Abstract
Mobile monitoring campaigns to estimate long-term air pollution levels are becoming increasingly common. Still, many campaigns have not conducted temporally-balanced sampling, and few have looked at the implications of such study designs for epidemiologic exposure assessment. We carried out a simulation study of fixed-site air quality monitors to better understand how different mobile monitoring designs involving short-term stationary measurements at fixed locations impact the resulting exposure surfaces. We used Monte Carlo resampling to simulate three archetypal monitoring designs using oxides of nitrogen (NOx) monitoring data from 69 regulatory sites in California: a year-around Balanced Design that sampled during all seasons of the year, days of the week, and all or various hours of the day; a temporally reduced Rush Hours Design; and a temporally reduced Business Hours Design. We evaluated the performance of each design’s land use regression prediction model. The Balanced Design consistently yielded the most accurate annual averages; while the reduced Rush Hours and Business Hours Designs generally produced more biased results. A temporally-balanced sampling design is crucial for mobile monitoring campaigns aiming to assess accurate long-term exposure in epidemiologic cohorts.
Synopsis Air pollution mobile monitoring campaigns rarely conduct temporally balanced sampling. We show that this results in biased annual average exposure estimates.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was funded by the Adult Changes in Thought - Air Pollution (ACT-AP) Study (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [NIEHS], National Institute on Aging [NIA], R01ES026187), and BEBTEH: Biostatistics, Epidemiologic & Bioinformatic Training in Environmental Health (NIEHS, T32ES015459). Research described in this article was conducted under contract to the Health Effects Institute (HEI), an organization jointly funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Assistance Award No. CR-83998101) and certain motor vehicle and engine manufacturers. The contents of this article do not necessarily reflect the views of HEI, or its sponsors, nor do they necessarily reflect the views and policies of the EPA or motor vehicle and engine manufacturers. Neither the authors or their institutions received payment or services from any additional third parties for any aspect of the submitted work at any time.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
No IRB/oversight body was required because this study did not involve human subjects.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Air pollution data are available through the EPA. The covariates used in this analysis for regulatory sites are freely available through various online sources and may be available from the authors upon request.
