Estimating personal solar ultraviolet radiation exposure through time spent outdoors, ambient levels and modelling approaches.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on validation of surrogates applied to evaluate the personal exposure levels of solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) in epidemiological studies is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To determine and compare the validity of three approaches, including (i) ambient UVR levels, (ii) time spent outdoors and (iii) a modelling approach integrating the aforementioned parameters, to estimate personal UVR exposure over a period of 6 months among indoor and outdoor workers and in different seasons (summer/winter). METHODS: This validation study was part of the European Commission-funded ICEPURE project and was performed between July 2010 and January 2011 in a convenience sample of indoor and outdoor workers in Catalunya, Spain. We developed linear regression models to quantify the variation in the objectively measured personal UVR exposure that could be explained, separately, by the ambient UVR, time spent outdoors and modelled UVR levels. RESULTS: Our 39 participants - mostly male and with a median age of 35 years - presented a median daily objectively measured UVR of 0·37 standard erythemal doses. The UVR dose was statistically significantly higher in summer and for outdoor workers. The modelled personal UVR exposure and self-reported time spent outdoors could reasonably predict the variation in the objectively measured personal UVR levels (R2 range 0·75-0·79), whereas ambient UVR was a poor predictor (R2 = 0·21). No notable differences were found between seasons or occupation. CONCLUSIONS: Time outdoors and our modelling approach were reliable predictors and of value to be applied in epidemiological studies of the health effects of current exposure to UVR.

Performance of low-cost monitors to assess household air pollution.

Exposure to household air pollution is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. However, due to the lack of validated low-cost monitors with long-lasting batteries in indoor environments, most epidemiologic studies use self-reported data or short-term household air pollution assessments as proxies of long-term exposure. We evaluated the performance of three low-cost monitors measuring fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and carbon monoxide (CO) in a wood-combustion experiment conducted in one household of Spain for 5 days (including the co-location of 2 units of HAPEX and 3 units of TZOA-R for PM2.5 and 3 units of EL-USB-CO for CO; a total of 40 unit-days). We used Spearman correlation (ρ) and Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) to assess accuracy of low-cost monitors versus equivalent research-grade devices. We also conducted a field study in India for 1 week (including HAPEX in 3 households and EL-USB-CO in 4 households; a total of 49 unit-days). Correlation and agreement at 5-min were moderate-high for one unit of HAPEX (ρ = 0.73 / CCC = 0.59), for one unit of TZOA-R (ρ = 0.89 / CCC = 0.62) and for three units of EL-USB-CO (ρ = 0.82-0.89 / CCC = 0.66-0.91) in Spain, although the failure or malfunction rate among low-cost units was high in both settings (60% of unit-days in Spain and 43% in India). Low-cost monitors tested here are not yet ready to replace more established exposure assessment methods in long-term household air pollution epidemiologic studies. More field validation is needed to assess evolving sensors and monitors with application to health studies.