Ignoring uncertainty in exposure estimation can produce bias when such estimates are used to examine associations with adverse health effects (Carroll et al. 1995).
Although stronger estimated effects for non-movers may simply reflect improved exposure estimation, evidence of higher risks in men compared with women deserves additional attention.
The exposure estimation error at each test point is defined as error = estimate − observation.
Higher estimates in the subgroup of men with a presumably smaller exposure estimation error support our findings.
In the context of residential long-term exposure estimation, we showed that the UM1 and UM2 methods produce accurate space time estimates.
For the exposure estimation, simple, first-tier equations were used.
Subsequently using the migration data as input for the exposure estimation may give better insight in whether or not there actually would be a concern for this scenario.
An EVA exposure estimation tool, EVADOSE, is described and applied to various EVA exposure scenarios.
For the moment, it is, however, considered that the assumptions made and input values taken for the exposure estimation are rather worst case and therefore err on the side of caution.
Kim H, Lim Y, Kim S, Yeo I, Shin D, Jang J. Health risk assessment for artificial turf playgrounds in school athletic facilities: multi-route exposure estimation for use patterns.
As noted before, this RCR is worst case, not only because of the conservative nature of the exposure estimation itself, but also because for BPA content rather than migration data had to be used.
