| Literature DB >> 25464132 |
Lin-Yu Xu1, Hao Yin2, Xiao-Dong Xie3.
Abstract
Inhalable particulate matter (PM10) is a primary air pollutant closely related to public health, and an especially serious problem in urban areas. The urban heat island (UHI) effect has made the urban PM10 pollution situation more complex and severe. In this study, we established a health risk assessment system utilizing an epidemiological method taking the thermal environment effects into consideration. We utilized a remote sensing method to retrieve the PM10 concentration, UHI, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), and Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI). With the correlation between difference vegetation index (DVI) and PM10 concentration, we utilized the established model between PM10 and thermal environmental indicators to evaluate the PM10 health risks based on the epidemiological study. Additionally, with the regulation of UHI, NDVI and NDWI, we aimed at regulating the PM10 health risks and thermal environment simultaneously. This study attempted to accomplish concurrent thermal environment regulation and elimination of PM10 health risks through control of UHI intensity. The results indicate that urban Beijing has a higher PM10 health risk than rural areas; PM10 health risk based on the thermal environment is 1.145, which is similar to the health risk calculated (1.144) from the PM10 concentration inversion; according to the regulation results, regulation of UHI and NDVI is effective and helpful for mitigation of PM10 health risk in functional zones.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25464132 PMCID: PMC4276619 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph111212368
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Study area and functional regionalization distribution.
Exposure-response relationship coefficients of different diameters of PM10 (βi).
| Hazard Level | Health Impact Types (i) | βi (PM10) | Reference Information | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
| Death | All causes mortality | 0.00038 | (0.00035, 0.00042) [ | Meta analysis based on Chinese studies, 2009 |
| Chronic mortality | 0.00192 | (0.000494, 0.00328) | Meta analysis based on Chinese studies, 2013 | |
| Acute mortality | 0.00026 | (0.000124, 0.000403) | Meta analysis based on Chinese studies, 2013 | |
| Morbidity | Asthma | 0.00190 | (0.00145, 0.00235) [ | Meta analysis based on Chinese studies, 2009 |
| Chronic bronchitis | 0.00656 | (0.00238, 0.01013) | Meta analysis based on Chinese studies, 2013 | |
| Acute bronchitis | 0.00550 | (0.00189, 0.00911) [ | Study in Pearl River Delta in China, 2006 | |
| Hospitalization | Respiratory system disease | 0.00124 | (0.00084, 0.00162) [ | Study in Pearl River Delta in China, 2006 |
| Cardiovascular disease | 0.00066 | (0.00036, 0.00095) [ | Study in Pearl River Delta in China, 2006 | |
Notes: * indicates that the data were converted by PM2.5/PM10 = 0.65, all data were collected from recent studies.
Figure 2Relationship between DVI and PM10 concentration in March 2009.
Figure 3PM10 TM image inversion results in March 2009.
Accuracy verification results of PM10 TM image inversion in March 2009.
| Sample Serial Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error rate (%) | 3.98 | 16.68 | 5.66 | 14.39 | 0.05 | 11.76 | 6.41 |
| Average error rate (%) | 8.44 | ||||||
Figure 4PM10 health risk assessment results in Beijing in March 2009.
UHI, NDVI and NDWI and PM10 concentration of different districts/counties in March 2009.
| Function Zone | Districts/Counties | UHI | NDVI | NDWI | PM10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core functional zone | Dongcheng | 0.0949 | −0.0340 | 2.1858 | 122.1179 |
| Xicheng | 0.1032 | −0.0479 | 2.26298 | 122.4633 | |
| Expanding urban functional zone | Chaoyang | 0.1347 | −0.0110 | 1.82502 | 103.6067 |
| Fengtai | 0.2059 | −0.0087 | 1.63885 | 103.0618 | |
| Shijingshan | 0.1738 | −0.0027 | 1.51558 | 98.6612 | |
| Haidian | 0.1295 | 0.0075 | 1.46408 | 91.0722 | |
| New urban development zone | Fangshan | 0.0821 | 0.0142 | 1.88004 | 86.1678 |
| Tongzhou | 0.1630 | 0.0240 | 1.64704 | 77.9883 | |
| Shunyi | 0.1159 | 0.0233 | 1.04961 | 78.8774 | |
| Changping | 0.1718 | 0.0201 | 1.16889 | 80.9161 | |
| Daxing | 0.1980 | 0.0169 | 1.12659 | 83.1933 | |
| Ecological conservation development zone | Mentougou | −0.0294 | 0.0246 | 1.59843 | 79.5299 |
| Huairou | 0.0314 | 0.0482 | 1.87591 | 66.9317 | |
| Pinggu | −0.2141 | 0.0423 | 2.11136 | 70.1956 | |
| Miyun | −0.1543 | 0.0325 | 1.79686 | 75.3956 | |
| Yanqing | −0.1562 | 0.0307 | 1.75038 | 76.3468 |
Note: “PM10” represents the average PM10 concentration (μg/m3) in different districts or counties.
