Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

PM2.5 Exposure and Birth Outcomes: Use of Satellite- and Monitor-Based Data

Hyder, Ayaza; Lee, Hyung Joob; Ebisu, Keitac; Koutrakis, Petrosb; Belanger, Kathleena; Bell, Michelle Leec

doi: 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000027
Air Pollution

Background: Air pollution may be related to adverse birth outcomes. Exposure information from land-based monitoring stations often suffers from limited spatial coverage. Satellite data offer an alternative data source for exposure assessment.

Methods: We used birth certificate data for births in Connecticut and Massachusetts, United States (2000–2006). Gestational exposure to PM2.5 was estimated from US Environmental Protection Agency monitoring data and from satellite data. Satellite data were processed and modeled by using two methods—denoted satellite (1) and satellite (2)—before exposure assessment. Regression models related PM2.5 exposure to birth outcomes while controlling for several confounders. Birth outcomes were mean birth weight at term birth, low birth weight at term (<2500 g), small for gestational age (SGA, <10th percentile for gestational age and sex), and preterm birth (<37 weeks).

Results: Overall, the exposure assessment method modified the magnitude of the effect estimates of PM2.5 on birth outcomes. Change in birth weight per interquartile range (2.41 μg/m3) increase in PM2.5 was −6 g (95% confidence interval = −8 to −5), −16 g (−21 to −11), and −19 g (−23 to −15), using the monitor, satellite (1), and satellite (2) methods, respectively. Adjusted odds ratios, based on the same three exposure methods, for term low birth weight were 1.01 (0.98–1.04), 1.06 (0.97–1.16), and 1.08 (1.01–1.16); for SGA, 1.03 (1.01–1.04), 1.06 (1.03–1.10), and 1.08 (1.04–1.11); and for preterm birth, 1.00 (0.99–1.02), 0.98 (0.94–1.03), and 0.99 (0.95–1.03).

Conclusions: Under exposure assessment methods, we found associations between PM2.5 exposure and adverse birth outcomes particularly for birth weight among term births and for SGA. These results add to the growing concerns that air pollution adversely affects infant health and suggest that analysis of health consequences based on satellite-based exposure assessment can provide additional useful information.

From the a School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT; bDepartment of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA; cand School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

This work was supported by funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES016317 and R01ES019587).

Submitted 11 February 2013; accepted 2 August 2013; posted 14 November 2013.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Correspondence: Ayaz Hyder, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 5th floor, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 3M7. E-mail:

Air pollution adversely affects human health.1–3 Specifically, particulate matter is associated with respiratory and cardiovascular disease.4,5 Maternal exposure to particulate matter, PM2.5 (particles with aerodynamic diameter ≤2.5 μm), is associated with several birth outcomes although findings are not completely consistent across studies.6–9 Birth outcomes that have been assessed include birth weight, term low birth weight (LBW; birth weight <2,500 g for term births [gestational age ≥37 weeks]), and small for gestational age (SGA; birth weight <10th percentile for gestational age and sex).

Air pollution and birth outcomes are important topics of research. The economic burden in the United States associated with preterm birth, which include social and healthcare costs, was $26.2 billion in 2005.10 Cost of hospitalization for LBW/preterm birth in the United States was $5.8 billion in 2001.11 Studies have also shown that particulate matter may be associated with inflammation in pregnant women12,13 and affect fetal growth14—both of which may be detrimental to a normal course of pregnancy and fetal development. In addition, consequences of adverse birth outcomes beyond the perinatal period may include delayed development and decreased academic achievement15 and short stature16 in childhood, as well as medical/social disabilities17 and respiratory disease18 in adulthood. Given this social, economic, and health burden of adverse birth outcomes and the ubiquity of air pollution exposure, there is a need to better understand the health risks posed by airborne particulate matter and other environmental toxins/hazards.6,7,19,20

International collaborative efforts21 and several US studies have found associations between PM2.5 and birth outcomes (LBW,9 term LBW,22,23 birth weight,9,24–26 and SGA).24,27 However, other studies have found no or null associations between PM2.5 and birth outcomes (term LBW,28,29 birth weight,25,30 SGA,25 and preterm birth).7,31 In almost all of these studies, data for exposure assessment were obtained from central monitoring sites operated and maintained by state and national agencies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), primarily for regulatory purposes.

