Systematic literature review of reproductive outcome associated with residential proximity to polluted sites

Kihal-Talantikite, Wahida; Zmirou-Navier, Denis; Padilla, Cindy; Deguen, Séverine

doi:10.1186/s12942-017-0091-y

International Journal of Health Geographics

Table 4 Summary of GIS-based (geographic information system) approaches used to assessed residential proximity to polluted site

From: Systematic literature review of reproductive outcome associated with residential proximity to polluted sites

Approach	Polluted sites	Study design	Exposure threshold	Study location	Auteurs, year
Distance-decay modeling	TRI	Case–control	0.5 mile	Texas	Suarez et al. 2007 [39]
			1.6 km (1 mile)	Texas	Langlois et al. 2009 [13]
				Texas	Brender et al. 2008 [33]
				Texas	Brender et al. 2006 [32]
				Texas	Suarez et al. 2007 [39]
			3.5 km (or 2 miles)	Texas	Suarez et al. 2007 [39]
			4.8 km (3 miles)	Texas	Suarez et al. 2007 [39]
		Cohort	Continuous measure	England	Dummer et al. 2003b [43]
		Ecological	3.5 km (or 2 miles)	Spain	Castello et al. 2013 [53]
	Waste site	Case–control	1.6 km (1 mile)	California	Croen et al. 1997 [35]
				California and New York	Sosniak et al. 1994 [30]
				Texas	Suarez et al. 2007 [39]
				Texas	Malik et al. 2004 [31]
				Texas	Brender et al. 2008 [33]
				Texas	Brender et al. 2006 [32]
				Texas	Langlois et al. 2009 [13]
			8 km (5 miles)	Washington state	Mueller et al. 2007 [40]
			8 km (5 miles)	Washington state	Kuehn et al. 2007 [34]
			Pondered distance	New York	Geschwind et al. 1992 [37]
	Landfill	Case–control	Continuous measure	5 pays européens	Vriljheld et al. 2002a [51]
		Case–control	2 km	Wales	Palmer et al. 2005 [46]
		Cohort	Continuous measure	England	Dummer et al. 2003c [42]
	Incinerator	Cohort	Continuous measure	England	Dummer et al. 2003a [44]
	Crematoriums	Cohort	Continuous measure	England	Dummer et al. 2003 [44]
Buffer-based approach	Waste site	Case–control	1.6 km (1 mile, 1.32)	New York State	Marshall et al. 1997 [38]
		Case–control	1.6 km (1 mile, 1.32)	Milwaukee, Wisconsin	Yauck et al. 2004 [22]
		Ecological	3 km	New Castle upon Tyne	Cresswell et al. 2003 [24]
		Ecological	A10 km subdivided into one circle of 2 km and1 km	Glasgow and nearby areas	Eizaguirre-García et al. 2000 [25]
	Landfill	Ecological	2 km	Great-britain	Elliott et al. 2001 [45]
				Scotland	Morris et al. 2003 [47]
				England and Wales	Jarup et al. 2007 [49]
				Denmark	Kloppenborg et al. 2005 [26]
			Exposure index-2 km	Great-britain	Elliott et al. 2009 [11]
			3 km	South Wales	Fielder et al. 2000 [21]
		Case–control	3 km	5 pays européens	Vriljheld et al. 2002a [51]
				5 pays européens	Vriljheld et al. 2002b [1]
				Europe	Dolk et al. 1998 [52]
			2–3 versus 4–5 km	Dublin, kildene, Wicklow	Boyle et al. 2004 [41]
		Cohort	3 km	England	Morgan et al. 2004 [50]
	Industry	Ecological	20 km	Beer-Sheva subdistrict	Bentov et al. 2006 [57]
	Incinerator	Cohort	2 km	Japan	Tango et al. 2004 [56]
Neighbor-based approach	Landfill	Ecological	NR	Philadelphia	Berry et al. 1997 [27]
	Landfill	Case–control	NR	Montreal	Goldberg et al. 1995 [54]
	Industry	Ecological	NR	United Kingdom	Bhopal et al. 1999 [48]
Spatial coincidence	Waste site	Ecological	Zip-code	New York State	Baibergenova et al. 2003 [28]
		Case–control	Census tracts	California	Orr et al. 2002 [12]
				California	Croen et al. 1997 [35]
				San Francisco Bay Area	Shaw et al. 1992 [23]
		Cohort	City	Sydney, Nova Scotia	Dodds et al. 2001 [55]
	Dumpsites	Cohort	Villages	Alaska	Gilbreath et al. 2005a, b [29, 36]

TRI Toxic Release Inventory facilities

Back to article page

ISSN: 1476-072X

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com