2018
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.8b00507
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exposure Assessment Using Secondary Data Sources in Unconventional Natural Gas Development and Health Studies

Abstract: Studies of unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) and health have ranked participants along a gradient of geographic information system (GIS)-based activity that incorporated the distance between participants' home addresses and unconventional natural gas wells. However, studies have used different activity metrics, making result comparisons across the studies difficult. The existing studies have only incorporated wells, without accounting for other components of development (e.g., compressors, impoundm… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We assigned UNGD activity for the four phases of well development (pad preparation, drilling, stimulation, and production) to each study subject (in the depression symptom analysis) or index date (in the disordered sleep analysis) using metrics that incorporated distances from participant residence to wells, and the density and size of wells, as in prior studies 11 , 15 , 18 . The metric has the potential to incorporate a variety UNGD-related hazards that exist on different temporal and spatial scales (e.g., regional air pollutants, local noise, truck traffic, activities that may lead to stress) 71 . We calculated the metric for each phase of well development: where d was the date of return of the questionnaire, n was the number of wells in the given phase, m ij 2 was the squared-distance (meters) between well i and participant j , and s i was 1 for the pad production and drilling phases, total well depth (meters) of well i for the stimulation phase, and daily natural gas production volume (m 3 ) of well i for the production phase.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We assigned UNGD activity for the four phases of well development (pad preparation, drilling, stimulation, and production) to each study subject (in the depression symptom analysis) or index date (in the disordered sleep analysis) using metrics that incorporated distances from participant residence to wells, and the density and size of wells, as in prior studies 11 , 15 , 18 . The metric has the potential to incorporate a variety UNGD-related hazards that exist on different temporal and spatial scales (e.g., regional air pollutants, local noise, truck traffic, activities that may lead to stress) 71 . We calculated the metric for each phase of well development: where d was the date of return of the questionnaire, n was the number of wells in the given phase, m ij 2 was the squared-distance (meters) between well i and participant j , and s i was 1 for the pad production and drilling phases, total well depth (meters) of well i for the stimulation phase, and daily natural gas production volume (m 3 ) of well i for the production phase.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other environmental stressors compounded with UOGD, or the inclusion of other UOGD infrastructure like pipelines and compressor stations, further such complexity. The use of amended IDW metrics, such as employed in Koehler et al [40], attempts to expand IDW by including well development phases to better define exposure. Regardless, the consensus of studies reporting on health impacts around UOGD infrastructure suggests consistency between variables.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior literature has not claimed the WA metric only captures air pollution exposure. In fact, the metric was designed to capture complex, multifactorial exposures, including air, water, noise, and light pollution as well as community disruption, psychosocial stress, increased traffic, and other potential impacts related to O&G activity [19]. Most prior epidemiologic studies note this [2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and acknowledge the limitations of using a WA metric.…”
Section: Misrepresentation Of the Wa Metrics Used In Epidemiologic Stmentioning
confidence: 99%