Does personalization in exposure assessment change ambient air pollution exposure-response relationships? A panel study
Accurate exposure assessment is crucial to understand linkages between ambient air pollution and cardiopulmonary disease. Air quality monitors (AQM) are widely used, but do not account for personal behaviors. We compare the exposure-response relationships between ambient air pollution (PM<sub>2.5</sub> and O<sub>3</sub>) and cardiopulmonary biomarkers in a panel study using both stationary AQM and Exposure Model for Individuals (EMI). Participants (n = 28) underwent 3-5 sessions totaling 134 visits. Participants underwent spirometry and blood sampling. PM<sub>2.5</sub> and O<sub>3</sub> concentrations were calculated for each visit (lag0) and 4 preceding days (lag1-4) using AQM and EMI. A mixed-effects model was applied to examine the associations between exposure and outcomes. AQM and EMI were strongly correlated for PM<sub>2.5</sub> (ρ = 0.89) and moderately correlated for O<sub>3</sub> (ρ = 0.46). Exposure-response relationships for PM<sub>2.5</sub> were similar, with PM<sub>2.5</sub> associated with increased oxLDL at lag1 (12.2 % (95 %CI: 4.5, 20.2) AQM, 17.9 % (95 %CI: 8.1, 27.8) EMI), increased vWF at lag0 (4.27 % (95 %CI: 0.15, 8.39) AQM, 7.12 % (95 %CI: 2.57, 11.67) EMI) and decreased vWF at lag3 -6.5 % (95 %CI: -11.4, -1.6) AQM, -5.6 % (95 %CI: -10.6, -0.7) EMI) and lag4 (-5.4 % (95 %CI: -10.2, -0.7) AQM, -6.7 % (95 %CI: -12.1, -1.3) EMI). O<sub>3</sub> showed more variability, with positive associations with vWF at lag0 (12.9 % (95 %CI: 6.1, 19.7) AQM, -2.77 % (95 %CI: -8.1, 2.6) EMI) and D-dimer at lag1 27.0 % (95 %CI: 0.9, 53.0) AQM, -6.86 % (95 %CI: -26.3, 12.6) EMI), for AQM only, and negative associations with tPA at lag3 for EMI only (-10.0 % (95 %CI: -21.5, 1.4) AQM, -11.2 % (95 %CI: -19.6, -2.8) EMI). Our findings suggest that exposure-response associations to short-term PM<sub>2.5</sub> and oxLDL and markers of coagulation are consistent between the AMQ and EMI methods, implying increased risk for cardiovascular disease. For O<sub>3</sub>, AQM and EMI were less consistent, highlighting the challenges of estimating and modeling O<sub>3</sub> exposure.
Authors
- Ana G. Rappold (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7696-0900)
- Michael S. Breen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2078-5015)
- David Díaz-Sánchez
- Vlad Isakov (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7039-3925)
- Haiyan Tong
- Miyuki Breen (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8511-4653)
- Jairus C. Pulczinski
- James M. Samet (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4053-9022)
- Alexandra Schneider (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1084-2442)
- Robert M. Devlin
- Siqi Zhang (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6239-8216)
Institutions
- Environmental Protection Agency (US)
- Helmholtz Zentrum München (DE)
- National Center for Environmental Assessment (EPA) (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
- Published
- 2025-11-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.119422
- Primary Topic
- Air Quality and Health Impacts
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00