Estimating personal exposures from ambient air pollution measures: using meta-analysis to assess measurement error.

BACKGROUND: Although ambient concentrations of particulate matter ≤10 μm (PM10) are often used as proxies for total personal exposure, correlation (r) between ambient and personal PM10 concentrations varies. Factors underlying this variation and its effect on health outcome-PM exposure relationships remain poorly understood. METHODS: We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate effects of study, participant, and environmental factors on r; used the estimates to impute personal exposure from ambient PM10 concentrations among 4,012 nonsmoking, participants with diabetes in the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial; and then estimated the associations of ambient and imputed personal PM10 concentrations with electrocardiographic measures, such as heart rate variability. RESULTS: We identified 15 studies (in years 1990-2009) of 342 participants in five countries. The median r was 0.46 (range = 0.13 to 0.72). There was little evidence of funnel plot asymmetry but substantial heterogeneity of r, which increased 0.05 (95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.09) per 10 µg/m increase in mean ambient PM10 concentration. Substituting imputed personal exposure for ambient PM10 concentrations shifted mean percent changes in electrocardiographic measures per 10 µg/m increase in exposure away from the null and decreased their precision, for example, -2.0% (-4.6% to 0.7%) versus -7.9% (-15.9% to 0.9%), for the standard deviation of normal-to-normal RR interval duration. CONCLUSIONS: Analogous distributions and heterogeneity of r in extant meta-analyses of ambient and personal PM2.5 concentrations suggest that observed shifts in mean percent change and decreases in precision may be generalizable across particle size.

Duke Scholars

Author Katelyn Marie Holliday Family Medicine and Community Health