Use of data from regulatory monitors is a reasonable and cost-effective method to estimate exposure for air pollution studies; however, major challenges of this approach include limited spatial and temporal coverage. In the United States, monitors are located primarily in densely populated urban centers. Because monitors record air pollution levels at a specific time and location, exposure estimates for persons located far from monitors may not be possible or, if estimated, may be less reliable. Many studies limit subjects to those within a certain distance from the monitor. The choice of distance depends on the pollutant’s spatial heterogeneity, temporal correlation in pollutant levels nearby monitors, and other regional-scale characteristics (eg, industry type, population density, and traffic patterns). Temporal coverage is another limitation of data from existing monitoring systems; for example, in the EPA’s Air Quality System, frequency of data collection can vary by site, pollutant, time of year, and start date of measurement. Particles are often measured every 3 or 6 days. Therefore, it is not uncommon for data from central monitoring systems to be missing or unreliable. Given these considerations, alternative methods for exposure assessment are needed.

Air quality modeling, land-use regression models, and satellite-based predictions are some of the methodologies being developed to predict air pollution levels in epidemiology studies.32 For birth outcomes studies, the first two methodologies are more common22,23,33–36 (although see the article by Kloog and colleagues26 for a satellite-based approach). Our group37,38 recently produced estimates of PM2.5 levels that have higher predictability than current land-use regression models and satellite methods. Specifically, novel methods were developed for calibrating satellite-based measurements of aerosol optical depth (a measure of light extinction due to aerosols in the atmospheric column),38 and statistical modeling was used to address missing data (due to cloud cover) in these calibrated data.37 From these studies, we had access to PM2.5 estimates that were highly predictive of PM2.5 measurements (R2 = 0.88 for cross-validated model, as reported by Lee et al37). Low predictability between modeled and monitor-based values likely introduces greater uncertainty in health effect estimates.

We investigated PM2.5 and birth outcomes by using a traditional exposure approach (existing monitoring data) and an emerging method (modeled estimates based on satellite data). We consider how these relations are affected by including observations with satellite-based exposures, but no monitor-based exposure estimates to assess the potential added value of satellite-based estimates for exposure.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Data and Outcome Assessment

We obtained detailed birth certificate data for all births in Connecticut and Massachusetts from 2000 to 2006 (n = 834,332). We excluded births that were conceived before the year 2000 because PM2.5 exposure data from satellite methods were not yet available. The birth certificate data included maternal characteristics (residential address, age, education, parity, tobacco use, marital status, and race/ethnicity), birth characteristics (date of last menstrual period, prenatal care, and type of birth), and baby’s characteristics (date of birth, birth weight, type of birth, and gestational age).

We excluded births that were missing residential address (2%), nonsingleton deliveries (5%), birth weight <1,000 g or >5,500 g (1%), and births with implausible gestational age–birth weight combinations (0.02%). These criteria have been applied in similar research.39 Births with gestational age <20 weeks or >46 weeks were excluded (0.3%). Clinical gestational age was used in all analyses; when missing, we used the calculated gestational age when available.

For analysis of mean birth weight and term LBW, only term births (gestational age ≥37 weeks) were included. Preterm births were those with gestational age <37 weeks. We classified births as SGA if birth weight was <10th percentile value for gestational age and sex according to US data-based cutoff values (restricted to gestational ages 22 to 44 weeks).40 Therefore, we limited the SGA analysis to births with gestational age in this range. The final number of observations included in each model differed based on the health outcome and exposure assessment method.

We used date of birth and gestational age to establish start and end dates of gestational exposure and to estimate exposure during the entire pregnancy and each trimester. Trimesters were defined as 1 to 13 weeks, 14 to 26 weeks, and 27 weeks until birth. Trimester-specific apparent temperature was estimated by using data from the National Climatic Data Center.41

Back to Top | Article Outline

Exposure Assessment

Two methods were used for PM2.5 exposure assessment: monitor data and modeled estimates based on satellite data. Monitor data were obtained from the EPA’s Air Quality System system from 2000 to 2006 (Figure). We omitted monitor data with qualifier codes indicating uncommon, natural or anthropogenic events, and data with quality assurance issues, based on EPA flag codes. We used the closest monitor to mothers’ residence with a cutoff distance of 50 km, based on our previous work (K Ebisu, unpublished data). The average distance between monitor and mothers’ location was 14 km (standard deviation = 11 km; 25% quartile = 5 km; and 75% quartile = 21 km). PM2.5 values were calculated for each of these monitors and for each week of pregnancy. This process avoids biasing exposure estimates because some monitors did not provide concentration data for the entire study period. Analysis excluded births with exposure data for fewer than 75% of weeks in each trimester. The closest monitor to the mother’s residence that met these criteria was used to estimate overall and trimester-specific exposure by averaging weekly values.



