Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 248

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Incorporating Local Land Use Regression And Satellite Aerosol Optical Depth In A Hybrid Model Of Spatiotemporal PM2.5 Exposures In The Mid-Atlantic States

Open access
Kloog, Itai, Nordio, Francesco, Coull, Brent A., Schwartz, Joel·2012·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Satellite-derived aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements have the potential to provide spatiotemporally resolved predictions of both long and short-term exposures, but previous studies have generally shown moderate predictive power and lacked detailed high spatio- temporal resolution predictions across large domains. We aimed at extending our previous work by validating our model in another region with different geographical and metrological characteristics, and incorporating fine scale land use regression and nonrandom missingness to better predict PM(2.5) concentrations for days with or without satellite AOD measures. We start by calibrating AOD data for 2000-2008 across the Mid-Atlantic. We used mixed models regressing PM(2.5) measurements against day-specific random intercepts, and fixed and random AOD and temperature slopes. We used inverse probability weighting to account for nonrandom missingness of AOD, nested regions within days to capture spatial variation in the daily calibration, and introduced a penalization method that reduces the dimensionality of the large number of spatial and temporal predictors without selecting different predictors in different locations. We then take advantage of the association between grid-cell specific AOD values and PM(2.5) monitoring data, together with associations between AOD values in neighboring grid cells to develop grid cell predictions when AOD is missing. Finally to get local predictions (at the resolution of 50 m), we regressed the residuals from the predictions for each monitor from these previous steps against the local land use variables specific for each monitor. "Out-of-sample" 10-fold cross-validation was used to quantify the accuracy of our predictions at each step. For all days without AOD values, model performance was excellent (mean "out-of-sample" R(2) = 0.81, year-to-year variation 0.79-0.84). Upon removal of outliers in the PM(2.5) monitoring data, the results of the cross validation procedure was even better (overall mean "out of sample"R(2) of 0.85). Further, cross validation results revealed no bias in the predicted concentrations (Slope of observed vs predicted = 0.97-1.01). Our model allows one to reliably assess short-term and long-term human exposures in order to investigate both the acute and effects of ambient particles, respectively.

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 · 10.1021/es302673e

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 248

Metadata

Authors
Kloog, I., Nordio, F., Coull, B. A., & Schwartz, J.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2012-10-11
Volume
46
Issue
21
Pages
11913-11921
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2316257305
Cited by
248
References
1
FWCI
9.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.