Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 455

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Random forest meteorological normalisation models for Swiss PM 10 trend analysis

Open access
Grange, Stuart K., Carslaw, David C., Lewis, Alastair C., Boleti, Eirini, Hueglin, Christoph·2018·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Abstract

Abstract. Meteorological normalisation is a technique which accounts for changes in meteorology over time in an air quality time series. Controlling for such changes helps support robust trend analysis because there is more certainty that the observed trends are due to changes in emissions or chemistry, not changes in meteorology. Predictive random forest models (RF; a decision tree machine learning technique) were grown for 31 air quality monitoring sites in Switzerland using surface meteorological, synoptic scale, boundary layer height, and time variables to explain daily PM10 concentrations. The RF models were used to calculate meteorologically normalised trends which were formally tested and evaluated using the Theil–Sen estimator. Between 1997 and 2016, significantly decreasing normalised PM10 trends ranged between −0.09 and −1.16 µg m−3 yr−1 with urban traffic sites experiencing the greatest mean decrease in PM10 concentrations at −0.77 µg m−3 yr−1. Similar magnitudes have been reported for normalised PM10 trends for earlier time periods in Switzerland which indicates PM10 concentrations are continuing to decrease at similar rates as in the past. The ability for RF models to be interpreted was leveraged using partial dependence plots to explain the observed trends and relevant physical and chemical processes influencing PM10 concentrations. Notably, two regimes were suggested by the models which cause elevated PM10 concentrations in Switzerland: one related to poor dispersion conditions and a second resulting from high rates of secondary PM generation in deep, photochemically active boundary layers. The RF meteorological normalisation process was found to be robust, user friendly and simple to implement, and readily interpretable which suggests the technique could be useful in many air quality exploratory data analysis situations.

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 · 10.5194/acp-18-6223-2018

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Metadata

Authors
Grange, S. K., Carslaw, D. C., Lewis, A. C., Boleti, E., & Hueglin, C.
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Published
2018-05-03
Volume
18
Issue
9
Pages
6223-6239
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
OpenAlex
W2786588599
Cited by
455
References
31
FWCI
10.98
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: Random forest meteorological normalisation models for Swiss PM 10 trend analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/acp-18-6223-2018
The paper
Grange, S. K., Carslaw, D. C., Lewis, A. C., Boleti, E., & Hueglin, C. (2018). Random forest meteorological normalisation models for Swiss PM 10 trend analysis. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-6223-2018

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.