Satellite-based PM2.5 predictions were modeled under two related yet slightly different methods, which we denote satellite (1) and satellite (2) (described below), using measurements from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument onboard Terra and Aqua satellites. Both modeling approaches produced daily PM2.5 concentrations for each 10 × 10 km grid cell over our study area (Figure). These data were available only for a period of 2000–2006. Satellite data consisting of aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements were obtained from National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Other researchers42,43 have used AOD measurements directly to estimate PM2.5 (via a functional relation between AOD and PM2.5). We elected not to do so because of lack of high predictability and because of missing data due to cloud cover.

To address these two limitations, we used a calibration and modeling approach, which has been described earlier.37,38 In brief, we start by using a mixed-effects model to generate relations between each day of observed PM2.5 levels in Northeast United States and AOD values corresponding to monitors’ locations. In the mixed effects model, fixed effects explained the average intercept and the slope of the PM2.5–AOD slope for the entire study period, and random effects accounted for daily variability of PM2.5–AOD relations. This daily AOD calibration approach substantially enhanced the PM2.5-predictive power of AOD, rendering it a robust predictor of PM2.5. Next, we performed a cluster analysis by using the K-means method, which breaks up data into K clusters (K = 9 for the satellite (1) method and K = 8 for the satellite (2) method), such that the data point in each cluster is closest to the mean of the cluster.44 This method of classification allowed us to identify the set of days with a similar spatial pattern of PM2.5. The cluster analysis under the satellite (1) method was based on PM2.5 concentration differences between observed PM2.5 values and regional PM2.5 values (ie, daily averages of all available PM2.5 measurements over the study region on a given day), whereas under the satellite (2) method we used actual observed PM2.5 values.

Another difference between the two satellite methods was in how we predicted PM2.5 values for days with missing AOD data. In the satellite (1) method, we formulated a general additive model for each cluster, in which predicted PM2.5 concentrations from the mixed effects model were regressed on regional PM2.5 levels and a spatial smooth function of latitude and longitude. In this study, regional PM2.5 accounted for daily variability in PM2.5 levels. In this way, we generated a single spatial surface of PM2.5 concentrations for each cluster and predicted PM2.5 concentrations for days with missing data. In contrast, in the satellite (2) method, we assumed that relations between predicted (from mixed effects model) and regional PM2.5 concentrations in each grid cell were constant for each cluster. Thus, we derived cluster- and grid-specific relations by using regression models and estimated all the missing PM2.5 concentrations. Both approaches produced PM2.5 estimates that were highly predictive, and therefore better suited to health effects studies. In summary, the main differences between the two satellite methods were in how observed data were clustered to identify spatiotemporal patterns, and how each cluster of data was used to predict PM2.5. The satellite (2) approach provided greater spatial heterogeneity in predicted PM2.5 values.

A recent birth outcomes study in Eastern Massachusetts used a different method to estimate PM2.5 from satellite data.26 The main differences relate to calibration and modeling of raw satellite data in terms of the modeling approach and the use of different variables in the calibration and modeling steps.

As with exposures based on monitor data, weekly exposures were used to calculate trimester-specific and overall exposure during gestation for each birth based on mother’s residence. Satellite data were unavailable for grid cells containing mostly water (0.5% and 3% of births in Connecticut and Massachusetts, respectively). For these observations, we used satellite data from the closest grid cell (based on grid centroid-to-residence ≤10 km). We excluded subjects with a residential address on islands because satellite estimates were unavailable for such geographic areas.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analysis

We formulated several models based on the combination of data used for exposure assessment (monitor, satellite [1], or satellite [2]; and the included observations) (subset of births with exposure estimates under both land-based monitors and satellite methods [Joint], or all subjects with exposure estimates for that exposure method [All]).

For example, a model labeled “satellite (2), All” includes all subjects with estimated PM2.5 exposure based on the second method of modeling satellite data. Note that all “Joint” models have the same sample size, whereas “All” models have different sample sizes. “satellite (1)” and “satellite (2)” models had identical timeframe/spatial resolution (ie, same subjects). Each model was applied to the four birth outcomes separately. This approach allows evaluation of the association between exposure method and the health effects for the same study population. In addition, we can evaluate how inclusion of subjects with exposure estimates for one exposure method but not another modifies effect estimates.

