ARTICLE IN PRESS

Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25

www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

Time–space modeling of journey-time exposure to

traffic-related air pollution using GIS
John Gulliver and David J. Briggs
Small Area Health Statistics Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College London, London W2 1PG, UK
Received 10 September 2003; received in revised form 5 April 2004; accepted 4 May 2004
Available online 17 June 2004

Abstract

Journey-time exposures represent an important, though as yet little-studied, component of human exposure to traffic-related air
pollution, potentially with important health effects. Methods for assessing journey-time exposures, either as part of epidemiological
studies or for policy assessment, are, however, poorly developed. This paper describes the development and testing of a GIS-based
system for modeling human journey-time exposures to traffic-related air pollution: STEMS (Space–Time Exposure Modeling
System). The model integrates data on source activity, pollutant dispersion, and travel behavior to derive individual- or group-level
exposure measures to atmospheric pollution. The model, which is designed to simulate exposures of people as they move through a
changing air pollution field, was developed, validated, and trialed in Northampton, UK. The system currently uses ArcInfo to
couple four separate submodels: a source activity/emission model (SATURN), a proprietary atmospheric dispersion model (ADMS-
Urban), an empirically derived background air pollution model, and a purposely designed time–activity-based exposure model
(TOTEM). This paper describes the structure of the modeling system; presents results of field calibration, validation, and sensitivity
analysis; and illustrates the use of the model to analyze journey-time exposures of schoolchildren.
r 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction USA, the National Human Activity Pattern Survey

Although most people spend a relatively small
amount of their time traveling, journey-time exposures
make up a disproportionately large proportion of total
personal exposures to ambient (and especially traffic-
related) air pollution. As a consequence, they have
potentially important implications for health.
Reliable data on travel behavior are sparse, but over
much of the western world at least the available statistics
are remarkably consistent. In the UK, for example, the
UK2000 time use survey (National Statistics, 2003)
reported an average of about 1.25 h per day traveling
(slightly higher at weekends), while a detailed time–
activity survey in Northampton (Briggs et al., 2003) gave
average daily traveling times of 1.2 h for adults, 1.3 h for
college students, and 1.0 h for schoolchildren. In the
Corresponding author. Fax: +44-20-7594-3193.
E-mail address: j.gulliver@imperial.ac.uk (J. Gulliver).
(NHAPS) reported an average of 1.3 h per day spent ‘‘in
a vehicle’’ (Klepeis et al., 2001). In Germany, average
daily traveling times are estimated at 1.7 h for adults and
1.4 h for children (Seifert et al., 2000). There is also some
evidence that time spent traveling has increased in recent
years. Using data from the BBC time–activity survey,
conducted in 1976, for example, Francis (1986) reported
average traveling times of 1.0 h/day for the population
as a whole in the UK, but with a marked gender
difference (average of 0.5 h for females; 1.5 h for males).
By comparison with the UK2000 time use survey, this
suggests an increase of ca. 25% in time spent traveling
since the mid-1970s (though care is inevitably needed
because of differences in survey design).
By their very nature, many of these journeys take
place at times of relatively high air pollution—during
periods of peak traffic flow. In the UK, for example,
12% of adults were found to be traveling at 0800 and
1600 h, compared to 9% at 1200, 7% at 2000, and 2% at

0013-9351/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envres.2004.05.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
2400 h (National Statistics, 2003). For schoolchildren,
travel times necessarily focus in the periods immediately
prior to and after the school day; in Northampton, some
30% of children were traveling during the hours
0800–0900 and 1600–1700, compared to 5–10% between
the hours of 1700 and 2200 and almost none for the rest
of the day (Briggs et al., 2003). Most journeys also take
place in relatively polluted microenvironments, either
within road vehicles or by cycle or foot close to busy
streets. The potential for exposure to traffic-related
pollution is therefore high (Jo and Choi, 1996; Ott et al.,
1994; Dor et al., 1995; Leung and Harrison, 1999; van
Wijnen et al., 1995).
The implications of these journey-time exposures for
human health are clearly considerable. Many recent
studies have demonstrated associations between traffic-
related air pollution and adverse effects of exposure to
traffic-related air pollution in a wide variety of situa-
tions. Children living close to busy main roads, for
example, have variously been shown to have reduced
lung function (Brunekreef et al., 1997), increased risk of
wheeze (Venn et al., 2001), and increased rates of
hospitalization for asthma (Livingstone et al., 1996;
English et al., 1999). In a large Dutch cohort study,
Hoek et al. (2002) reported increased risk of cardiopul-
monary mortality among people living near a main
road. More generally, a number of time-series studies
have shown increased risks of acute respiratory and
cardiovascular illness under conditions of increased
short-term exposures to particulate pollution (Schwartz,
1999; Metzger et al., 2004). In several cases, extremely
short timescales of response have been detected. Using a
case-crossover design, for example, Peters et al. (2001)
found elevated risks of myocardial infarction associated
with raised PM2.5 concentrations both concurrently and
during the previous 24 h. Peters et al. (1999) report
increased heart rate associated with an air pollution
episode characterized by increased total suspended
particulate, CO and SO2 concentrations, while Pope et
al. (1999) found increases in both mean heart rate and
several different measures of heart rate variability
during a high-particulate pollution episode. Chamber
studies have also demonstrated health effects from
short-term exposures (over periods of an hour or less)
to particulate air pollution (American Thoracic Society,
1996). Though not derived solely from road traffic, a
large proportion of fine particles (and the other
pollutants implicated in these associations) typically
come from transport sources. These studies thus imply
that even very short periods of exposure to traffic-
related pollution may have detectable health conse-
quences among vulnerable populations.
Few studies have explicitly examined the effects of
journey-time exposures, and those that have done so
have tended to focus on occupationally exposed groups
such as traffic police (Atimtay et al., 2000; Bolognesi et
11
al., 1997; Chandrasekaran et al., 1996) or tunnel and
turnpike workers (Tollerud et al., 1983). Svartengren et
al. (2000), however, showed increased risks of early
asthmatic response among asthmatics traveling through
road tunnels in Stockholm. As a major—and perhaps
the most variable—contributor to total exposure, it may
thus be expected that journey-time exposure plays a
significant part in the associations between air pollution
and health that have been reported.
In the light of these potential health risks, there is
clearly a need for improved information on levels of
journey-time exposure as a basis for both epidemiolo-
gical studies and health risk assessment. This same
information is also needed to support air pollution
policy and traffic management. In recognition of its
importance in relation to urban air pollution, for
example, policies are increasingly being focused on
controls on road traffic (e.g., by road pricing, exclusion
of vehicles from city centers). In many cases, also, local
authorities are being given greater responsibility to
identify air pollution hot spots and take action necessary
to ensure that air quality standards and targets are met.
Effective development and implementation of these
measures requires reliable information on their potential
effects on air pollution and human exposure. Given that
some of the main effects of any intervention are likely to
be experienced during traveling, this information needs
to include assessment of journey-time exposures.
Modeling journey-time exposures to traffic-related
pollution nevertheless poses severe challenges, for the
exposure process is both spatially complex and tempo-
rally dynamic. Most exposure models to date have
essentially been compartment models, which derive
estimates of exposure from the integration of data on
time spent in any microenvironment and the estimated
pollutant concentration of that environment (e.g., Ott,
1983–1984; Noy et al., 1986; Law et al., 1997;
Dimitroulopoulou et al., 2001). As such, they take little
direct account of journey-time exposures and model
these only in terms of average ambient concentrations
(adjusted if appropriate by travel mode). The advent of
GIS provides the potential to make these models more
explicitly spatial, and several systems have been devel-
oped for modeling exposures in stationary microenvir-
onments (e.g., residence, place of work) (Clench-Aas et
al., 1999; Jensen, 1998). As yet, however, little attempt
has been made to develop more dynamic models that
can simulate patterns of exposure as people move
through the changing pollution field. This paper reports
on work carried out to develop a GIS-based dynamic
exposure model that can model journey-time exposures
(as well as exposures in stationary environments)—
STEMS (Space–Time Exposure Modeling System). It
describes the methodology developed for PM10, presents
results from the field testing and validation of the model,
and summarizes results of sensitivity analyses.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
2. Structure and development of STEMS
The general structure of STEMS and the information
used to develop and validate the model are illustrated in
Fig. 1. As this shows, the approach involves the linkage
within a GIS (ArcInfo/ArcView) of four main sub-
models: a traffic model, an air pollution dispersion
model, a ‘‘background’’ pollution model, and a time–-
activity-based exposure model. Map, graphical, and
statistical outputs can be derived at each point in the
modeling—for example, to show traffic patterns, pollu-
tant concentrations, time–activity patterns, and expo-
sure profiles. The general structure shown in Fig. 1 can,
in principle, be populated with different submodels: in
this study, however, the SATURN vehicle assignment
(van Vliet, 1982) model was used to model traffic flows;
ADMS-Urban (CERC, 1999) was used to model
pollutant dispersion; an empirical model (BACKGA-
MON) was generated to model background pollutant
concentrations; and a purposely designed model
(TOTEM) was used to simulate time–activity patterns
and exposures. Modeling can also be undertaken for a
wide range of pollutants, including CO, NOx, and
particulates.
The emphasis in this paper is on particulates. The
question of which particle size category should be the
focus of attention has been the subject of considerable
debate. Although several studies have suggested that
finer particulate fractions (e.g., PM2.5, ultrafine or
DATA INPUTS
Road
network
Origin-
Destination
matrices
Meteorology
Wind speed Dispersion model
Wind direction (ADMS)
Cloud cover
Rural Background
monitoring modelling
Sulphate (BACKGAMON)
Hourly pollution map
Time activity
Place of
residence Time-
activity patterns
Fig. 1. The structure of STEMS.
nanoparticles) are those of greatest concern (Schwartz
and Neas, 2000; Seaton et al., 1995), others have failed
to implicate specific size fractions (Harrison and Yin,
2000; Lipfert et al., 2000). Government policy in the UK
is also currently still framed in terms of PM10, with the
consequence that this is the pollutant for which most
monitoring is carried out and that for which data were
available in the study area. The dispersion model used
(ADMS-Urban) has also not yet been fully validated for
PM2.5 or other fractions. For these reasons, the focus
here is on PM10. Monitoring of personal exposures to
PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 both in-car and while walking
was, however, undertaken as part of this study, and the
results show close correlations between exposures to the
different fractions (Gulliver and Briggs, 2004). With
suitable validation, therefore, the approach could
equally well be applied to other particle fractions. It
might also be noted that in many ways modeling
particulate pollutants poses more severe challenges than
modeling gaseous pollutants, due to the effects of
secondary particulate formation, the relatively long
residence times, and the complex depositional processes
involved. Testing for particulates is thus likely to
provide a comparatively rigorous assessment of the
model; equivalent or better performance may be
expected for other pollutants.
Modeling was informed and calibrated both by data
derived from previous, published research and by
field monitoring of traffic flows, ambient pollutant
STEMS VALIDATION /
CALIBRATION
Traffic counts
Traffic model Turning
(SATURN) movement
surveys
Emissions
Regression Fixed site
modelling monitoring
Exposure model Personal
(TOTEM) monitoring
Exposure profile
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
concentrations, time–activity patterns, and personal and
microenvironmental monitoring. Field studies and
model development were undertaken in the ‘‘northern
corridor’’ of Northampton, UK. Northampton is a
provincial town, lying about 80 km north-northeast of
London, and close to the M1 motorway. The total
population is about 180,000, and the main industries
are retailing, finance, and logistics. The study area
covered about 8 km2, stretching along one of the main
commuter routes (the A508) to the north of the town
center (Fig. 2).
As a basis for modeling, a GIS was initially built for
the study area, in ArcInfo and ArcView. The following
data sets were obtained and integrated on a common,
1:10,000 base map:

road network, derived from 1:10,000 scale Cities
Revealed aerial photography (accuracy 0.5 m);

walkways (pavement centerlines and off-road paths),
derived from Cities Revealed aerial photography
(accuracy 0.5 m);

altitude, from the OS Land-form Panorama digital
terrain model (vertical resolution, 0.5 m; spatial
resolution, 50 m);

land cover (including residential land, commercial
land, industry, open space), based on an interpreta-
tion of 1:10,000 scale Cities Revealed digital aerial
photography (accuracy 0.5 m);

hourly traffic flows and composition, by road
segment, derived from the traffic modeling (see
below).
Fig. 2. The study area showing modeled daily traffic flows.
13
3. Traffic modeling (SATURN)
The SATURN model is a widely used and well-tested
model, which predicts traffic flows, speed, queuing
times, and emissions for road segments (van Vliet,
1982). The model is calibrated for a series of locations
using traffic counts and data on turning movements and
flows and traffic behavior on each road segment
imputed on the basis of flow dynamic equations.
Calibration of the SATURN model was carried out
using data on traffic flows obtained from previous
surveys undertaken by the local authority or its
contractors, covering the whole of Northampton,
together with purpose-designed traffic counts, using
pneumatic pressure loops, and manual surveys of
turning movements and link times in the study area, in
1997. To provide a broader context for the analysis,
modeling was carried out for two areas: the core study
area, where detailed data were derived for a relatively
fine segmentation of the roads (Fig. 2), and the whole of
Northampton, for which only the most important road
links were modeled. Roads not included in the two
networks were considered to have flows too small
significantly to affect pollution levels and exposures
and were assigned a zero traffic flow. In each case,
modeling was carried out for each road segment under
current flow conditions. The results obtained included
mean traffic speed, queuing time, queue length, traffic
composition, and PM10 emissions.
To restrict the amount of modeling necessary, and in
recognition of the uncertainties inherent in the traffic

