Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Creating National Air Pollution Models for Population Exposure Assessment in Canada

Open access
Hystad, Perry, Setton, Eleanor, Cervantes, Alejandro, Poplawski, Karla, Deschenes, Steeve, Brauer, Michael, van Donkelaar, Aaron, Lamsal, Lok, Martin, Randall, Jerrett, Michael, Demers, Paul·2011·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Population exposure assessment methods that capture local-scale pollutant variability are needed for large-scale epidemiological studies and surveillance, policy, and regulatory purposes. Currently, such exposure methods are limited. METHODS: We created 2006 national pollutant models for fine particulate matter [PM with aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM2.5)], nitrogen dioxide (NO2), benzene, ethylbenzene, and 1,3-butadiene from routinely collected fixed-site monitoring data in Canada. In multiple regression models, we incorporated satellite estimates and geographic predictor variables to capture background and regional pollutant variation and used deterministic gradients to capture local-scale variation. The national NO2 and benzene models are evaluated with independent measurements from previous land use regression models that were conducted in seven Canadian cities. National models are applied to census block-face points, each of which represents the location of approximately 89 individuals, to produce estimates of population exposure. RESULTS: The national NO2 model explained 73% of the variability in fixed-site monitor concentrations, PM2.5 46%, benzene 62%, ethylbenzene 67%, and 1,3-butadiene 68%. The NO2 model predicted, on average, 43% of the within-city variability in the independent NO2 data compared with 18% when using inverse distance weighting of fixed-site monitoring data. Benzene models performed poorly in predicting within-city benzene variability. Based on our national models, we estimated Canadian ambient annual average population-weighted exposures (in micrograms per cubic meter) of 8.39 for PM2.5, 23.37 for NO2, 1.04 for benzene, 0.63 for ethylbenzene, and 0.09 for 1,3-butadiene. CONCLUSIONS: The national pollutant models created here improve exposure assessment compared with traditional monitor-based approaches by capturing both regional and local-scale pollution variation. Applying national models to routinely collected population location data can extend land use modeling techniques to population exposure assessment and to informing surveillance, policy, and regulation.

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 · 10.1289/ehp.1002976

Cites

29 of 29 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

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Hystad, P., Setton, E., Cervantes, A., Poplawski, K., Deschenes, S., Brauer, M., van Donkelaar, A., Lamsal, L., Martin, R., Jerrett, M., & Demers, P.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2011-08
Volume
119
Issue
8
Pages
1123-1129
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W1963738994
Cited by
283
References
29
FWCI
5.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Creating National Air Pollution Models for Population Exposure Assessment in Canada. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1289/ehp.1002976
The paper
Hystad, P., Setton, E., Cervantes, A., Poplawski, K., Deschenes, S., Brauer, M., van Donkelaar, A., Lamsal, L., Martin, R., Jerrett, M., & Demers, P. (2011). Creating National Air Pollution Models for Population Exposure Assessment in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002976

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.