We used logistic regression for binary outcomes (term LBW, SGA, preterm birth) and linear regression for the continuous outcome birth weight. We controlled for the following variables: mother’s age (<20, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–40, or ≥40 years); marital status (married or not married); mother’s education (<12, 12, 13–15, or ≥16 years); mother’s race/ethnicity (white/non-Hispanic, black/non-Hispanic, Asian/non-Hispanic, Hispanic/other-Hispanic, other/non-Hispanic, or unknown ethnicity); prenatal care (Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index45: unknown/missing, inadequate, intermediate, adequate [basic or intensive]); smoking (none, 1–9, 10–20, or >20 cigarettes per day); type of birth (vaginal/vaginal after cesarean birth vs. cesarean); parity (0, 1, 2, or ≥3 previous live births); season of conception (winter, spring, summer, or fall); medical risk factors (0 or ≥1 factors, eg, anemia); medical risk caused by previous preterm birth or SGA (yes or no); baby’s sex (boy or girl); and gestational age (continuous). All models controlled for year of conception, trimester-specific apparent temperature, and state of residence (Connecticut or Massachusetts). We also did a sensitivity analysis by using mean instead of apparent temperature. For each outcome, we evaluated the effects of overall gestational exposure and of first-, second-, and third-trimester exposure. For trimester models, we included residuals from regressing exposure estimates from the trimester of interest against other trimesters to control for correlation in exposures among trimesters, similar to methods used previously.9

Back to Top | Article Outline


LBW was observed in 2% of all term births (n = 628,131), with overall mean birth weight of 3,449 g (standard deviation 472 g). Ten percent (n = 662,921) of infants were SGA and 6% (n = 656,769) were preterm (Table 1). The sample size for preterm births reflected our exclusion of all births occurring 37 weeks before 31 December 2006 (end of study period). This exclusion rule was necessary to ensure that all births in 2006 had an equal chance of being counted as a preterm birth. For SGA, we included only births with gestational age 22 to 44 weeks, which resulted in different sample sizes for SGA and LBW. Descriptive statistics on other covariates were based on all eligible births (n = 662,921; Table 1). Mothers were mainly white with non-Hispanic ethnicity (68%), educated (41% with ≥16 years education), and married (70%). For a majority of births, prenatal care was considered adequate (82%), and the method of delivery was vaginal or vaginal after cesarean (73%).



Satellite PM2.5 exposures were estimated for 367 10 × 10 km grid cells, whereas there were 98 EPA-Air Quality System monitors providing point measurements. Monitoring sites were located within Connecticut or Massachusetts or within 50 km of their borders. Mean PM2.5 exposure during the entire pregnancy based on each method of exposure assessment (monitor, satellite [1], and satellite [2]) was similar—11.9, 11.2, and 11.4 μg/m3, respectively, but differed in other statistical properties (Table 2). Satellite-based exposure estimates tended to have smaller standard deviations, narrower ranges, and smaller interquartile ranges (IQRs). These differences were also apparent in trimester-level estimates, where confidence intervals (CIs) for the third trimester were wider than for other trimesters (Table 2). These wider intervals may be due to variable lengths of exposure in births that reached the third trimester. For all models, we reported results using an increment of 2.41 μg/m3 (IQR of exposure during gestation using monitor-based data), to make effect estimates comparable across analyses.



Gestational PM2.5 exposure was associated somewhat differently with the various birth outcomes (Table 3). Term LBW and SGA were generally associated with PM2.5 across all exposure methods although more strongly with satellite data, and especially satellite (2) data. PM2.5 exposures were linked with increased risk of term LBW only in the first trimester, whereas SGA was linked with exposures in all trimesters (although more weakly) (Table 4). A consistent gradient in risk by exposure method was observed in the models across most trimesters (Table 3). Risk of term LBW per IQR increase in PM2.5 was 1% (95% CI = −0.02 to 4), 6% (−0.03 to 16), and 8% (1–16), using monitor, satellite (1), and satellite (2) methods, respectively. The change in birth weight was negatively associated with PM2.5 exposure, regardless of window of exposure. The change in birth weight per IQR increase in PM2.5 was −6 g (95% CI = −8 to −5) using the monitor method and about three times that using either satellite method. The risk of SGA when using satellite methods was 6% (3 to 10) for satellite (1) and 8% (4–11) for satellite (2). These risk values are about twice that using the monitor method (3% [1–4]). For preterm birth, risks were marginally higher risk for some exposure methods, but with no clear excess either overall or by trimester. Our results were not sensitive to using mean instead of apparent temperature (results not shown). Models with satellite-based exposure estimates tended to have much wider CIs (Table 3).





Back to Top | Article Outline


Air pollution has previously been associated with birth outcomes using various exposure methods.6,8 We assessed whether associations between PM2.5 and birth outcomes were affected by use of monitor or satellite exposure methods. As satellite data become more readily available, their application for exposure assessment will likely become more common, and studies are needed to evaluate this alternative exposure method.

