Spatial Variation in Environmental Noise and Air Pollution in New York City

Abstract

Exposure to environmental noise from traffic is common in urban areas and has been linked to increased risks of adverse health effects including cardiovascular disease. Because traffic sources also produce air pollutants that increase the risk of cardiovascular morbidity, associations between traffic exposures and health outcomes may involve confounding and/or synergisms between air pollution and noise. While prior studies have characterized intraurban spatial variation in air pollution in New York City (NYC), limited data exists on the levels and spatial variation in noise levels. We measured 1-week equivalent continuous sound pressure levels (L eq ) at 56 sites during the fall of 2012 across NYC locations with varying traffic intensity and building density that are routinely monitored for combustion-related air pollutants. We evaluated correlations among several noise metrics used to characterize noise exposures, including L eq during different time periods (night, day, weekday, weekend), L dn (day-night noise), and measures of intermittent noise defined as the ratio of peak levels to median and background levels. We also examined correlations between sound pressure levels and co-located simultaneous measures of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), and black carbon (BC) as well as estimates of traffic and building density around the monitoring sites. Noise levels varied widely across the 56 monitoring sites; 1-week L eq varied by 21.6 dBA (range 59.1-80.7 dBA) with the highest levels observed during the weekday, daytime hours. Indices of average noise were well correlated with each other (r9 0.83), while indices of intermittent noise were not well correlated with average noise levels (rG0.41). One-week L eq correlated well with NO, NO 2 , and EC levels (r=0.61 to 0.68) and less so with PM 2.5 levels (r=0.45). We observed associations between 1-week noise levels and traffic intensity within 100 m of the monitoring sites (r = 0.58). The high levels of noise observed in NYC often exceed recommended guidelines for outdoor and personal exposures, suggesting unhealthy levels in many locations. Associations between noise, traffic, and combustion air pollutants suggest the possibility for confounding and/or synergism in intraurban epidemiological studies of traffic-related health effects. The different spatial pattern of intermittent noise compared to average noise level may suggest different sources.Kheirbek, Ito, Kim, Johnson, and Matte are with the New York City

A Conceptual Modeling Approach to Health-Related Urban Well-Being

“…In urban areas and metropolitan regions in Europe, air pollution is mainly caused by traffic, with a high share of heavy commercial vehicles [84]. In addition to road traffic, aviation and industry [85] are important sources of air pollutants and noise in cities [86,87].…”

“…At the same time, noise has a major effect on urban health: "At least one million healthy life years are lost every year because of traffic-related noise in the western part of Europe" [86]. Nevertheless, it is still an open question as to whether the exposure to air pollutants or the exposure to noise violates principles of environmental justice (Section 4) [99].…”

Metrics in Urban Health: Current Developments and Future Prospects

“…Even though the links between urban noise pollution and issues of population health appear to be more recent, the metrics for noise pollution are well established. The L EQ represents the average noise level received over a period of time that typically spans minutes to hours, whereas the L MAX represents the very highest exposure received over a period of seconds or even milliseconds (50,61). A-weighted decibels (dBA) are an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear.…”

National review of ambient air toxics observations

“…The evidence suggests that the basic concentration patterns and trends generated by NATTS are consistent with the larger air toxics data base (Figure 2), thus raising the confidence that NATTS adequately captures general concentration profiles in major urban centers. Clearly, routine national monitoring networks, such as the NATTS, are not capable of delineating the fine-scale spatial texture often associated with a complex mix of sources and extremely variable local-scale meteorology, where even well-dispersed HAPs such as benzene and formaldehyde exhibit significant gradients at subkilometer scales (Whitworth et al, 2011, Kheirbek et al, 2012. Moreover, a lack of air toxics regulatory drivers comparable to those for NAAQS monitoring combined with labor-intensive sampling and analysis protocols suggests that traditional network expansion may not be feasible.…”