14
4000
3500
Traffic flow (vehicles/hour)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Fig. 3. Monitored and modelled traffic flows (main through-route) and derived hourly weighting factors.
data, SATURN modeling was carried out to produce
average flow data both for six ‘‘traffic periods’’
(representing periods of relatively uniform flow condi-
tions) within each day and for the 24 h average flow.
Results of all modeling were exported into the GIS and
attached to the base road network.
The SATURN model has been extensively validated
since its initial development (van Vliet, 1982) and is
now widely used as a basis for urban traffic planning
both in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Detailed
validation of the model as part of this study
was therefore not considered necessary. To provide
specific validation, and also to derive hourly estimates of
traffic flows, however, a further series of traffic counts
was made in the study area, using pneumatic pressure
loops at a site close to the fixed-site air pollution
monitor, on the major through road in the center of the
study area (Fig. 2), during June and September 1999
(670 h).
Comparison of these measured flows with those
derived from SATURN showed generally good agree-
ment, though with a tendency for the model to
overestimate traffic volumes during the night and
morning (Fig. 3). The results also showed some
variation from hour-to-hour within each of the modeled
traffic periods. To provide hourly flows on each road
link, therefore, the count data from the main through-
route in the study area were used to redistribute the
modeled daily flows from SATURN, as follows:
Vi
F ij ¼ S j P24 ; ð1Þ
i¼1 V i
where Fij is the derived traffic flow in hour i on road link
j, Sj is the modeled daily traffic flow in vehicles per day
(from SATURN) on road link j, and Vi is the monitored
vehicle count for hour i.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
2.00
SATURN modelled
Monitored 1.80
Weighting factor 1.60
1.40
Weighting factor
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
Hour
4. Pollution modeling and mapping
While local road traffic may account for a large
proportion of the air pollution in any urban area, it is
not the only source of relevance. Industrial and domestic
sources may also be important, and a substantial
proportion of atmospheric pollution is of far-traveled
origin or a product of secondary reactions during
dispersion. The proportions of these various compo-
nents vary considerably, depending on the pollutant of
interest. For CO, for example, the large majority may
usually be considered to be local and traffic-related,
since road traffic typically accounts for about 90% of
urban CO concentrations (Quality of Urban Air Review
Group, 1996). For NOx, also, local traffic-related
sources may predominate. For particulates, however,
nontraffic, secondary, and nonlocal sources may all be
substantial. Nationally, road traffic accounts for only
about 20% of total particulate emissions (DEFRA,
2004). Where source apportionment has been carried
out, secondary and far-traveled particles—albeit them-
selves partly derived from traffic sources—typically
make up two-thirds or more of monitored concentra-
tions (Quality of Urban Air Review Group, 1996;
Monn, 2000). In this case, even if the interest is
primarily on the local traffic-related component, it is
important to take account of these other contributions,
both to set the results in context and to enable validation
of the modeling (since monitoring provides data only on
the total concentration and does not readily discriminate
between the various source contributions). As a result,
two methods of exposure modeling are combined in
STEMS. A proprietary dispersion model (ADMS-
Urban) is used to simulate the local, traffic-related
pollutants; an empirically derived model is also used to
estimate the far-traveled and secondary contributions to
particulate concentrations.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
4.1. Local traffic-related sources (ADMS-Urban)
Local traffic-related contributions are modeled using
Version 1.53 of the ADMS-Urban model in this study,
though other line- or point-source emission models
could be used where appropriate. ADMS (Atmospheric
Dispersion Modeling System) is a semi-Gaussian (non-
Gaussian in the vertical profile in convective conditions)
dispersion model, derived from the Design Manual for
Roads and Bridges (DMRB) model previously devel-
oped for use in highway planning (Department of
Transport, 1994). Improvements include the inclusion of
more advanced methods for modeling the near-surface
layer and more powerful techniques for parameterizing
meteorological conditions (CERC, 1999). The model is
designed to run in conjunction with the ArcView GIS
and includes an interpolation package for generating
high-resolution maps of pollutant surfaces. It can be
used to model line, point, and area sources, for a range
of pollutants including PM10 (models are not yet
available for finer particulate fractions), for a grid of
up to 32  32 receptor points simultaneously. (More
recent releases of the model greatly relax this limitation
on the number of receptors.) The ‘‘intelligent gridding’’
option allows output to be extended to several thousand
data points, depending on the complexity of the
pollution surface.
In this study, only the line option was used, because
local industrial sources are considered to be negligible.
For line sources, input data requirements include road
network geometry, traffic flows and composition, wind
speed and wind direction, air temperature (optional)
plus one of the following: the reciprocal of the
Monin–Obukhov length; the surface sensible heat flux;
or cloud cover, time of day, and time of year. For
modeling of baseline conditions (i.e., for development of
STEMS), wind speed, wind direction, and air tempera-
ture were obtained from a local weather station located
within the center of the study area. Cloud cover was
used rather than the Monin–Obukhov length, since it
was not possible locally to collect the data required for
the calculation of Monin–Obukhov length. Cloud cover
was obtained from the nearest Meteorological Site
(Wittering, Cambridgeshire), some 60 km to the east.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to compare the
effects of using data gathered both within the study area
and from the Meteorological Site at Wittering (see
below).
For modeling of baseline conditions, ADMS was run
without the terrain option (i.e., for a supposedly flat
surface). Based on building height measurements in the
study area, and by reference to charts provided in the
ADMS manual (CERC, 1999), the surface roughness
factor was set to 0.5 m to represent a low-rise urban
area. Data on traffic flows were obtained from outputs
from the SATURN model, and default emissions factors
15
for 1999 were taken from the Design Manual for Roads
and Bridges (Department of Transport, 1994). Again,
the effects of changing these model constants were
assessed as part of the sensitivity analysis discussed
below.
4.2. Incorporating secondary and far-traveled
particulates
As noted previously, secondary and far-traveled
components are likely to make an important contribu-
tion to total particulate concentrations, neither of which
is adequately estimated by source–receptor models such
as ADMS. One possibility would be to use broader scale
models, such as the US-EPA’s urban Airshed model
(US-EPA, 1990) to assess these contributions. However,
the data needed to run these models may not be readily
available, and to date the reliability of these models in
the UK context has not been firmly established. As a
result, more empirical methods must be used.
The search for such methods has been the focus of
much attention in recent years, and several approaches
have been suggested. One is to use data from rural
background monitoring sites in the surrounding area to
represent regional particulate concentrations. Where
multiple sites exist, these might be averaged, or pollution
surfaces constructed by interpolation—e.g., using kri-
ging techniques (Liu and Rossini, 1996). In the UK,
unfortunately, rural PM monitoring sites are sparse, and
none are available sufficiently close to Northampton to
provide a sound basis for estimation: the nearest
running at the time of this study was at Rochester in
Kent, some 130 km to the south, and this regularly
shows particulate concentrations higher than those
reported in Northampton, perhaps because of influences
from London and the European continent, or from
the sea.
A second option would be to derive local estimates of
the contribution from secondary and far-traveled
sources by differencing, i.e., by subtracting the modeled
concentrations of primary particles from the monitored
concentrations at urban monitoring sites within the
study area and then using the resulting difference as a
measure of background particle concentrations. Again,
if several such sites are available, interpolation methods
can be used to derive a pollution surface. One weakness
with this method is that it assumes that the local traffic-
related contribution is modeled without error. In the
study area used here, also, it was not considered
appropriate since only one fixed monitoring site was
available, and data from this were needed for validation.
On the basis that much of the far-traveled particulate
component is in the form of sulfates and nitrates, the
Quality of Urban Air Review Group (1996) have
proposed using sulfate and nitrate monitored at rural
sites as a basis for estimating regional particulate
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
concentrations. Again, this was not feasible here because
of the lack of suitable sites measuring nitrates. Stedman
et al. (1998, 2001) have, however, proposed a variation
on this approach, using monitored urban NOx instead
of nitrate concentrations. Reported correlations be-
tween monitored and modeled daily concentrations
using this method are high (r2 ¼ 0:6720:85), and the
method appears to be widely applicable, at least within a
UK context.
A variation on this approach was therefore applied
here. Regression analysis was used to examine relation-
ships between PM10 concentrations measured by a
mobile laboratory in the study area, modeled concen-
trations from ADMS-Urban, and sulfate concentrations
at the nearest rural site (at Stoke Ferry in Norfolk, some
95 km east of the study area). Unfortunately, hourly
sulfate values are not reported. Instead, they had to be
derived from the daily average values, using a mathe-
matical smoothing technique. Daily values of sulfate
were initially attributed to each hour within the same
day. A simple exponential smoothing model was then
applied, in SPSS, with linear trend and seasonal
variation. The level of linear trend and seasonal
variation are controlled by values of alpha (a) and
gamma (g), respectively, on a continuous scale ranging
from 0 to 1. Alpha (a) controls the relative weight given
to recent observations, as opposed to the overall series
mean. When a equals 1 the most recent event is used
exclusively, whereas when a equals zero older observa-
tions count just as heavily as recent ones. Gamma (g)
controls the relative weight given to more recent
observations in estimating the present series trend.
Therefore, values close to 0 imply that trend and
seasonal variation are a function of short time periods
(e.g., a few hours), while values close to 1 suggest that
trend and seasonal effects operate over long time-
periods (e.g., several days). Initially, a Grid Search
function, in SPSS, was used to observe the effects of
using different values of a and g. The best-fitting model
gave a ¼ 0:1 and g ¼ 0:1, reflecting the circumstance
that levels of sulfate at any hour are influenced by levels
found within a number of hours either side, up to 1 or 2
days. These constants were therefore applied to model
hourly concentrations on the basis of daily values at
Stoke Ferry for the period July 1999 to March 2000.
4.3. Ambient air pollution model
The ambient air pollution model used in STEMS thus
comprises two components: (1) local, primary sources
modeled in ADMS-Urban, and (2) modeled hourly
sulfate using daily sulfate from the nearest rural
monitoring station to represent the background (i.e.,
secondary/far-traveled) component. For hourly esti-
mates, therefore, the contribution from local sources
varies by space and time, but the background compo-
nent is assumed to vary only with time.
The outdoor pollution model was developed by
regressing local modeled PM10 from ADMS and
modeled sulfate against monitored hourly PM10 con-
centrations from a fixed-site monitor positioned at a
busy roadside location at Kinsgthorpe, in the center of
the study area (Fig. 2). The model was built using a
random selection of 70% (2651 h) of the available
monitoring data (n ¼ 3908), and retaining the remaining
30% for validation. This gave the following relation-
ship:
Monitored PM10 ¼ 0:628nModeled PM10
þ 7:019nHourly Sulfate þ 12:138
ð2Þ
with r2 ¼ 0:32 (Po 0:0001), SEE=7.85 mg/m3.
In this approach, the local model is assumed to
represent both primary exhaust emissions and noncom-
bustion particles from traffic. Though not specifically
modeled, this latter component may be expected to
correlate with the local, primary traffic component since
it is likely to be derived to a large extent from
recirculation of dust by road vehicles and tire wear; it
has, in any case, been shown to contribute only a small
proportion (o3%) of the total PM10 mass in urban
areas (Harrison et al., 1997). The sulfate component
is taken to represent far-traveled and secondary
contributions.
4.4. Validation
Validation of the ambient pollution model was carried
out with reference to a range of performance measures,
including the coefficient of determination (r2), factor of
two (Fa2) analysis, fractional bias (FB), and normalized
mean squared error (NMSE). These measures form part
of a ‘‘tool kit’’ that is increasingly being seen as a
standard for assessing the performance of atmospheric
models (Owen et al., 1999; Kukkonen et al., 2001a, b).
This has been formalized as the ‘‘Model Validation Kit’’
and is part of the BOOT package, developed by Hanna
et al. (1999).
Validation was performed by applying Eq. (2) to the
30% (n ¼ 1257) of data from the fixed site monitoring
station at Kingsthorpe, not used in model development.
This gave r2 ¼ 0:36 (Po 0:005), SEE=7.56 mg/m3, 92%
of the observed concentrations within a factor of 2 (i.e.,
between half and twice the modeled concentrations),
and almost zero FB.
As markers for model performance and further testing
of ADMS, CO and NOx were also modeled at the
Kingsthorpe site, for the same period as PM10. For
these pollutants, a greater proportion of the total comes
from local sources, although there is still a regional
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
Table 1
Comparison of performance measures for the combined local plus
background for different pollutants: validation against monitored
concentrations (n ¼ 1257 h)
PM10 NOx CO
r2 0.36 0.43 0.41
Fa2 (%) 92 71 75
FB 0.002 0.04 0.43
NMSE 0.14 0.43 0.72
contribution for both pollutants, which can be repre-
sented by background (i.e., rural) monitoring sites. In
the case of CO, no suitable rural site is available. The
report on Airborne Particulate Matter in the UK
(Quality of Urban Air Review Group, 1996), however,
suggests that there is a stable, continuous background
CO concentration in the North Atlantic of about
0.15 ppm. This value was therefore added as a constant
to the modeled CO. For NOx, the average hourly value
was derived by adding the average monitored concen-
trations from the two nearest rural sites (Wicken Fen,
Cambridgeshire, about 80 km to the east of the study
area, and Harwell, 75 km to the south-southwest).
Results for all three pollutants (PM10, CO and NOx)
are shown in Table 1. In general, performance of the
model is seen to be consistent with r2 ¼ 0:36 for PM10,
0.41 for CO and 0.43 for NOx. Fa2 values are 92%,
75%, and 71%, respectively. The FB for PM10 is
0.002, indicating an almost negligible underprediction
compared to monitored concentrations; for CO,
FB=0.43 and for NOx FB=0.04. NMSE is 0.14 for
PM10, compared with values of 0.72 and 0.43 for CO
and NOx, respectively. These results are generally
modest. Nevertheless, the performance of the model in
this study is consistent with that reported for ADMS
and other models under field conditions from other
studies. Owen et al. (1999), for example, obtained an
average FB of 0.36 and an NMSE value of 1.92 for
ADMS. Kukkonen et al. (2001a) reported FB in the
range 0.28 to 0.18 for NO, NO2, and O3 for OPSM
(which uses the same dispersion model as ADMS), and
NMSE in the range 0.04–0.32. Carruthers et al. (2000)
quote an NMSE of 0.34 for modeling PM10 alongside
the M4 motorway at Harwell, UK.
Sources of error in the ambient air pollution model
cannot be identified with confidence. One of the most
important, however, is clearly the use of average hourly
traffic flows for modeling the local contributions, rather
than real-time data. This fails to reflect short-term
variations in flows, notably associated with temporary
periods of congestion. It may be, therefore, that better
results would be obtained for monitoring sites in less
heavily trafficked locations, where the effects of local,
short-term variations in traffic flow are likely to be
muted. Unfortunately, suitable monitoring data were
17
not available to verify this. Modeling of the ‘‘back-
ground’’ component also represents a potentially
important source of error, both because of its essentially
empirical nature and the lack of detailed (hourly) data
from rural areas; the poorer FB and NMSE values for
CO, for example, can probably be explained by the use
of a fixed background concentration, which fails to
reflect periods of regionally high CO pollution.
In the case of PM10, however, some further insight
into model performance can be obtained. For this
purpose, data from a temporary rural monitoring site
(Guilsborough), located some 12 km NW of the study
area, were obtained and compared with monitored
curbside concentrations in the study area. On average,
rural concentrations were ca. 80% of curbside concen-
trations, implying that the large majority of PM10
concentrations in Northampton are of far-travelled or
secondary origin. Systematic hour-to-hour variations in
the far-travelled component were evident, peaking
between midnight and 0500, when rural concentrations
were on average 10% higher than curbside, and reaching
a minimum between 1200 and 1800, when rural
concentrations were only 55–65% of curbside (i.e., local
sources contributed 35–45% of the urban concentra-
tion). These values are broadly in accord with the
proportions implied by Eq. (2): for the 3908 h of
modelled data, the local contribution averaged 28%.
5. Exposure modeling (TOTEM)
Modeling of exposures to traffic-related pollution is
carried out using a purposely designed raster-based
program. This operates in the ArcInfo NETWORK
environment, using GRID generalized polygon net-
works as a base map for cropping line sources. It
provides space- and time-integrated assessments of
exposures for individuals, based on their time–activity
within the modeled pollution field. Time–activity
patterns are simulated for individuals over an appro-
priate period (e.g., week, day, or part day), based on
results from time–activity surveys. Exposures are then
estimated for each location, at each time interval, by
cross-reference to the pollution map for that time
period. Exposures are given by the concentration at
each site, adjusted according to the exposure micro-
environment; i.e.,
E ijk ¼ C ij  W k ; ð3Þ
where Eijk is the exposure of an individual during time i,
at location j, in exposure environment k; Cij is pollutant
concentration during time i at location j; and Wk is the
weighting factor for exposure environment k, relative to
ambient.
Exposure profiles are thus constructed as individuals
move through, or reside in, the changing pollution field
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
T3 –T5
T2
Time (T)
T1
T1 –T3
20 T1
18
16
Exposure
14
12
10
Fig. 4. Exposure modeling using TOTEM.
(Fig. 4). Time-weighted summation and averaging of
these values across the journey (or other exposure
period) provides measures of the cumulative and mean
exposure.
5.1. Journey-time exposures
For walking or cycling, it may be assumed that
exposures correspond to those modeled for the ambient
environment along the selected route (though internal
doses are likely to be higher because of increased
inhalation rates). For these travel modes, therefore,
values of Wk can be set to 1.0. To determine exposures
within vehicles, however, relevant values for the
weighting factor, Wk, need to be imputed. Information
on air pollution in transport microenvironments from
which to derive these weights is scarce. While a number
of studies have been carried out (Akbar and Ashmore,
1996; Gee and Raper, 1999; Praml and Schierl, 2000;
Zagury et al., 2000; Adams et al., 2001; Chan et al.,
T5
T4
T3
T3
Y
X
T2 T3 T4 T5
Time
2002), most of these have made comparisons only
between in-vehicle concentrations and those measured
at nearby fixed sites.
To derive weighting factors for in-vehicle exposures,
therefore, a field campaign was undertaken in the study
area. Concentrations were determined both in-car and
walking, using (OSIRIS) portable monitors. A total of
72 paired trips were monitored during 1999 and 2000,
using two separate routes within the study area and
three different time periods during the day. In each case,
journeys were started simultaneously, by car and on
foot. Two trips were completed on the same route within
each hour. These were later combined to make a single
journey exposure for each hour. Thus, a total of 72 pairs
of in-car and walking observations were reduced to 36
pairs of measurements (Fig. 5). The relationship
between in-car and walking exposures was,
In  car ¼ 13:21 þ 0:82 Walking ðr2 ¼ 0:82; Po 0:005Þ:
ð4Þ
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25 19

The ratio of exposures in-car to walking implied by exposures. The routes taken during walking, however,
this association is notably lower than those reported for may diverge from the roadside; in these cases, roadside
PM10 in previous studies (e.g., Cortese and Spengler, and walking exposures must be modeled separately and
1976; Chan and Wu, 1993). The differences are perhaps the former converted to in-car exposures using Eq. (4).
largely because, as noted, these previous studies have
usually compared exposures in-car with concentrations 5.2. Validation
at fixed-site monitors, rather than with individuals
walking along the same route. Attempts were made to Validation of the journey-time exposure model was
improve on this relationship, by incorporating addi- undertaken by comparing modeled exposures while
tional variables, such as wind speed or wind direction walking with monitored exposures for each of the
(relative to road-line direction), but these did not add routes used to derive the in-car versus walking
significantly to the level of explanation. exposures. (Note that these data have not been used to
Eq. (4) defines the relationship between exposures derive the model for walking exposures.) For the 36
measured at the roadside and those experienced in-car. journeys for which data are available, the relationship
For roadways, ADMS provides estimates of roadside between monitored and modeled exposure while walk-
exposures, since turbulent wake effects prevent model- ing is
ing of concentrations on the road centerline. Conse-
quently Eq. (4) is used to adjust the equivalent ambient Monitored exposure ðwalkÞ
exposures modeled at the roadside in STEMS to in-car ¼ 2:48nModeled exposure ðwalkÞ  18:78 ð5Þ
with r2 ¼ 0:54 (Po 0:01) and 64% of observations
120 within a factor of 2. As Fig. 6 shows, the model tends
to be somewhat nonlinear, and to overestimate expo-
y=x
100 sures compared to monitored levels.
Performance of the model in this case is similar to that
achieved by using the local monitoring station
80
(r2 ¼ 0:54, 67% within a factor of 2). It should,
however, be noted that the routes used for validation
In-car