We are aware of three health studies that have used modeled satellite-based PM2.5 estimates.26,46,47 One of these studies, which looked at acute myocardial infarctions,46 used the same exposure model as ours.48 In the birth outcomes study,25 the authors used land-use and traffic density data and satellite data to model PM2.5 in Western Massachusetts. They used birth certificate data (2000–2008) and estimated risk of preterm birth and change in birth weight by using inclusion criteria similar to ours: their results for change in birth weight are comparable with those of ours. In addition, we looked at a different and wider geographic region, compared satellite- and monitor-based exposures in our model, and looked at a wider range of birth outcomes (including SGA and LBW). Unlike that earlier study, we did not find an association between PM2.5 and preterm birth. However, our results are not directly comparable with that study because of differences in location, time period, modeling of satellite-based exposure estimates, and model covariates. The previous study also did not compare results for risk estimates using monitors; that was done in another study47 although not for birth outcomes. Our estimates of risk (for term LBW and SGA) and change in birth weight are comparable with previous studies using monitor-based exposures.9,22,24,27,49

The magnitude of the association between PM2.5 and birth outcomes tended to be higher when using the satellite (2) exposure method (Table 3). This could relate to greater variability in PM2.5 measurements based on monitors rather than satellite methods. Greater variability may attenuate associations toward the null due to exposure misclassification. In other words, areas with very high or low PM2.5 estimates could influence the fitting of the model to the data and thus affect risk estimates, more than if PM2.5 estimates were less spatially varied. Therefore, future research is needed on appropriate characterization of spatial heterogeneity for PM2.5. This is especially true for differentiation of risk estimates based on various exposure methods (eg, satellite, land-use regression models).

Satellite data can overcome some disadvantages of using monitor data for exposure assessment in health studies. Analysis of monitor data may lead to exposure misclassification and selection bias because sites are typically located for regulatory rather than research purposes. Monitors may not provide full coverage or represent population-based exposure.50 Also, US populations at varying distances from monitors differ in other ways.51,52 For example, populations living in census tracts with a monitor tended to be characterized by having more non-Hispanic blacks, lower education, lower income, greater unemployment, and higher poverty.52 Another limitation of monitor data is that monitors may be discontinued or temporarily out of operation (eg, under maintenance). For many pollutants (eg, PM2.5, ozone), measures are not taken daily, which limits temporal coverage.

In contrast, satellite data provide near-complete spatial coverage of daily pollutant levels. Even so, uncertainty exists in the unprocessed satellite data and its calibration to observed data. Also, uncertainty may be introduced by the statistical procedure used to estimate pollutant levels for days when satellite data are missing due to cloud cover. Satellite data provide near-complete spatial coverage because exposure estimates are not possible to calculate for grid cells containing a substantial fraction of water (eg, lakes and coastal regions).53 Also, coastal populations may have different demographic compositions (eg, socioeconomic status) than populations living inland. A potential solution would be to use satellite data with finer spatial resolution. Another important issue for studies of air pollution and birth outcomes is the relevant gestational window of exposure. Although time-series analyses controlling for season of conception have been used to identify the relevant exposure window, the daily time scale of the satellite data is especially suited for such analyses.

Satellite methods provide a novel way to estimate health risks associated with air pollution in rural areas with few monitors. Also, it may be possible to investigate rural–urban differences in risk estimates. Rural populations differ from urban populations in terms of health and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. US studies have suggested that premature mortality, obesity, and cardiovascular disease were higher in rural areas than in urban or semi-urban areas, and that these disparities were related to urban–rural differences in socioeconomic and demographic characteristics.54,55 The air pollutant mixture in rural areas may differ from urban areas (eg, due to industry type, traffic patterns). Therefore, it is important to include rural populations in health effects studies. Traditional methods of assessing exposure focus more heavily on urban populations, excluding these rural populations. The use of satellite methods may allow study of broader scientific questions (ie, whether effect estimates differ by rural vs. urban populations), in addition to increasing sample size through higher temporal and spatial coverage.

