Historical pesticide exposure in California using pesticide use reports and land-use surveys: an assessment of misclassification error and bias.

Abstract

We used California's Pesticide Use Report (PUR) and land-use survey data to conduct a simulation study evaluating the potential consequences of misclassifying residential exposure from proximity to agricultural pesticide application in health effect studies. We developed a geographic model linking the PUR with crop location data from land-use surveys to assess the impact of exposure misclassification from simpler exposure models based solely on PUR or land-use data. We simulated the random selection of population controls recruited into a hypothetical case-control study within an agricultural region. Using residential parcel data, we derived annual exposure prevalences, sensitivity, and specificity for five pesticides and relied on the PUR plus land-use model as the "gold standard." Based on these estimates, we calculated the attenuation of prespecified true odds ratios (ORs), assuming nondifferential exposure misclassification. True ORs were severely attenuated a) when residential exposure status was based on a larger geographic area yielding higher sensitivity but low specificity for exposure, in contrast to relying on a smaller area and increasing specificity; b) for less frequently applied pesticides; and c) with increasing mobility of residents among the study population. Considerable effect estimate attenuation also occurred when we used residential distance to crops as a proxy for pesticide exposure. Finally, exposure classifications based on annual instead of seasonal summaries of PUR resulted in highly attenuated ORs, especially during seasons when applications of specific pesticides were unlikely to occur. These results underscore the importance of increasing the spatiotemporal resolution of pesticide exposure models to minimize misclassification.