60 were deliberately selected to be close to the monitoring

station. For this reason performance of the fixed-site
40 monitoring station is likely to be relatively good; for
y = 0.82x + 13.21 routes further away from the monitoring site, it might be
2
R = 0.82
20
expected that STEMS would outperform the monitored
data.
Similar validation for the in-car exposures on the
0 basis of the available data are not merited, because the
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
personal monitoring data were used to derive the in-car
Walk
weighting factor. Further field investigation, using
Fig. 5. Monitored personal exposures: walking and in-car, along purposely instrumented vehicles, is being undertaken
paired routes. to provide validation.

110 110
100 100
y=x y=x
90 90
80 80
Monitored walk

Monitored walk

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 y = 2.48x - 18.78 20 y = 1.76x - 8.63
10 R2 =0.54 10 R2 = 0.54

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Modelled walk Fixed-site monitor

Fig. 6. Validation of the exposure model: personal monitoring compared to modeled exposures (left) and concentrations at the local fixed site
monitoring station (right).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
20 J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
6. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the
robustness of STEMS to various data constraints and
model assumptions. Inter alia, these explored model
sensitivity to variations in the traffic flow predictions,
vehicle speed, meteorological data used for dispersion
modeling, surface roughness, and terrain.
Results are summarized in Table 2. As can be seen,
modeled exposures are relatively insensitive to varia-
tions in many of these factors. Changes in the traffic
volumes (e.g., 10% increase and reduction in average
flow), for example, result in subproportional (ca.
71.4%) variations in exposures. This is because locally
derived emissions contribute only a relatively small
percentage to total PM10 concentrations in this area.
Except in areas close to emission sources (e.g., on
curbsides or in-vehicle) short-term variations in traffic
flow thus have only a small effect on exposure. Changes
in traffic speed (by up to 33% from the assumed average
speed) also produce only relatively small variations in
modeled exposures (1.03% to +2.14%). Reducing the
surface roughness component in ADMS to 0.25 gave a
1.02% increase in average exposures, while increasing it
to 1.0 m gave a 1.3% reduction.
The model is, however, considerably more sensitive to
changes in location of the meteorological sites. This is an
important issue, since it is often difficult to obtain
meteorological data from local sites. The model was
therefore tested with data gathered both within the
study area and from the nearest national meteorological
site, at Wittering, some 60 km to the east. Results
showed that the model was differentially susceptible to
these meteorological inputs. Average exposures were
8% lower using data from the more distant Wittering
site, compared with local meteorological data. The
standard deviation of the percentage differences, across
the 792 h modeled, was however relatively high (11%),
Table 2
Sensitivity of modeled exposures to changes in model parameters (n ¼ 792 h)
Parameter (and baseline value) Test Mean percentage
difference
Meteorology (local) Equivalent variables 8.10
from Wittering
(Cambs.)
Surface roughness (0.5 m) 1.0 m 1.30
0.25 m 1.02
Vehicle speed +10 km/h 1.03
+5 km/h 0.56
5 km/h 0.92
10 km/h 2.14
Traffic flows +10% 1.41
10% 1.44
Terrain (not included) Included 2.18
showing that the effects varied depending on weather
conditions. Under stable conditions, choice of data
source had little effect on modeled outcomes; under
turbulent conditions, however, differences in modeled
concentrations varied up to fourfold, depending on the
specific data combination used. In general, a better fit to
monitored concentrations was obtained using cloud
cover data (from Wittering) and other meteorological
parameters from local sites.
7. Illustrative application: modeling journey-time
exposures of schoolchildren
As an illustration of the application of STEMS, the
model was applied to estimate journey-time exposures
over 5 days for 50 children living and walking to school
in the study area in Northampton. Children were
selected from a sample of some 1000 children, aged
between 9 and 13, for whom 24-h time–activity diaries
were obtained in the study area (Briggs et al., 2003).
Details of travel routes were not provided (though start
and end times of journeys to and from school and mode
of travel were), but were simulated by identifying the
shortest walking route between the place of residence
and the school, using the PATH function in ArcInfo.
The selected routes covered 30% of the length of the
available walking routes in the study area. All children
were modeled as walking at a speed of 5 km/h within the
same exposure hours (0800–0900 and 1500–1600); these
represent the hours with the highest modeled pollution
concentrations across the whole study period. The 5-day
period covered (in November 1999) was selected to
represent a period of varied, but typical weather for the
study area. Only weekdays were modeled.
Fig. 7 shows the distribution of modeled exposures
derived from STEMS for two different exposure
measures: (1) journey-time exposures, and (2) an
Median percentage SD. of % difference
difference
4.94 11.33
0.39 2.52
0.23 2.16
0.71 1.02
0.39 0.57
0.57 1.02
1.37 2.27
1.04 1.26
1.04 1.28
0.27 7.15
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25 21

Local-modelled journey-time exposures by day [n=50] Local-modelled integrated (jourmey + home + school) exposures by
day [n=50]
20 20