Several biologic mechanisms may be responsible for the association between air pollution exposure and adverse birth outcomes. Preterm birth may occur because of environmental disruptors of the endocrine systems that control parturition,56 activation of molecular and cellular pathways involved in uterine contraction and quiescence through toxicant-induced inflammation response,12 and interaction of external compounds with biochemical pathways responsible for the breakdown of the cervical matrix.56 Birth weight–related outcomes (birth weight and term LBW and SGA) associated with PM2.5 exposure may be due to mechanisms similar to those previously found for the effects of maternal smoking on fetal growth and development. Such mechanisms may include oxidative stress, vascular resistance in the placenta, and fetal exposure to toxic chemicals.57,58 Even though exposure to maternal smoking may be associated with a greater decrease in birth weight than PM2.5 exposure (150–300 g58 vs. 19 g in our study under the satellite (2) method), the following should be kept in mind. First, the population for maternal smoking exposure is much smaller than for PM2.5 exposure. Second, it is much more difficult for individuals to avoid PM2.5 exposure than maternal smoking. Other potential mechanisms involving particulate matter exposure may include, (1) mitochondrial dysfunction (in the placenta) in response to PM10 exposure, which may affect nutrient transfer and growth of the placenta and, in turn, fetal growth and development,59 and (2) the production of reactive oxygen species as a detoxification response to maternal smoking or exposure to air pollution further increasing the probability of DNA damage during fetal development and growth. Ongoing animal and human studies, including epigenetic studies looking at gene–environment interactions, continue to improve our limited understanding of these and other biologic mechanisms for adverse birth outcomes.60–62

There were several limitations of our study. First, smoking habits, alcohol consumption, prenatal care, and maternal risk data on birth certificates are less reliable than from other data sources such as questionnaires and cohort data.63 Despite these data reliability issues, birth certificate data are frequently used in health effects studies of air pollution and birth outcomes because they provided reliable estimates of birth weight and date of birth, both of which are essential for evaluating several birth outcomes.8,9,22,26,64 Second, our data were limited in their spatial resolution. We excluded mothers living more than 50 km from monitors, which may have introduced exposure misclassification because of spatial heterogeneity of pollutants (ie, the 10 × 10 km resolution is a necessary limitation of satellite data rather than being selected as an appropriate scale at which to predict PM2.5 levels). Related to this, even though satellite data were calibrated to monitor data, grid cells where these monitors were located may be better predictors of PM2.5 levels than grid cells without monitors (eg, rural areas, suburbs). Finally, method of exposure assessment—monitor- or satellite-based— neither captures individual-level exposures nor identifies sources of air pollution. This drawback is common to most air pollution and health studies; possible solutions include using personal monitors for exposure assessment and simulation models (eg, regional air quality modeling) or source apportionment.

In summary, our study compares associations between PM2.5 exposure and birth outcomes, using a traditional data source for exposure assessment (land-based monitoring stations) and a new and emerging exposure method (satellite data that have been calibrated and modeled specifically for use in health effects studies). As satellite data continue to improve in their calibration, modeling, and spatial resolution, they will become increasingly useful in health effects studies. Future studies should consider the spatial resolution of satellite data in the context of the specific pollutant under investigation (eg, satellite data for some pollutants are available but at very large spatial resolution [100 km or more]), and should compare associations based on multiple sources of data for exposure assessment so that our results are robust and more useful for policy makers in environmental risk assessments, as each exposure method has its own strengths and challenges.

