Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Evaluation of gap-filling approaches in satellite-based daily PM2.5 prediction models

Xiao, Qingyang, Geng, Guannan, Cheng, Jing, Liang, Fengchao, Li, Rui, Meng, Xia, Xue, Tao, Huang, Xiaomeng, Kan, Haidong, Zhang, Qiang, He, Kebin·2021·Atmospheric Environment

Abstract

Abstract Approximately half of satellite aerosol retrievals are missing that limits the application of satellite data in PM2.5 pollution monitoring. To obtain spatiotemporally continuous PM2.5 distributions, various gap-filling methods have been developed, but have rarely been evaluated. Here, we reviewed and summarized four types of gap-filling strategies, and applied them to a random forest PM2.5 prediction model that incorporated ground observations, chemical transport model (CTM) simulations, and satellite AOD for predicting daily PM2.5 concentrations at a 1-km resolution in 2013 in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and the Yangtze River Delta. The model out-of-bag predictions were compared with national station measurements and external measurements to assess the performance of different gap-filling methods. We also conducted a by-city cross-validation and characterized the spatial distributions of PM2.5 prediction when the AOD coverage was low. We found that the methods filling in missing data by regression, i.e. multiple imputation and decision tree, performed robustly to characterizing PM2.5 variation at a high spatial resolution and the method filling in missing PM2.5 predictions with decision tree overcame the problem of time-consuming computations. The method using spatiotemporal trends to fill in missing data, i.e. ordinary kriging and generalized additive mixed model, may be overrated in statistical evaluation tests, and predicted artificially oversmoothed PM2.5 spatial distributions. We also revealed that CTM simulations benefited the prediction of PM2.5 spatial distribution in all the models with various gap-filling strategies with higher prediction accuracy in the by-city cross-validation. We noticed that the PM2.5 prediction was not sensitive to the resolution of CTM simulations and even the 12-km resolution CTM simulations benefited the high-resolution PM2.5 prediction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117921

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
Xiao, Q., Geng, G., Cheng, J., Liang, F., Li, R., Meng, X., Xue, T., Huang, X., Kan, H., Zhang, Q., & He, K.
Venue
Atmospheric Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-01
Volume
244
Pages
117921
ISSN
1352-2310 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3088297551
Cited by
187
References
0
FWCI
6.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of gap-filling approaches in satellite-based daily PM2.5 prediction models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117921
The paper
Xiao, Q., Geng, G., Cheng, J., Liang, F., Li, R., Meng, X., Xue, T., Huang, X., Kan, H., Zhang, Q., & He, K. (2021). Evaluation of gap-filling approaches in satellite-based daily PM2.5 prediction models. Atmospheric Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117921

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.