PM10 (ug /m3) exposure

PM10 (ug /m3) exposure
15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15
12t 15th 16th 17th 18th 12t 15th 16th 17th 18th
(a) Date & hour (b)

Modelled total journey-time exposures by day [n=50] Modelled total integrated (jourmey + home + school) exposures by day
[n=50]
35 35
PM10 (ug /m3) exposure

PM10 (ug /m3) exposure

30 30

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10
8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15 8 15
12t 15th 16th 17th 18th 12t 15th 16th 17th 18th
(c) Date & hour (d) Date & hour

Fig. 7. Comparisons of exposure distributions for 50 children during walk to school: (a) local-modeled journey-time exposure; (b) local-modeled
integrated (time-weighted average of home, journey, and school) exposure; (c) modeled total journey-time exposure; (d) modeled total integrated
(time-weighted average of home, journey, and school) exposure.

integrated exposure measure, representing the time- modeled exposures were, on average, more than
weighted average exposure for the hour containing the 25–35% higher than on the other 3 days. Again, these
journey, covering time spent at home, traveling, and at may underestimate actual variations to some extent,
school. Figs. 7a and b show these two measures for the because of the attenuated estimates of locally derived
local-modeled (i.e., ADMS-Urban) PM10 (mg/m3) com- exposure.
ponent. Substantial variations in journey-time exposures The traditional approach to assessing exposures to
are evident across this sample of 50 children within any traffic-related pollution has been to model or measure
day, with interquartile ranges typically of about 3–4 mg/ concentrations either at home (e.g., Hoek et al., 2001)
m3 and a range from ca. 1 to over 10 (and in some cases or, in the case of children, at school (e.g., Brunekreef et
over 15) mg/m3. Choice of route thus has a considerable al., 1997). It is therefore informative to ask whether
effect on journey-time exposure. For the integrated using the STEMS method leads to significantly different
exposure over the hour (i.e., home, traveling and estimates of exposure from these more traditional
school), the variations are less, largely because the at- approaches. Average total exposures across the 50
school exposures are common to all children attending children modeled here vary little between the different
the same school. Day-to-day variations in both cases are methods: 17.471.2 mg/m3 for estimates based on the
also relatively small. It should be noted, however, that home, 17.671.1 mg/m3 for the average of home plus
these are derived only from variations in meteorology, school, and 18.871.5 mg/m3 for the time-weighted
since traffic flows used in the local pollution model relate integrated exposure (home+school+journey). Fig. 8,
only to long-term hourly averages. The ranges shown in however, shows estimates of the average exposure over
Fig. 7b thus probably underestimate the level of true both hours for all 5 days for the 50 children. It is
day-to-day variation in exposure. apparent that correlations between the different mea-
Figs. 7c and d show modeled total exposures (i.e., sures are quite strong, though the home+school
local plus far-traveled/secondary, by applying Eq. (2)) exposure clearly provides a better estimate of the total
for the journey-time exposure and integrated exposure (integrated) exposure over the journey hour. Even this,
measures, respectively. Absolute variations between however, tends to underestimate exposures slightly (and
individuals are the same as for the locally derived quite markedly in the case of a few individuals).
component (Figs. 7a and b), reflecting the circumstance
that, on any day, all individuals receive the same from
the secondary and far-traveled components. Marked 8. Conclusions
variations occur from day-to-day, however, as a result
of regional-scale pollution events. The scale of these The Space–Time Exposure Modeling System de-
day-to-day variations are notable; on 15th and 16th scribed here illustrates the capability of using GIS to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
22 J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25

22 temporal and spatial interactions that characterize

21
exposure and health responses in the real world. More
powerful epidemiological methods are therefore vital if
Integrated exposure(ug/m3)

20 the health risks from air pollution are to be better

understood and quantified. Case-control, case-cross-
19
over, panel, and cohort studies all offer great advantages
18
R2 = 0.63
in this respect, but if these are to provide adequate
statistical power they need methods of assessing
17
exposures in both time and space, across a large number
16 of individuals: despite their focus on individual level
health outcomes, for example, most case-control, case-
15
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 crossover and cohort studies still use ecological mea-
(a) Home exposure (ug/m3) sures of exposure. Kunzli and Tager (2000) and Oglesby
et al. (2000) both highlight the need for improved
exposure estimates, which take account of local spatial
22 and temporal variability, and time–activity patterns, in
this context. Nevertheless, in order to apply the STEMS
21
approach more widely, a number of limitations need to
Integrated exposure(ug/m3)

