2025.2488481
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Air Quality and Health Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.20

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exposure measurement error in air pollution health effect studies: a pooled analysis of personal exposure validation studies in 17 communities across the United States

Helen Suh, Raúl U. Hernández-Ramírez, Adam A. Szpiro, Donna Spiegelman et al.
1 citations
International Journal of Environmental Health Research
Air Quality and Health Impacts
1.20
article

Exposure measurement error in air pollution health effect studies: a pooled analysis of personal exposure validation studies in 17 communities across the United States

Helen Suh, Raúl U. Hernández-Ramírez, Adam A. Szpiro, Donna Spiegelman, Ning Zhang, Boya Zhang, Molin Wang, Ki-Do Eum
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Despite demonstrated adverse health effects of air pollution, the impact of exposure measurement error on these associations remains unexplored, especially for NO<sub>2</sub> and PM<sub>2.5</sub> components. We compiled daily personal measurements of PM<sub>2.5</sub>, NO<sub>2</sub>, and PM<sub>2.5</sub> components - including Al, Cd, Fe, K, Ni, Pb, S, and Si - from previous studies as true exposure indicators. These were compared against ambient concentrations from the nearest monitors. We used Spearman correlation to examine relationships between monthly averages of personal exposures and ambient concentrations. Calibration coefficients were derived using linear mixed models to quantify measurement errors. Results showed strong correlations between monthly personal exposures and ambient concentrations for PM<sub>2.5</sub>, NO<sub>2</sub>, Cd, Ni, S, and Si across the US. Calibration coefficients for personal PM<sub>2.5</sub> and NO<sub>2</sub> were 0.46 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.78) and 0.97 (0.35, 1.59), respectively. Significant coefficients were also found for S (0.48; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.68), Cd (0.47; 0.17, 0.76), and Ni (0.17; 0.02, 0.32). Point estimates for calibration coefficients were all below one, indicating that using the nearest monitors as exposure surrogates would attenuate associations with health risks. The measurement error in component-wise analysis highlights the need for incorporating these calibration coefficients into future studies to adjust for such errors adequately.

International Journal of Environmental Health ResearchVol. 35(11)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US), Tufts University (US), Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), Harvard University (US), University of Washington (US), Yale University (US)
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Openalex Percentile: Top 24%
Air Quality and Health Impacts
1.20
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.