Cited by 162Air Quality and Health ImpactsIndoor Air Quality and Microbial ExposureToxic Organic Pollutants Impact

Personal exposure meets risk assessment: a comparison of measured and modeled exposures and risks in an urban community

Open access
Payne-Sturges, Devon C, Burke, Thomas A, Breysse, Patrick, Diener-West, Marie, Buckley, Timothy J·2004·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Human exposure research has consistently shown that, for most volatile organic compounds (VOCs), personal exposures are vastly different from outdoor air concentrations. Therefore, risk estimates based on ambient measurements may over- or underestimate risk, leading to ineffective or inefficient management strategies. In the present study we examine the extent of exposure misclassification and its impact on risk for exposure estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide (ASPEN) model relative to monitoring results from a community-based exposure assessment conducted in Baltimore, Maryland (USA). This study is the first direct comparison of the ASPEN model (as used by the U.S. EPA for the Cumulative Exposure Project and subsequently the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment) and human exposure data to estimate health risks. A random sampling strategy was used to recruit 33 nonsmoking adult community residents. Passive air sampling badges were used to assess 3-day time-weighted-average personal exposure as well as outdoor and indoor residential concentrations of VOCs for each study participant. In general, personal exposures were greater than indoor VOC concentrations, which were greater than outdoor VOC concentrations. Public health risks due to actual personal exposures were estimated. In comparing measured personal exposures and indoor and outdoor VOC concentrations with ASPEN model estimates for ambient concentrations, our data suggest that ASPEN was reasonably accurate as a surrogate for personal exposures (measured exposures of community residents) for VOCs emitted primarily from mobile sources or VOCs that occur as global "background" source pollutant with no indoor source contributions. Otherwise, the ASPEN model estimates were generally lower than measured personal exposures and the estimated health risks. ASPEN's lower exposures resulted in proportional underestimation of cumulative cancer risk when pollutant exposures were combined to estimate cumulative risk. Median cumulative lifetime cancer risk based on personal exposures was 3-fold greater than estimates based on ASPEN-modeled concentrations. These findings demonstrate the significance of indoor exposure sources and the importance of indoor and/or personal monitoring for accurate assessment of risk. Environmental health policies may not be sufficient in reducing exposures and risks if they are based solely on modeled ambient VOC concentrations. Results from our study underscore the need for a coordinated multimedia approach to exposure assessment for setting public health policy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.6496

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Payne-Sturges, D. C., Burke, T. A., Breysse, P., Diener-West, M., & Buckley, T. J.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. payne-sturges.devon@epa.gov
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2004-04-01
Volume
112
Issue
5
Pages
589-598
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2004590131
Cited by
162
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30 ES03819, P30ES003819)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Keywords
personal exposure, volatile organic compounds, exposure misclassification, exposure modeling, indoor air pollution, outdoor air pollution, cumulative cancer risk, lifetime cancer risk, residential exposure, urban communities, passive air sampling, mobile source emissions, public health risk assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Air Pollutants, Environmental Exposure, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Neoplasms, United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Baltimore, Hazardous Substances, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review