Suppr超能文献

温暖之处即家所在?加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥基于居住地与基于流动性的热暴露测量比较

Is home where the heat is? comparing residence-based with mobility-based measures of heat exposure in San Diego, California.

作者信息

Garber Michael D, Teyton Anaïs, Jankowska Marta M, Carrasco-Escobar Gabriel, Rojas-Rueda David, Barja-Ingaruca Antony, Benmarhnia Tarik

机构信息

Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.

Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

出版信息

J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2024 Sep 11. doi: 10.1038/s41370-024-00715-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Heat can vary spatially within an urban area. Individual-level heat exposure may thus depend on an individual's day-to-day travel patterns (also called mobility patterns or activity space), yet heat exposure is commonly measured based on place of residence.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we compared measures assessing exposure to two heat indicators using place of residence with those defined considering participants' day-to-day mobility patterns.

METHODS

Participants (n = 599; aged 35-80 years old [mean =59 years]) from San Diego County, California wore a GPS device to measure their day-to-day travel over 14-day intervals between 2014-10-17 and 2017-10-06. We measured exposure to two heat indicators (land-surface temperature [LST] and air temperature) using an approach considering their mobility patterns and an approach considering only their place of residence. We compared participant mean and maximum exposure values from each method for each indicator.

RESULTS

The overall mobility-based mean LST exposure (34.7 °C) was almost equivalent to the corresponding residence-based mean (34.8 °C; mean difference in means = -0.09 °C). Similarly, the mean difference between the overall mobility-based mean air temperature exposure (19.2 °C) and the corresponding residence-based mean (19.2 °C) was negligible (-0.02 °C). Meaningful differences emerged, however, when comparing maximums, particularly for LST. The mean mobility-based maximum LST was 40.3 °C compared with a mean residence-based maximum of 35.8 °C, a difference of 4.51 °C. The difference in maximums was considerably smaller for air temperature (mean = 0.40 °C; SD = 1.41 °C) but nevertheless greater than the corresponding difference in means.

IMPACT

As the climate warms, assessment of heat exposure both at and away from home is important for understanding its health impacts. We compared two approaches to estimate exposure to two heat measures (land surface temperature and air temperature). The first approach only considered exposure at home, and the second considered day-to-day travel. Considering the average exposure estimated by each approach, the results were almost identical. Considering the maximum exposure experienced (specific definition in text), the differences between the two approaches were more considerable, especially for land surface temperature.

摘要

背景

城市区域内的热量在空间上可能存在差异。因此,个体层面的热暴露可能取决于个体的日常出行模式(也称为移动模式或活动空间),然而热暴露通常是基于居住地来衡量的。

目的

在本研究中,我们比较了使用居住地评估两种热指标暴露情况的方法与考虑参与者日常移动模式所定义的方法。

方法

来自加利福尼亚州圣地亚哥县的参与者(n = 599;年龄在35 - 80岁之间[平均 = 59岁])佩戴GPS设备,以测量他们在2014年10月17日至2017年10月6日期间14天间隔内的日常出行情况。我们使用一种考虑他们移动模式的方法和一种仅考虑他们居住地的方法来测量两种热指标(地表温度[LST]和气温)的暴露情况。我们比较了每种指标下每种方法的参与者平均暴露值和最大暴露值。

结果

基于移动性的总体平均LST暴露(34.7°C)几乎等同于相应的基于居住地的平均值(34.8°C;平均值差异为 - 0.09°C)。同样,基于移动性的总体平均气温暴露(19.2°C)与相应的基于居住地的平均值(19.2°C)之间的平均差异可以忽略不计( - 0.02°C)。然而,在比较最大值时出现了显著差异,特别是对于LST。基于移动性的平均最大LST为40.3°C,而基于居住地的平均最大值为35.8°C,差异为4.51°C。气温的最大值差异要小得多(平均值 = 0.40°C;标准差 = 1.41°C),但仍然大于相应的平均值差异。

影响

随着气候变暖,在家中和离家时热暴露的评估对于理解其对健康的影响都很重要。我们比较了两种估计两种热指标(地表温度和气温)暴露情况的方法。第一种方法仅考虑在家中的暴露,第二种方法考虑日常出行。考虑到每种方法估计的平均暴露情况,结果几乎相同。考虑到所经历的最大暴露(文本中的具体定义),两种方法之间的差异更为显著,特别是对于地表温度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验