Back to Top | Article Outline


We thank Gavin Pereira for guidance on the statistical analyses and clarifying some concepts related to gestational exposure. We thank the State of Connecticut and State of Massachusetts for providing the birth certificate data. This study was approved by the Connecticut DPH HIC and the Massachusetts DPH HIC.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Dockery DW, Pope CA 3rd, Xu X, et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1753–1759
2. Pope CA 3rd, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, et al. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA. 2002;287:1132–1141
3. Samet JM, Dominici F, Curriero FC, Coursac I, Zeger SL. Fine particulate air pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities, 1987–1994. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1742–1749
4. Pelucchi C, Negri E, Gallus S, Boffetta P, Tramacere I, La Vecchia C. Long-term particulate matter exposure and mortality: a review of European epidemiological studies. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:453
5. Chen H, Goldberg MS, Villeneuve PJ. A systematic review of the relation between long-term exposure to ambient air pollution and chronic diseases. Rev Environ Health. 2008;23:243–297
6. Shah PS, Balkhair TKnowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW births. . Air pollution and birth outcomes: a systematic review. Environ Int. 2011;37:498–516
7. Stieb DM, Chen L, Eshoul M, Judek S. Ambient air pollution, birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res. 2012;117:100–111
8. Maisonet M, Correa A, Misra D, Jaakkola JJ. A review of the literature on the effects of ambient air pollution on fetal growth. Environ Res. 2004;95:106–115
9. Bell ML, Ebisu K, Belanger K. Ambient air pollution and low birth weight in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Environ Health Perspect. 2007;115:1118–1124
10. Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. 2007 Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
11. Russell RB, Green NS, Steiner CA, et al. Cost of hospitalization for preterm and low birth weight infants in the United States. Pediatrics. 2007;120:e1–e9
12. van den Hooven EH, de Kluizenaar Y, Pierik FH, et al. Chronic air pollution exposure during pregnancy and maternal and fetal C-reactive protein levels: the Generation R Study. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:746–751
13. Lee PC, Talbott EO, Roberts JM, Catov JM, Sharma RK, Ritz B. Particulate air pollution exposure and C-reactive protein during early pregnancy. Epidemiology. 2011;22:524–531
14. Hansen CA, Barnett AG, Pritchard G. The effect of ambient air pollution during early pregnancy on fetal ultrasonic measurements during mid-pregnancy. Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116:362–369
15. McGowan JE, Alderdice FA, Holmes VA, Johnston L. Early childhood development of late-preterm infants: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2011;127:1111–1124
16. Pallotto EK, Kilbride HW. Perinatal outcome and later implications of intrauterine growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:257–269
17. Moster D, Lie RT, Markestad T. Long-term medical and social consequences of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:262–273
18. Walter EC, Ehlenbach WJ, Hotchkin DL, Chien JW, Koepsell TD. Low birth weight and respiratory disease in adulthood: a population-based case-control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180:176–180
19. Schwartz J. Air pollution and children’s health. Pediatrics. 2004;113(4 suppl):1037–1043
20. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Dadvand P, Grellier J, Martinez D, Vrijheid M. Environmental risk factors of pregnancy outcomes: a summary of recent meta-analyses of epidemiological studies. Environ Health. 2013;12:6
21. Dadvand P, Parker J, Bell ML, et al. Maternal exposure to particulate air pollution and fetal growth: a multi-country evaluation of effect and heterogeneity. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:267–373
22. Ghosh JK, Wilhelm M, Su J, et al. Assessing the influence of traffic-related air pollution on risk of term low birth weight on the basis of land-use-based regression models and measures of air toxics. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:1262–1274
23. Wilhelm M, Ghosh JK, Su J, Cockburn M, Jerrett M, Ritz B. Traffic-related air toxics and term low birth weight in Los Angeles County, California. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:132–138
24. Bell ML, Belanger K, Ebisu K, et al. Prenatal exposure to fine particulate matter and birth weight: variations by particulate constituents and sources. Epidemiology. 2010;21:884–891
25. Parker JD, Woodruff TJ, Basu R, Schoendorf KC. Air pollution and birth weight among term infants in California. Pediatrics. 2005;115:121–128
26. Kloog I, Melly SJ, Ridgway WL, Coull BA, Schwartz J. Using new satellite based exposure methods to study the association between pregnancy PM2.5 exposure, premature birth and birth weight in Massachusetts. Environ Health. 2012;11:40
27. Rich DQ, Demissie K, Lu SE, Kamat L, Wartenberg D, Rhoads GG. Ambient air pollutant concentrations during pregnancy and the risk of fetal growth restriction. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63:488–496
28. Madsen C, Gehring U, Walker SE, et al. Ambient air pollution exposure, residential mobility and term birth weight in Oslo, Norway. Environ Res. 2010;110:363–371
29. Morello-Frosch R, Jesdale BM, Sadd JL, Pastor M. Ambient air pollution exposure and full-term birth weight in California. Environ Health. 2010;9:44
30. Basu R, Woodruff TJ, Parker JD, Saulnier L, Schoendorf KC. Comparing exposure metrics in the relationship between PM2.5 and birth weight in California. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2004;14:391–396
31. Gehring U, Wijga AH, Fischer P, et al. Traffic-related air pollution, preterm birth and term birth weight in the PIAMA birth cohort study. Environ Res. 2011;111:125–135
32. Zou B, Wilson JG, Zhan FB, Zeng Y. Air pollution exposure assessment methods utilized in epidemiological studies. J Environ Monit. 2009;11:475–490
