Cargando…

Comparison of Four Ground-Level PM(2.5) Estimation Models Using PARASOL Aerosol Optical Depth Data from China

Satellite remote sensing is of considerable importance for estimating ground-level PM(2.5) concentrations to support environmental agencies monitoring air quality. However, most current studies have focused mainly on the application of MODIS aerosol optical depth (AOD) to predict PM(2.5) concentrati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guo, Hong, Cheng, Tianhai, Gu, Xingfa, Chen, Hao, Wang, Ying, Zheng, Fengjie, Xiang, Kunshen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26840329
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020180
_version_ 1782418520502435840
author Guo, Hong
Cheng, Tianhai
Gu, Xingfa
Chen, Hao
Wang, Ying
Zheng, Fengjie
Xiang, Kunshen
author_facet Guo, Hong
Cheng, Tianhai
Gu, Xingfa
Chen, Hao
Wang, Ying
Zheng, Fengjie
Xiang, Kunshen
author_sort Guo, Hong
collection PubMed
description Satellite remote sensing is of considerable importance for estimating ground-level PM(2.5) concentrations to support environmental agencies monitoring air quality. However, most current studies have focused mainly on the application of MODIS aerosol optical depth (AOD) to predict PM(2.5) concentrations, while PARASOL AOD, which is sensitive to fine-mode aerosols over land surfaces, has received little attention. In this study, we compared a linear regression model, a quadratic regression model, a power regression model and a logarithmic regression model, which were developed using PARASOL level 2 AOD collected in China from 18 January 2013 to 10 October 2013. We obtained R (correlation coefficient) values of 0.64, 0.63, 0.62, and 0.57 for the four models when they were cross validated with the observed values. Furthermore, after all the data were classified into six levels according to the Air Quality Index (AQI), a low level of statistical significance between the four empirical models was found when the ground-level PM(2.5) concentrations were greater than 75 μg/m(3). The maximum R value was 0.44 (for the logarithmic regression model and the power model), and the minimum R value was 0.28 (for the logarithmic regression model and the power model) when the PM(2.5) concentrations were less than 75 μg/m(3). We also discussed uncertainty sources and possible improvements.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4772200
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47722002016-03-08 Comparison of Four Ground-Level PM(2.5) Estimation Models Using PARASOL Aerosol Optical Depth Data from China Guo, Hong Cheng, Tianhai Gu, Xingfa Chen, Hao Wang, Ying Zheng, Fengjie Xiang, Kunshen Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Satellite remote sensing is of considerable importance for estimating ground-level PM(2.5) concentrations to support environmental agencies monitoring air quality. However, most current studies have focused mainly on the application of MODIS aerosol optical depth (AOD) to predict PM(2.5) concentrations, while PARASOL AOD, which is sensitive to fine-mode aerosols over land surfaces, has received little attention. In this study, we compared a linear regression model, a quadratic regression model, a power regression model and a logarithmic regression model, which were developed using PARASOL level 2 AOD collected in China from 18 January 2013 to 10 October 2013. We obtained R (correlation coefficient) values of 0.64, 0.63, 0.62, and 0.57 for the four models when they were cross validated with the observed values. Furthermore, after all the data were classified into six levels according to the Air Quality Index (AQI), a low level of statistical significance between the four empirical models was found when the ground-level PM(2.5) concentrations were greater than 75 μg/m(3). The maximum R value was 0.44 (for the logarithmic regression model and the power model), and the minimum R value was 0.28 (for the logarithmic regression model and the power model) when the PM(2.5) concentrations were less than 75 μg/m(3). We also discussed uncertainty sources and possible improvements. MDPI 2016-01-30 2016-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4772200/ /pubmed/26840329 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020180 Text en © 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Guo, Hong
Cheng, Tianhai
Gu, Xingfa
Chen, Hao
Wang, Ying
Zheng, Fengjie
Xiang, Kunshen
Comparison of Four Ground-Level PM(2.5) Estimation Models Using PARASOL Aerosol Optical Depth Data from China
title Comparison of Four Ground-Level PM(2.5) Estimation Models Using PARASOL Aerosol Optical Depth Data from China
title_full Comparison of Four Ground-Level PM(2.5) Estimation Models Using PARASOL Aerosol Optical Depth Data from China
title_fullStr Comparison of Four Ground-Level PM(2.5) Estimation Models Using PARASOL Aerosol Optical Depth Data from China
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Four Ground-Level PM(2.5) Estimation Models Using PARASOL Aerosol Optical Depth Data from China
title_short Comparison of Four Ground-Level PM(2.5) Estimation Models Using PARASOL Aerosol Optical Depth Data from China
title_sort comparison of four ground-level pm(2.5) estimation models using parasol aerosol optical depth data from china
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26840329
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020180
work_keys_str_mv AT guohong comparisonoffourgroundlevelpm25estimationmodelsusingparasolaerosolopticaldepthdatafromchina
AT chengtianhai comparisonoffourgroundlevelpm25estimationmodelsusingparasolaerosolopticaldepthdatafromchina
AT guxingfa comparisonoffourgroundlevelpm25estimationmodelsusingparasolaerosolopticaldepthdatafromchina
AT chenhao comparisonoffourgroundlevelpm25estimationmodelsusingparasolaerosolopticaldepthdatafromchina
AT wangying comparisonoffourgroundlevelpm25estimationmodelsusingparasolaerosolopticaldepthdatafromchina
AT zhengfengjie comparisonoffourgroundlevelpm25estimationmodelsusingparasolaerosolopticaldepthdatafromchina
AT xiangkunshen comparisonoffourgroundlevelpm25estimationmodelsusingparasolaerosolopticaldepthdatafromchina