20
19
18
17
16
15
15 16 17 18
(b) Home + school exposure (ug/m3)
Fig. 8. Correlations between modeled integrated (time-weighted
average of home, journey, and school) exposures and: (a) modeled
exposure at place of residence; (b) modeled exposures at home+-
school.
develop more dynamic and more realistic models of
exposure to air pollution. This approach to modeling
certainly has potential application in a number of
situations, including both planning and policy and
environmental epidemiology. As the example applica-
tion presented here shows, policy assessments based
simply on predicted ambient pollution levels are likely to
be misleading. More dynamic models are essential if the
impacts of policy or other interventions are to be
properly evaluated. The approaches used here offer the
opportunity for modeling different traffic management
plans, emission technologies, fuel pricing strategies, and
transport policies. As such, the approach provides a
potentially powerful addition to the armory of techni-
ques used for transport management, environmental
impact assessment, and policy analysis.
Similar scope exists in relation to environmental
epidemiology. To date, most epidemiological research
into air pollution and health has relied on the use of
either ecological or time series designs. Neither of these
is likely to generate the level of understanding required,
because neither adequately accounts for the complex
be overcome.
One of these relates to the transition from individual
level estimates to the modeling of group level exposure
R2 = 0.88
profiles. To achieve this requires either data on time–-
activity patterns for a large and representative sample of
individuals or ways of predicting these behaviors (e.g.,
using more refined versions of the origin–destination
matrices employed by traffic modelers). Time–activity
data might be obtained in a variety of ways: for
19 20 21 22
example, by carrying out detailed time–activity surveys
in the study area, by extrapolation of data from other
(e.g., national) time–activity surveys, or, for specific
population subgroups such as schoolchildren, on the
basis of routine activity patterns (e.g., school locations
and timing of the school day).
As presented here, STEMS offers the means to model
journey-time exposure profiles (and derive associated
statistical measures). In principle, however, the model
can readily be extended to other microenvironments and
other averaging times. Given relevant time–activity data
and weighting factors, for example, 24-h exposure
profiles can be derived for modeled individuals. Since
this implies modeling exposures in stationary indoor
environments, the main need in this context is to link the
models presented here to more detailed models of
indoor air pollution (e.g., taking account of air exchange
rates and indoor sources). As with all modeling,
however, increased sophistication comes at the cost of
increasing data demands. In many cases, these will be
limiting.
The STEMS approach can also be used to model a
wide range of pollutants, including those of greatest
concern for health, such as PM2.5. Further calibration
and validation of ADMS-Urban is, however, necessary
before modeling of fine particles can be treated as
reliable. Since ADMS-Urban includes both point- and
area-source modules, other emission sources can like-
wise be modeled, including industrial point sources.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
From the sensitivity studies undertaken here, the
model has been shown to be reasonably robust to minor
differences in data inputs or model assumptions, yet to
provide adequate sensitivity to detect exposure differ-
ences due to effects of traffic volume, weather condi-
tions, human behavior and geographical location. The
main sensitivity, however, is to meteorological inputs.
All dispersion models are especially susceptible to these,
and when modeling short-term exposures they become
especially important. Lack of reliable, local monitoring
sites is likely to be a limiting factor in many cases. When
the focus—as here—is on morning peak-hour exposures,
this problem may be exacerbated, especially in tempe-
rate regions, because atmospheric stability and mixing
height often change rapidly during the morning warm-
ing phase. The resulting errors are likely to become
less important, however, when the averaging time is
longer (e.g., when peak exposures are averaged over a
whole year).
Choice of model for the ‘‘background’’ (far-traveled
and secondary) component of air pollution may also be
expected to have a considerable effect on the modeled
results, since this accounts for 70% or more of PM10
concentrations in the study area. In practice, however,
the effect is muted, for far-traveled concentrations tend
to vary relatively little over the short-term, major
changes occurring only during regional pollution
episodes. In the absence of a sufficiently dense network
of such sites in the UK, the need remains to develop
alternative models of the far-traveled and secondary
component.
Error propagation nevertheless remains an important
issue in the use of nested or linked models such as this.
These errors are not necessarily greater than those
produced by simpler and cruder models, which involve
fewer links or steps (e.g., the use of proxies such as data
from the nearest monitoring site as a measure of
exposure), but nor does the sophistication of the
STEMS approach necessarily improve exposure estima-
tion. Further validation across a wide range of condi-
tions, including different data situations, is therefore
required. Use of Bayesian errors-in-variables methods
might also help to assess and control error propagation.
Likewise, data assimilation methods, such as those used
to develop complex, nested models in other areas of
application, including climate modeling (Ohring et al.,
2002; Riishøjgaard et al., 2000) offer powerful ways of
error minimization and control that merit further
investigation in exposure modeling.
Acknowledgments
The research described in this paper was initiated as
part of an EPSRC-funded project (Grant GR/K93587).
It has been further developed under a further EPSRC-
23
funded project, VPEMS (Grant GR/N36233/01), and an
EU 5th Framework funded project, HEARTS (Grant
QLK4-CT-2001-00492). We gratefully acknowledge
these sources of funding and the contributions of
colleagues from these projects who have been involved
in the work. We are also grateful for the comments of
the anonymous referee(s), which helped to clarify both
in our own minds and in this paper the findings from
this research.
References
Adams, H.S., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Colvile, R.N., McMullen,
M.A.S., Khandelwal, P., 2001. Fine particle (PM2.5) exposure
levels in transport microenvironments, London, UK. Sci. Total
Environ. 279, 29–44.
Akbar, S., Ashmore, M.R., 1996. Particulate air pollution and
respiratory morbidity: personal exposure in Delhi and its implica-
tions. Paper Presented at the World Congress on Air Pollution in
Developing Countries, San Jose, Costa Rica, 21–26 October 1996.
American Thoracic Society, 1996. Health effects of outdoor air
pollution. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 153, 3–50.
Atimtay, A.T., Emri, S., Bagci, T., Demir, A.U., 2000. Urban CO
exposure and its health effects on traffic policemen in Ankara.
Environ. Res. A 82, 222–230.
Bolognesi, C., Gallerani, E., Bonatti, S., De Ferrari, M., Fontana, V.,
Valerio, F., Merlo, F., Abbondandolo, A., 1997. Sister chromatid
exchange induction in peripheral blood lymphocytes of traffic
police workers. Mutat. Res. 394, 37–44.
Briggs, D.J., Denman, A.R., Gulliver, J., Marley, R.F., Kennedy,
C.A., Philips, P.S., Field, K., Crockett, R.M., 2003. Time–activity
modelling of domestic exposures to radon. J. Environ. Manage. 67,
107–120.
Brunekreef, B., Janssen, N.A.H., de Hartog, J., Harssema, H., Knape,
M., van Vliet, P., 1997. Air pollution from truck traffic and lung
function in children living near motorways. Epidemiology 8 (3),
298–303.
Carruthers, D.J., Edmunds, H.A., Lester, A.E., McHugh, C.A.,
Singles, R.A., 2000. Use and validation of ADMS-Urban in
contrasting urban and industrial environments. Int. J. Environ.
Pollut. 14, 1–6.
CERC Ltd, 1999. ADMS-Urban. An Urban Air Quality Management
System. User Guide. CERC Ltd., Cambridge.
Chan, C.C., Wu, H.W.Y., 1993. A study of bus commuter and
pedestrian exposure to traffic-related air pollution in Hong Kong.
Environ. Int. 19, 121–132.
Chan, L.Y., Lau, W.L., Zou, S.C., Cao, Z.X., Lai, S.C., 2002.
Exposure level of carbon monoxide and respirable suspended
particulate in public transportation modes while commuting in
urban area of Guangzhou, China. Atmos. Environ. 36 (38),
5831–5840.
Chandrasekaran, R., Samy, P.I., Murthy, P.B., 1996. Increased sister
chromatid exchange (SCE) frequencies in lymphocytes from traffic
policemen exposed to automobile exhaust pollution. Hum. Exp.
Toxicol. 15, 301–304.
Clench-Aas, J., Bartonova, A., Bøhler, T., Grønskei, K.E., Sivertsen,
B., Larssen, S., 1999. Air pollution monitoring and estimating. Part
1. Integrated air quality monitoring system. J. Environ. Monitor. 1,
313–319.
Cortese, A.D., Spengler, J.D., 1976. Ability of fixed site monitoring
stations to represent personal carbon monoxide exposure. JAPCA
26, 1144–1150.
DEFRA, 2004. e-Digest statistics about air quality. Particles: Table 11.
Estimated emissions of PM10 by UNECE source category, type of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
24 J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
fuel and end user: 1970–2001. http://www.defra.gov.uk/
environment/statistics/airqual/download/pdf/aqtb11.pdf
Department of Transport, 1994. Design Manual for Roads and