33. Gehring U, van Eijsden M, Dijkema MB, van der Wal MF, Fischer P, Brunekreef B. Traffic-related air pollution and pregnancy outcomes in the Dutch ABCD birth cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2011;68:36–43
34. Nethery E, Teschke K, Brauer M. Predicting personal exposure of pregnant women to traffic-related air pollutants. Sci Total Environ. 2008;395:11–22
35. Wilhelm M, Ghosh JK, Su J, Cockburn M, Jerrett M, Ritz B. Traffic-related air toxics and preterm birth: a population-based case-control study in Los Angeles County, California. Environ Health. 2011;10:89
36. Chang HH, Reich BJ, Miranda ML. Time-to-event analysis of fine particle air pollution and preterm birth: results from North Carolina, 2001–2005. Am J Epidemiol. 2012;175:91–98
37. Lee HJ, Coull BA, Bell ML, Koutrakis P. Use of satellite-based aerosol optical depth and spatial clustering to predict ambient PM2.5 concentrations. Environ Res. 2012;118:8–15
38. Lee HJ, Liu Y, Coull BA, Schwartz J, Koutrakis P. A novel calibration approach of MODIS AOD data to predict PM2.5 concentrations. Atmos Chem Phys. 2011;11:7991–8002
39. Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:163–168
40. Oken E, Kleinman KP, Rich-Edwards J, Gillman MW. A nearly continuous measure of birth weight for gestational age using a United States national reference. BMC Pediatr. 2003;3:6
41. National Climatic Data Center. Land-based Data: Global Summary of Day. 2012
42. Alston EJ, Sokolik IN, Doddridge BG. Investigation into the use of satellite data in aiding characterization of particulate air quality in the Atlanta, Georgia metropolitan area. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2011;61:211–225
43. Zhang H, Hoff RM, Engel-Cox JA. The relation between Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aerosol optical depth and PM2.5 over the United States: a geographical comparison by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regions. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2009;59:1358–1369
44. Wu J Cluster Analysis and K-means Clustering: An Introduction. Advances in K-means Clustering. 2012 Berlin, Heidelberg Springer Theses Springer :1–16
45. Kotelchuck M. The Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index: its US distribution and association with low birthweight. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1486–1489
46. Madrigano J, Kloog I, Goldberg R, Coull BA, Mittleman MA, Schwartz J. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 and incidence of acute myocardial infarction. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:192–196
47. Wang Z, Liu Y, Hu M, et al. Acute health impacts of airborne particles estimated from satellite remote sensing. Environ Int. 2013;51:150–159
48. Kloog I, Koutrakis P, Coull BA, Lee HJ, Schwartz J. Assessing temporally and spatially resolved PM2.5 exposures for epidemiological studies using satellite aerosol optical depth measurements. Atmos Environ. 2011;45:6267–6275
49. Ritz B, Wilhelm M, Hoggatt KJ, Ghosh JK. Ambient air pollution and preterm birth in the environment and pregnancy outcomes study at the University of California, Los Angeles. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;166:1045–1052
50. Goswami E, Larson T, Lumley T, Liu LJ. Spatial characteristics of fine particulate matter: identifying representative monitoring locations in Seattle, Washington. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2002;52:324–333
51. Bravo MA, Bell ML. Spatial heterogeneity of PM10 and O3 in São Paulo, Brazil, and implications for human health studies. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2011;61:69–77
52. Bell ML, Ebisu K. Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne particulate matter components in the United States. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:1699–1704
53. Levy RC, Remer LA, Tanre D, Mattoo S, Kaufman YJ. Algorithm for remote sensing of troposperic aerosol over dark targets from MODIS: Collections 005 and 051: Revision 2; Feb 2009; 2009
54. Eberhardt MS, Pamuk ER. The importance of place of residence: examining health in rural and nonrural areas. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:1682–1686
55. National Center for Health Statistics (US). Health, United States, 2001: With Urban and Rural Health Chartbook. DHHS Publication. 2001 Hyattsville, MD U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, and Prevention For Sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O
56. The Role of Environmental Hazards in Premature Birth: Workshop Summary. 2003 The National Academies Press
57. Martin TR, Bracken MB. Association of low birth weight with passive smoke exposure in pregnancy. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;124:633–642
58. DiFranza JR, Aligne CA, Weitzman M. Prenatal and postnatal environmental tobacco smoke exposure and children’s health. Pediatrics. 2004;113(4 suppl):1007–1015
59. Janssen BG, Munters E, Pieters N, et al. Placental mitochondrial DNA content and particulate air pollution during in utero life. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:1346–1352
60. Janssen BG, Godderis L, Pieters N, et al. Placental DNA hypomethylation in association with particulate air pollution in early life. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2013;10:22
61. Joubert BR, Håberg SE, Nilsen RM, et al. 450K epigenome-wide scan identifies differential DNA methylation in newborns related to maternal smoking during pregnancy. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:1425–1431
62. Wilhelm-Benartzi CS, Houseman EA, Maccani MA, et al. In utero exposures, infant growth, and DNA methylation of repetitive elements and developmentally related genes in human placenta. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:296–302
63. Dietz PM, Adams MM, Kendrick JS, Mathis MP. Completeness of ascertainment of prenatal smoking using birth certificates and confidential questionnaires: variations by maternal attributes and infant birth weight. PRAMS Working Group. Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;148:1048–1054
64. Ritz B, Wilhelm M, Zhao Y. Air pollution and infant death in southern California, 1989–2000. Pediatrics. 2006;118:493–502
© 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc