Imperial College London
Portrait Picture

DrDimitrisEvangelopoulos

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Research Fellow
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

d.evangelopoulos

 
 
//

Location

 

Sir Michael Uren HubWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Evangelopoulos:2020:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105500,
author = {Evangelopoulos, D and Katsouyanni, K and Keogh, RH and Samoli, E and Schwartz, J and Barratt, B and Zhang, H and Walton, H},
doi = {10.1016/j.envint.2020.105500},
journal = {Environment International},
title = {PM2.5 and NO2 exposure errors using proxy measures, including derived personal exposure from outdoor sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105500},
volume = {137},
year = {2020}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - BACKGROUND: The use of proxy exposure estimates for PM2.5 and NO2 in air pollution studies instead of personal exposures, introduces measurement error, which can produce biased epidemiological effect estimates. Most studies consider total personal exposure as the gold standard. However, when studying the effects of ambient air pollution, personal exposure from outdoor sources is the exposure of interest. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the magnitude and variability of exposure measurement error by conducting a systematic review of the differences between personal exposures from outdoor sources and the corresponding measurements for ambient concentrations in order to increase understanding of the measurement error structures of the pollutants. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We reviewed the literature (ISI Web of Science, Medline, 2000-2016) for English language studies (in any age group in any location (NO2) or Europe and North America (PM2.5)) that reported repeated measurements over time both for personal and ambient PM2.5 or NO2 concentrations. Only a few studies reported personal exposure from outdoor sources. We also collected data for infiltration factors and time-activity patterns of the individuals in order to estimate personal exposures from outdoor sources in every study. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies using modelled rather than monitored exposures were excluded. Type of personal exposure monitor was assessed. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to quantify exposure error as the mean difference between "true" and proxy measures. RESULTS: Thirty-two papers for PM2.5 and 24 for NO2 were identified. Outdoor sources were found to contribute 44% (range: 33-55%) of total personal exposure to PM2.5 and 74% (range: 57-88%) to NO2. Overall estimates of personal exposure (24-hour averages) from outdoor sources were 9.3 μg/m3 and 12.0 ppb for PM2.5 and NO2 respectively, while the corresponding difference between these expo
AU  - Evangelopoulos,D
AU  - Katsouyanni,K
AU  - Keogh,RH
AU  - Samoli,E
AU  - Schwartz,J
AU  - Barratt,B
AU  - Zhang,H
AU  - Walton,H
DO  - 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105500
PY  - 2020///
SN  - 0160-4120
TI  - PM2.5 and NO2 exposure errors using proxy measures, including derived personal exposure from outdoor sources: A systematic review and meta-analysis
T2  - Environment International
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105500
UR  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32018132
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/83816
VL  - 137
ER  -
Download