Bridges, Vol. II, Sect. 3, Part 1. HMSO, London.
Dimitroulopoulou, C., Ashmore, M.R., Byrne, M.A., Kinnersley,
R.P., 2001. Modelling of indoor exposure to nitrogen dioxide in the
UK. Atmos. Environ. 35 (2), 269–279.
Dor, F., Le Moullec, Y., Festy, B., 1995. Exposure of city residents to
carbon monoxide and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons during
commuting trips in the Paris metropolitan area. J. Air Waste
Manage. Assoc. 45, 103–110.
English, P., Neutra, R., Scalf, R., Sullivan, M., Waller, L., Zhu, L.,
1999. Examining associations between childhood asthma and
traffic flow using a geographic information system. Environ.
Health Perspect. 107, 761–767.
Francis, E.A., 1986. Patterns of building occupancy for the general
public. NRPB Memorandum M-129. NRPB, Chilton, UK.
Gee, I.L., Raper, D.W., 1999. Commuter exposure to respirable
particles in buses and by bicycle. Sci. Total Environ. 235 (1–3),
403–405.
Gulliver, J., Briggs, D.J., 2004. Personal exposure to particulate air
pollution in transport microenvironments. Atmos. Environ. 38,
1–8.
Hanna, S.R., Egan, B.A., Purdum, J., Wagler, J., 1999. Evaluation of
the ADMS, AERMOD, and ISC3 dispersion models with the
Optex, Duke Forest, Kincaid, Indianapolis and Lovett field data
sets. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion modeling for
Regulatory Purposes. October 11–14, 1999, INSA de Rouen,
France (on CDRom).
Harrison, R.M., Yin, J., 2000. Particulate matter in the atmosphere:
which particle properties are important for its effects on health?.
Sci. Total Environ. 249, 85–101.
Harrison, R.M., Deacon, A.R., Jones, M., Appleby, R.S., 1997.
Sources affecting concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 particulate
matter in Birmingham (UK). Atmos. Environ. 31 (24),
4103–4117.
Hoek, G., Fischer, P., van den Brandt, P., Goldbohm, S., Brunekreef,
B., 2001. Estimation of long-term average exposure to outdoor air
pollution for a cohort study on mortality. J. Exposure Anal.
Environ. Epidemiol. 11, 459–469.
Hoek, G., Brunekreef, B., Goldbohm, S., Fischer, P., van den Brandt,
P., 2002. Association between mortality and indicators of traffic-
related air pollution in the Netherlands: a cohort study. Lancet 360,
1203–1209.
Jensen, S.S., 1998. Mapping human exposure to traffic air pollution
using GIS. J. Hazard. Mater. 61, 385–392.
Jo, W.K., Choi, S.J., 1996. Vehicle occupants’ exposure to aromatic
volatile organic compounds while commuting on an urban–subur-
ban route in Korea. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 46, 749–754.
Klepeis, N.E., Nelson, W.C., Ott, W.R., Robinson, J., Tsang, A.M.,
Switzer, P., Bhar, J.V., Hern, S.C., Engelmann, W.H., 2001. The
National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for
assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J. Exposure Anal.
Environ. Epidemiol. 11 (3), 231–252.
Kukkonen, J., Härkönen, J., Walden, J., Karppinen, A., Lusa, K.,
2001a. Evaluation of the CAR-FMI model against measurements
near a major road. Atmos. Environ. 35, 949–960.
Kukkonen, J., Valkonen, E., Walden, J., Koskentalo, T., Aarnio, P.,
Karppinen, A., Berkowicz, Kartastenpää, R., 2001b. A measure-
ment campaign in a street canyon in Helsinki and comparison of
results with predictions of the OSPM model. Atmos. Environ. 35,
231–243.
Kunzli, N., Tager, I., 2000. Long-term health effects of particulate and
other ambient air pollution: research can progress faster if we want
it to. Environ. Health Perspect. 108, 915–918.
Law, P.L., Lioy, P.J., Zelenka, M.P., Huber, A.H., McCurdy, T.,
1997. Evaluation of a probabilistic exposure model applied to
carbon monoxide (pNEM/CO) using Denver personal exposure
monitoring data. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 47, 491–500.
Leung, P-L., Harrison, R.M., 1999. Roadside and in-vehicle concen-
trations of monoaromatic hydrocarbons. Atmos. Environ. 33,
191–204.
Lipfert, F.W., Morris, S.C., Wyzga, R.E., 2000. Daily mortality in the
Philadelphia metropolitan area and size-classified particulate
matter. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 50 (8), 1501–1513.
Liu, L.-J.S., Rossini, A.J., 1996. Use of kriging models to predict 12-h
mean ozone concentrations in Metropolitan Toronto—a pilot
study. Environ. Int. 22, 677–692.
Livingstone, A.E., Shaddick, G., Grundy, C., Elliott, P., 1996. Do
people living near city main roads have more asthma needing
treatment? Case control study. Br. Med. J. 312, 676–677.
Metzger, K.B., Tolbert, P.E., Klein, M., Peel, J.L., Flanders, W.D.,
Todd, K., Mulholland, J.A., Ryan, P.B., Frumkin, H., 2004.
Ambient air pollution and cardiovascular emergency department
visits. Epidemiology 15, 46–56.
Monn, C., 2000. Exposure assessment of air pollutants: a review on
spatial heterogeneity and indoor/outdoor/personal exposure to
suspended particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Atmos.
Environ. 35, 1–32.
National Statistics, 2003. UK 2000 Time Use Survey. Office for
National Statistics, London.
Noy, D., Winkes, A., Willers, H., Lebret, E., Brunekreef, B., Boleij, J.,
1986. Estimating human exposure to nitrogen dioxide. Results
from a personal monitoring study among housewives. Environ. Int.
12, 407–411.
Oglesby, L., Künzli, N., Röösli, M., Braun-Fahrländer, C., Mathys,
P., Stern, W., Jantunen, M., Kousa, A., 2000. Validity of ambient
levels of fine particles as surrogate for personal exposure to
outdoor air pollution. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 50, 174–185.
Ohring, G., Lord, S., Derber, J., Mitchell, K., Ji, M., 2002.
Applications of satellite remote sensing in numerical weather and
climate prediction. Adv. Space Res. 30 (11), 2433–2439.
Ott, W.R., 19831984. Exposure estimates based on computer
generated activity patterns. J. Toxic. Clin. Toxicol. 21 (1–2),
97–128.
Ott, W.R., Switzer, P., Willits, N., 1994. Carbon monoxide exposures
inside an automobile travelling on an urban arterial highway. J. Air
Waste Manage. Assoc. 44, 1010–1018.
Owen, B., Edmunds, H.A., Carruthers, D.J., Raper, D.W., 1999. Use
of a new generation urban scale dispersion model to estimate the
concentration of oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide in a large
urban area. Sci. Total Environ. 235, 277–291.
Peters, A., Perz, S., Doring, A., Stieber, J., Koenig, W., Wichmann,
H.E., 1999. Increases in heart rate during an air pollution episode.
Am. J. Epidemiol. 150, 1094–1098.
Peters, A., Dockery, D.W., Muller, J.E., Mittleman, M.A., 2001.
Increased particulate air pollution and the triggering of myocardial
infarction. Circulation 103, 2810–2815.
Pope, C.A., Hill, R.W., Villegas, G.M., 1999. Particulate air pollution
and daily mortality on Utah’s Wasatch Front. Environ. Health
Perspect. 107, 567–573.
Praml, G., Schierl, R., 2000. Dust exposure in Munich public
transportation: a comprehensive 4 year survey in buses and trams.
Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 73 (3), 209–214.
Quality of Urban Air Review Group, 1996. Airborne particulate
matter in the United Kingdom. Third Report of the Quality of
Urban Air Review Group, QUARG, Birmingham.
Riishøjgaard, L.P., Stajner, I., Lou, G.-P., 2000. The GEOS ozone
data assimilation system. Adv. Space Res. 25 (5), 1063–1072.
Schwartz, J., 1999. Air pollution and hospital admissions for heart
disease in eight US counties. Epidemiology 10, 17–22.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Gulliver, D.J. Briggs / Environmental Research 97 (2005) 10–25
Schwartz, J., Neas, L.M., 2000. Fine particles are more strongly
associated than coarse particles with acute respiratory health
effects in schoolchildren. Epidemiology 11, 6–17.
Seaton, A., McNee, W., Donaldson, K., Godden, D., 1995. Particulate
pollution and acute health effects. Lancet 345, 176–178.
Seifert, B., Becker, K., Hoffmann, K., Krause, C., Schulz, C., 2000.
The German Environmental Survey 1990/92 (GerES II): a
representative population study. J. Exp. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol.
10 (2), 103–114.
Stedman, J.R., Linehan, E., Espanhahn, S., Conlan, B., Bush, A.,
Davies, T., 1998. Predicting PM10 concentrations in the UK. AEA
Technology, National Environmental Technology Centre. Report
20008001/007, AEAT-2959.
Stedman, J.R., Lineham, E., Conlan, B., 2001. Receptor modeling of
PM10 concentrations at a United Kingdom national network
monitoring site in central London. Atmos. Environ. 35, 297–304.
Svartengren, M., Strand, V., Bylin, G., Jarup, L., Pershagen, G., 2000.
Short-term exposure to air pollution in a road tunnel enhances the
asthmatic response to allergen. Eur. Respir. J. 15, 716–724.
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
25
Tollerud, D.J., Weiss, S.T., Elting, E., Speizer, F.E., Ferris, B., 1983.
The health effects of automobile exhaust. VI. Relationship of
respiratory symptoms and pulmonary function in tunnel and
turnpike workers. Arch. Environ. Health 38, 334–340.
US-EPA, 1990. User’s Guide for the Urban Airshed Model. Vol. I:
User’s Manual for UAM (CB-IV). EPA-450/4-90-007A, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park.
van Wijnen, J.H., Verhoeff, A.P., Jans, H.W.A., Vanbruggen, M.,
1995. The exposure of cyclists, car drivers and pedestrians to
traffic-related air pollutants. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 67
(3), 187–193.
van Vliet, D., 1982. SATURN—a modern assignment model. Traffic
Eng. Control 23, 578–581.
Venn, A.J., Lewis, S.A., Cooper, M., Hubbard, R., Britton, J., 2001.
Living near a main road and the risk of wheezing illness in children.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 164, 2177–2180.
Zagury, E., Le Moullec, Y., Momas, I., 2000. Exposure of Paris taxi
drivers to automobile air pollutants within their vehicles. Occup.
Environ. Med. 57 (6), 406–410.