title: Geocoding rural addresses in a community contaminated by PFOA: a comparison of methods.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Location is often an important component of exposure assessment, and positional errors in geocoding may result in exposure misclassification. In rural areas, successful geocoding to a street address is limited by rural route boxes. Communities have assigned physical street addresses to rural route boxes as part of E911 readdressing projects for improved emergency response. Our study compared automated and E911 methods for recovering and geocoding valid street addresses and assessed the impact of positional errors on exposure classification.
  
  
  METHODS
  The current study is a secondary analysis of existing data that included 135 addresses self-reported by participants of a rural community study who were exposed via public drinking water to perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) released from a DuPont facility in Parkersburg, West Virginia. We converted pre-E911 to post-E911 addresses using two methods: automated ZP4 address-correction software with the U.S. Postal Service LACS database and E911 data provided by Wood County, West Virginia. Addresses were geocoded using TeleAtlas, an online commercial service, and ArcView with StreetMap Premium North America NAVTEQ 2008 enhanced street dataset. We calculated positional errors using GPS measurements collected at each address and assessed exposure based on geocoded location in relation to public water pipes.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The county E911 data converted 89% of the eligible addresses compared to 35% by ZP4 LACS. ArcView/NAVTEQ geocoded more addresses (n = 130) and with smaller median distance between geocodes and GPS coordinates (39 meters) than TeleAtlas (n = 85, 188 meters). Without E911 address conversion, 25% of the geocodes would have been more than 1000 meters from the true location. Positional errors in TeleAtlas geocoding resulted in exposure misclassification of seven addresses whereas ArcView/NAVTEQ methods did not misclassify any addresses.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Although the study was limited by small numbers, our results suggest that the use of county E911 data in rural areas increases the rate of successful geocoding. Furthermore, positional accuracy of rural addresses in the study area appears to vary by geocoding method. In a large epidemiological study investigating the health effects of PFOA-contaminated public drinking water, this could potentially result in exposure misclassification if addresses are incorrectly geocoded to a street segment not serviced by public water.
authors.affiliation: Department of Environmental Health, Boston University School of Public Health, MA 02116, USA. vmv@bu.edu
authors.forename: Verónica M
authors.initials: VM
authors.lastname: Vieira
authors.forename: Gregory J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Howard
authors.forename: Lisa G
authors.initials: LG
authors.lastname: Gallagher
authors.forename: Tony
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Fletcher
mesh_terms: D002210:Caprylates; D004781:Environmental Exposure; D004812:Epidemiologic Methods; D005466:Fluorocarbons; D040362:Geographic Information Systems / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D012424:Rural Population; D014876:Water Pollution; D014903:West Virginia
chemical_list: D002210:Caprylates; D005466:Fluorocarbons; C023036:perfluorooctanoic acid
references.citation: Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Jul;117(7):1083-8
references.pmid: 19654917
references.citation: Int J Health Geogr. 2009 May 01;8:24
references.pmid: 19409088
references.citation: Am J Prev Med. 2006 Feb;30(2 Suppl):S16-24
references.pmid: 16458786
references.citation: Health Place. 2009 Dec;15(4):1108-14
references.pmid: 19577505
references.citation: Epidemiology. 2003 Jul;14(4):408-12
references.pmid: 12843763
references.citation: Environ Health Perspect. 2010 Feb;118(2):222-8
references.pmid: 20123620
references.citation: Int J Health Geogr. 2007 Jan 10;6:1
references.pmid: 17214903
references.citation: Environ Health Perspect. 2007 Sep;115(9):1363-70
references.pmid: 17805429
references.citation: Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2006 Jul 20;3:8
references.pmid: 16857050
references.citation: Epidemiology. 2005 Jul;16(4):542-7
references.pmid: 15951673
references.citation: Environ Health. 2007 Apr 04;6:10
references.pmid: 17408484
references.citation: Int J Health Geogr. 2008 Apr 03;7:13
references.pmid: 18387189
references.citation: Int J Health Geogr. 2005 Nov 10;4:29
references.pmid: 16281976
references.citation: Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Dec;117(12):1873-82
references.pmid: 20049206
references.citation: Epidemiology. 2003 Jul;14(4):386-91
references.pmid: 12843760
references.citation: Int J Health Geogr. 2003 Dec 19;2(1):10
references.pmid: 14687425
references.citation: Int J Health Geogr. 2008 Nov 26;7:60
references.pmid: 19032791