Expert judgment assessment of the mortality impact of changes in ambient fine particulate matter in the US

被引:97
作者
Roman, Henry A. . [1 ]
Walker, Katherine D. [1 ]
Walsh, Tyra L. [1 ]
Conner, Lisa [2 ]
Richmond, Harvey M. [2 ]
Hubbell, Bryan J. [2 ]
Kinney, Patrick L. [3 ]
机构
[1] Ind Econ Inc, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA
[2] US EPA, Off Air Qual Planning & Stand, Res Triangle Pk, NC 27711 USA
[3] Columbia Univ, Mailman Sch Publ Hlth, New York, NY 10032 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1021/es0713882
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In this paper, we present findings from a multiyear expert judgment study that comprehensively characterizes uncertainty in estimates of mortality reductions associated with decreases in tine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the U.S. Appropriate characterization of uncertainty is critical because mortality-related benefits represent up to 90% of the monetized benefits reported in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) analyses of proposed air regulations. Numerous epidemiological and toxicological studies have evaluated the PM2.5-mortality association and investigated issues that may contribute to uncertainty in the concentration-response (C-R) function, such as exposure misclassification and potential confounding from other pollutant exposures. EPA's current uncertainty analysis methods rely largely on standard errors in published studies. However, no one study tan capture the full suite of issues that arise in quantifying the C-R relationship. Therefore, EPA has applied state-of-the-art expert judgment elicitation techniques to develop probabilistic uncertainty distributions that reflect the broader array of uncertainties in the C-R relationship. These distributions, elicited from 12 of the world's leading experts on this issue, suggest both potentially larger central estimates of mortality reductions for decreases in long-term PM2.5 exposure in the U.S. and a wider distribution of uncertainty than currently employed in EPA analyses.
引用
收藏
页码:2268 / 2274
页数:7
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2002, EST PUBL HLTH BEN PR
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1999, BEN COSTS CLEAN AIR
[3]  
Cooke R. M., 1991, EXPERTS UNCERTAINTY
[4]   AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN AIR-POLLUTION AND MORTALITY IN 6 UNITED-STATES CITIES [J].
DOCKERY, DW ;
POPE, CA ;
XU, XP ;
SPENGLER, JD ;
WARE, JH ;
FAY, ME ;
FERRIS, BG ;
SPEIZER, FE .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1993, 329 (24) :1753-1759
[5]   USE OF PROBABILISTIC EXPERT JUDGMENT IN UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS OF CARCINOGENIC POTENCY [J].
EVANS, JS ;
GRAY, GM ;
SIELKEN, RL ;
SMITH, AE ;
VALDEZFLORES, C ;
GRAHAM, JD .
REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY, 1994, 20 (01) :15-36
[6]   EXPERT SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENT AND CANCER RISK ASSESSMENT - A PILOT-STUDY OF PHARMACOKINETIC DATA [J].
HAWKINS, NC ;
GRAHAM, JD .
RISK ANALYSIS, 1988, 8 (04) :615-626
[7]  
*IND EC INC, 2004, EXP JUDG ASS CONC RE
[8]   Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in Los Angeles [J].
Jerrett, M ;
Burnett, RT ;
Ma, RJ ;
Pope, CA ;
Krewski, D ;
Newbold, KB ;
Thurston, G ;
Shi, YL ;
Finkelstein, N ;
Calle, EE ;
Thun, MJ .
EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2005, 16 (06) :727-736
[9]  
Kahneman D., 1981, JUDGMENT UNCERTAINTY, P201, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511809477
[10]  
Krewski D, 2000, REANALYSIS HARVARD 6