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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |