Abstract
BackgroundEpidemiological research on transportation noise uses different exposure assessment strategies based on façade point estimates or regulatory noise maps. The degree of exposure measurement error and subsequent potentially biased risk estimates related to exposure definition is unclear. We aimed to evaluate associations between transportation noise exposure and myocardial infarction (MI) mortality considering: assumptions about residential floor, façade point selection (loudest, quietest, nearest), façade point vs. noise map estimates, and influence of averaging exposure at coarser spatial scales (e.g. in ecological health studies). MethodsLden from the façade points were assigned to >4 million eligible adults in the Swiss National Cohort for the best match residential floor (reference), middle floor, and first floor. For selected floors, the loudest and quietest exposed façades per dwelling, plus the nearest façade point to the residential geocode, were extracted. Exposure was also assigned from 10 × 10 m noise maps, using “buffers” from 50 to 500 m derived from the maps, and by aggregating the maps to larger areas. Associations between road traffic and railway noise and MI mortality were evaluated by multi-pollutant Cox regression models, adjusted for aircraft noise, NO2 and socio-demographic confounders, following individuals from 2000 to 2008. Bias was calculated to express differences compared to the reference. ResultsHazard ratios (HRs) for the best match residential floor were 1.05 (1.02–1.07) and 1.03 (1.01–1.05) per IQR (11.3 and 15.0 dB) for road traffic and railway noise, respectively. In most situations, comparing the alternative exposure definitions to this reference resulted in attenuated HRs. For example, assuming everyone resided on the middle or everyone on first floor introduced little bias (%Bias in excess risk: −1.9 to 4.4 road traffic and −4.4 to 10.7 railway noise). Using the noise grids generated a bias of approximately −26% for both sources. Averaging the maps at a coarser spatial scale led to bias from −19.4 to −105.1% for road traffic and 17.6 to −34.3% for railway noise and inflated the confidence intervals such that some HRs were no longer statistically significant. ConclusionChanges in spatial scale introduced more bias than changes in residential floor. Use of noise maps to represent residential exposure may underestimate noise-induced health effects, in particular for small-scale heterogeneously distributed road traffic noise in urban settings.
Highlights
The last decade has seen an increase in the number of studies on health effects of transportation noise, in particular on road traffic and aircraft noise in relation to cardiovascular outcomes (Foraster et al, 2017; Héritier et al, 2017; Munzel et al, 2017; van Kempen et al, 2018; Vienneau et al, 2015)
Noise nuisance and exposure have typically been evaluated through self-reported annoyance surveys (Brink et al, 2016; Guski et al, 2017), noise measurements (Belojevic et al, 2012; Lercher et al, 2011; Quehl et al, 2017) or exposure calculations (Garg and Maji, 2014; Karipidis et al, 2014), with the latter approach appealing for large population studies
The percentage of participants respectively living in urban, intermediate and rural areas were 63.8, 23.0 and 13.2%. Those living in urban areas had higher proportions of higher education, single and divorced, and high socio-economic position
Summary
The last decade has seen an increase in the number of studies on health effects of transportation noise, in particular on road traffic and aircraft noise in relation to cardiovascular outcomes (Foraster et al, 2017; Héritier et al, 2017; Munzel et al, 2017; van Kempen et al, 2018; Vienneau et al, 2015). The gold standard for exposure modelling in noise and health research, and used in our previous studies in Switzerland (Eze et al, 2017; Foraster et al, 2017; Héritier et al, 2017; Héritier et al, 2018b), is two or three-dimensional source-propagation noise models (e.g. CNOSSOS-EU, Harmonise (Kephalopoulos et al, 2014)) and software frameworks such as SoundPLAN and CadnaA These techniques can be used to estimate exposure at defined façade points on buildings, or at a lattice of receptor locations used to generate noise maps. We aimed to evaluate associations between transportation noise exposure and myocardial infarction (MI) mortality considering: assumptions about residential floor, façade point selection (loudest, quietest, nearest), façade point vs noise map estimates, and influence of averaging exposure at coarser spatial scales (e.g. in ecological health studies). Use of noise maps to represent residential exposure may underestimate noise-induced health effects, in particular for small-scale heterogeneously distributed road traffic noise in urban settings
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
