Development of land use regression models for nitrogen dioxide, ultrafine particles, lung deposited surface area, and four other markers of particulate matter pollution in the Swiss SAPALDIA regions

Abstract

BackgroundLand Use Regression (LUR) is a popular method to explain and predict spatial contrasts in air pollution concentrations, but LUR models for ultrafine particles, such as particle number concentration (PNC) are especially scarce. Moreover, no models have been previously presented for the lung deposited surface area (LDSA) of ultrafine particles. The additional value of ultrafine particle metrics has not been well investigated due to lack of exposure measurements and models.MethodsAir pollution measurements were performed in 2011 and 2012 in the eight areas of the Swiss SAPALDIA study at up to 40 sites per area for NO2 and at 20 sites in four areas for markers of particulate air pollution. We developed multi-area LUR models for biannual average concentrations of PM2.5, PM2.5 absorbance, PM10, PMcoarse, PNC and LDSA, as well as alpine, non-alpine and study area specific models for NO2, using predictor variables which were available at a national level. Models were validated using leave-one-out cross-validation, as well as independent external validation with routine monitoring data.ResultsModel explained variance (R2) was moderate for the various PM mass fractions PM2.5 (0.57), PM10 (0.63) and PMcoarse (0.45), and was high for PM2.5 absorbance (0.81), PNC (0.87) and LDSA (0.91). Study-area specific LUR models for NO2 (R2 range 0.52–0.89) outperformed combined-area alpine (R2 = 0.53) and non-alpine (R2 = 0.65) models in terms of both cross-validation and independent external validation, and were better able to account for between-area variability. Predictor variables related to traffic and national dispersion model estimates were important predictors.ConclusionsLUR models for all pollutants captured spatial variability of long-term average concentrations, performed adequately in validation, and could be successfully applied to the SAPALDIA cohort. Dispersion model predictions or area indicators served well to capture the between area variance. For NO2, applying study-area specific models was preferable over applying combined-area alpine/non-alpine models. Correlations between pollutants were higher in the model predictions than in the measurements, so it will remain challenging to disentangle their health effects.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0137-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Robustness of intra urban land-use regression models for ultrafine particles and black carbon based on mobile monitoring

“…This is due to the significant decrease in total variance from temporal averaging. LUR models based on longer term UFP monitoring campaigns [34][35][36][37][38] explained spatial variability of their own measured UFP concentrations a lot better than our study, with R 2 values ranging from 0.48 to 0.89. In the current study, an increase in the averaging time of measurements led to an increase of the ability of mobile models to predict these measurements; from 15% to mobile measurements (median 25sec), 36% to short-term stationary measurements (3x30min) and 57% to home outdoor measurements (3x24h).…”

Use of Citizen Science-Derived Data for Spatial and Temporal Modeling of Particulate Matter near the US/Mexico Border

“…Wolf et al [28] used the ESCAPE data to create finer-spatial-resolution PM coarse LUR models for Germany, which had a validation R 2 of 0.49. Eeftens et al [29] modeled PM coarse using an LUR model for eight areas in Switzerland. The average validation R 2 was 0.38.…”

Study on the Response of PM2.5 Pollution to Land Use Change Based on GIS

“…At present, the domestic and foreign researchers mainly pay attention to the influence of land use on the spatial distribution of air quality [7][8][9][10], but mostly focus on the individual factors such as vegetation coverage index, and discuss the impact of land use type change on air quality at annual scale. However, the relationship between Land use and land-cover change and air quality at the annual scale is also often obscured by seasonal factors such as weather.…”