Estimating deaths attributable to airborne particles: sensitivity of the results to different exposure assessment approaches

Background: Epidemiological evidences support the existence of an effect of airborne particulate on population health. However, few studies evaluated the robustness of the results to different exposure assessment approaches. In this paper, we estimated short term effects and impacts of high levels of particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤10 μm (PM₁₀) and ≤2.5 μm (PM_2.5) in the Emilia-Romagna region (Northern Italy), one of the most polluted areas in Europe, in the period 2006-2010, and checked if the results changed when different exposure definitions were used.

Methods: Short-term impact of particles on population mortality was assessed, both considering the 9 provincial capitals of the Emilia-Romagna and the region as a whole. We estimated the effects of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 on natural mortality by combining city-specific results in a Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis, and we used these estimates to calculate impacts in terms of attributable deaths. For PM₁₀, we considered different definitions of exposure, based on the use of the air pollutant levels measured by different monitoring stations (background or traffic monitors) or predicted by a dispersion model.

Results: Annual average concentrations of PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 exceeding the WHO limits of 20 and 10 μg/m³ were respectively responsible for 5.9 and 3.0 deaths per 100 000 inhabitants per year in the provincial capitals, during the period 2006-2010. The total impact in the region in 2010 amounted to 4.4 and 2.8 deaths per 100 000 for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5, respectively. The impact estimates for PM₁₀ did not substantially change when the exposure levels were derived from background or traffic monitoring stations, or arose from the dispersion model, in particular when the counterfactual value of 20 μg/m³ was considered. The effect estimates appeared more sensitive to the exposure definition.

Conclusions: A reduction in particle concentrations could have produced significant health benefits in the region. This general conclusion did not change when different exposure definitions were used, provided that the same exposure assessment approach was used for both effect and impact estimations. Caution is therefore recommended when using effect estimates from the literature to assess health impacts of air pollution in actual contexts.