PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Blanco, Magali N.
AU  - Doubleday, Annie
AU  - Austin, Elena
AU  - Marshall, Julian D.
AU  - Seto, Edmund
AU  - Larson, Timothy
AU  - Sheppard, Lianne
TI  - Design and evaluation of mobile monitoring campaigns for air pollution exposure assessment in epidemiologic cohorts
AID  - 10.1101/2021.04.21.21255641
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.04.21.21255641
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/23/2021.04.21.21255641.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/23/2021.04.21.21255641.full
AB  - Mobile monitoring makes it possible to estimate the long-term trends of less commonly measured pollutants through the collection of repeated short-term samples. While many different mobile monitoring approaches have been taken, few studies have looked at the importance of study design when the goal is application to epidemiologic cohort studies. Air pollution concentrations include random variability and systematic variability, and we hypothesize that mobile campaigns benefit from temporally balanced designs that randomly sample from all seasons of the year, days of the week, and hours of the day. We carried out a simulation study of fixed-site monitors to better understand the role of short-term mobile monitoring design on the prediction of long-term air pollution exposure surfaces. Specifically, we simulated three archetypal sampling designs using oxides of nitrogen (NOx) monitoring data from 69 California air quality system (AQS) sites: (1) a year-around, Balanced Design, (2) a Rush Hours Design, and (3) a Business Hours Design. We used Monte Carlo resampling to investigate the range of possible outcomes (i.e., the resulting annual average concentration prediction) from each design against the “truth”, the actual monitoring data. We found that the Balanced Design consistently yielded the most accurate annual averages; Rush Hours and Business Hours Designs generally resulted in comparatively more biased estimates and model predictions. Importantly, the superior performance of the Balanced Design was evident when predictions were evaluated against true concentrations but less detectable when predictions were evaluated against the measurements from the same sampling campaign since these were themselves biased. This result is important since mobile monitoring campaigns that use their own measurements to test the robustness of the results may underestimate the level of bias in their results. Appropriate study design is crucial for mobile monitoring campaigns aiming to assess accurate long-term exposure in epidemiologic cohorts. Campaigns should aim to implement balanced designs that sample during all seasons of the year, days of the week, and all or most hours of the day to produce generally unbiased, long-term averages. Furthermore, differential exposure misclassification could result from unbalanced designs, which may result in misleading health effect estimates in epidemiologic investigations.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis 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 DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAir 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. https://aqs.epa.gov/aqsweb/airdata/download_files.html