Developing consistent data and methods to measure the public health impacts of ambient air quality for Environmental Public Health Tracking: progress to date and future directions

Environmental Public Health Tracking (EPHT) staff at the state and national levels are developing nationally consistent data and methods to estimate the impact of ozone and fine particulate matter on hospitalizations for asthma and myocardial infarction. Pilot projects have demonstrated the feasibility of pooling state hospitalization data and linking these data to The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) statistically based ambient air estimates for ozone and fine particulates. Tools were developed to perform case-crossover analyses to estimate concentration–response (C-R) functions. A weakness of analyzing one state at a time is that the effects are relatively small compared to their confidence intervals. The EPHT program will explore ways to statistically combine the results of peer-reviewed analyses from across the country to provide more robust C-R functions and health impact estimates at the local level. One challenge will be to routinely share data for these types of analyses at fine geographic and temporal scales without disclosing confidential information. Another challenge will be to develop C-R estimates which take into account time, space, or other relevant effect modifiers

Estimating Water Supply Arsenic Levels in the New England Bladder Cancer Study

Background: Ingestion of inorganic arsenic in drinking water is recognized as a cause of bladder cancer when levels are relatively high (≥ 150 µg/L). The epidemiologic evidence is less clear at the low-to-moderate concentrations typically observed in the United States. Accurate retrospective exposure assessment over a long time period is a major challenge in conducting epidemiologic studies of environmental factors and diseases with long latency, such as cancer. Objective: We estimated arsenic concentrations in the water supplies of 2,611 participants in a population-based case–control study in northern New England. Methods: Estimates covered the lifetimes of most study participants and were based on a combination of arsenic measurements at the homes of the participants and statistical modeling of arsenic concentrations in the water supply of both past and current homes. We assigned a residential water supply arsenic concentration for 165,138 (95%) of the total 173,361 lifetime exposure years (EYs) and a workplace water supply arsenic level for 85,195 EYs (86% of reported occupational years). Results: Three methods accounted for 93% of the residential estimates of arsenic concentration: direct measurement of water samples (27%; median, 0.3 µg/L; range, 0.1–11.5), statistical models of water utility measurement data (49%; median, 0.4 µg/L; range, 0.3–3.3), and statistical models of arsenic concentrations in wells using aquifers in New England (17%; median, 1.6 µg/L; range, 0.6–22.4). Conclusions: We used a different validation procedure for each of the three methods, and found our estimated levels to be comparable with available measured concentrations. This methodology allowed us to calculate potential drinking water exposure over long periods