PM10 health risk assessment results comparison in Beijing in March 2009.
| Function Zone | District/County | PM10 Health Risk Assessment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results 1 (TRa) CI (95%) | Results 2 (TRb) CI (95%) | Variance Ratio (%) | ||
| Core functional zone | Dongcheng | 1.2876 (1.1052, 1.5196) | 1.3012 (1.1094, 1.5482) | 1.0593 |
| Xicheng | 1.3157 (1.1139, 1.5789) | 1.3025 (1.1098, 1.5509) | 1.0025 | |
| Expanding urban functional zone | Chaoyang | 1.2355 (1.0883, 1.4138) | 1.2351 (1.0882, 1.4131) | 0.0291 |
| Fengtai | 1.2351 (1.0882, 1.4130) | 1.2333 (1.0876, 1.4094) | 0.1451 | |
| Shijingshan | 1.2254 (1.0850, 1.3940) | 1.2185 (1.0827, 1.3803) | 0.5707 | |
| Haidian | 1.1962 (1.0751, 1.3374) | 1.1937 (1.0742, 1.3326) | 0.2104 | |
| New urban development zone | Fangshan | 1.1754 (1.0679, 1.2982) | 1.1781 (1.0599, 1.2568) | 0.2273 |
| Tongzhou | 1.1469 (1.0577, 1.2457) | 1.1530 (1.0609, 1.2617) | 0.5301 | |
| Shunyi | 1.1514 (1.0594, 1.2539) | 1.1557 (1.0631, 1.2731) | 0.3682 | |
| Changping | 1.1694 (1.0658, 1.2870) | 1.1619 (1.0656, 1.2860) | 0.6436 | |
| Daxing | 1.1657 (1.0644,1.2870) | 1.1689 (1.0616, 1.2653) | 0.2727 | |
| Ecological conservation development zone | Mentougou | 1.1583 (1.0618, 1.2666) | 1.1576 (1.0688, 1.3032) | 0.0588 |
| Huairou | 1.1192 (1.0476, 1.1962) | 1.1205 (1.0481, 1.1986) | 0.1192 | |
| Pinggu | 1.1248 (1.0496, 1.2061) | 1.1299 (1.0515, 1.2153) | 0.4590 | |
| Miyun | 1.1429 (1.0563, 1.2385) | 1.1452 (1.0571, 1.2427) | 0.2026 | |
| Yanqing | 1.1509 (1.0592, 1.2530) | 1.1481 (1.0581, 1.2478) | 0.2499 | |
| Average value | 1.1875 | 1.1877 | 0.3843 | |
Notes: “Results 1” means the health risk results calculated based on the PM10 inversion of remote sensing, “Results 2” represents the health risk assessment results based on thermal environment. Variance ratio (%) = |TRa − TRb|/TRa × 100.
Figure 5PM10 health risks based on the thermal environment in Beijing in March 2009.
Beijing PM10 health risk regulation results analysis (UHI-0.1).
| Function Zone | District/County | Assessment Results | Regulation Results | Regulation Effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core functional zone | Dongcheng | 1.2876 | 1.2858 | 0.0018 |
| Xicheng | 1.3157 | 1.2870 | 0.0286 | |
| Average | 1.3016 | 1.2864 | 0.0152 | |
| Expanding urban functional zone | Chaoyang | 1.2355 | 1.2311 | 0.0044 |
| Fengtai | 1.2351 | 1.2292 | 0.0058 | |
| Shijingshan | 1.2254 | 1.2145 | 0.0109 | |
| Haidian | 1.1962 | 1.1899 | 0.0063 | |
| Average | 1.2230 | 1.2162 | 0.0069 | |
| New urban development zone | Fangshan | 1.1754 | 1.1806 | −0.0051 |
| Tongzhou | 1.1469 | 1.1553 | −0.0084 | |
| Shunyi | 1.1514 | 1.1580 | −0.0066 | |
| Changping | 1.1694 | 1.1643 | 0.0051 | |
| Daxing | 1.1657 | 1.1713 | −0.0056 | |
| Average | 1.1618 | 1.1659 | −0.0041 | |
| Ecological conservation development zone | Mentougou | 1.1583 | 1.1577 | 0.0006 |
| Huairou | 1.1192 | 1.1206 | −0.0014 | |
| Pinggu | 1.1248 | 1.1300 | −0.0053 | |
| Miyun | 1.1429 | 1.1453 | −0.0024 | |
| Yanqing | 1.1509 | 1.1482 | 0.0028 | |
| Average | 1.1392 | 1.1404 | −0.0012 |
Note: regulation effect = assessment result-regulation result.
Beijing PM10 health risk regulation results analysis (UHI-0.1, NDVI + 0.1).
| Function Zone | District/County | Regulation Results | Regulation Effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core functional zone | Dongcheng | 1.2858 | 0.0018 |
| Xicheng | 1.2870 | 0.0286 | |
| Average | 1.2864 | 0.0152 | |
| Expanding urban functional zone | Chaoyang | 1.0290 | 0.2065 |
| Fengtai | 1.0276 | 0.2074 | |
| Shijingshan | 1.0171 | 0.2084 | |
| Haidian | 0.9993 | 0.1969 | |
| Average | 1.0183 | 0.2048 | |
| New urban development zone | Fangshan | 0.9772 | 0.1982 |
| Tongzhou | 0.9595 | 0.1874 | |
| Shunyi | 0.9614 | 0.1900 | |
| Changping | 0.9658 | 0.2036 | |
| Daxing | 0.9707 | 0.1950 | |
| Average | 0.9669 | 0.1948 | |
| Ecological conservation development zone | Mentougou | 1.0146 | 0.1437 |
| Huairou | 0.9856 | 0.1336 | |
| Pinggu | 0.9930 | 0.1318 | |
| Miyun | 1.0049 | 0.1380 | |
| Yanqing | 1.0071 | 0.1438 | |
| Average | 1.0010 | 0.1382 |
Beijing PM10 health risk regulation results analysis (UHI-0.1, NDVI + 0.1, NDWI + 0.1).
| Function Zone | District/County | Regulation Results | Regulation Effects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core functional zone | Dongcheng | 1.2858 | 0.0018 |
| Xicheng | 1.2870 | 0.0286 | |
| Average | 1.2864 | 0.0152 | |
| Expanding urban functional zone | Chaoyang | 1.0286 | 0.2068 |
| Fengtai | 1.0273 | 0.2077 | |
| Shijingshan | 1.0167 | 0.2087 | |
| Haidian | 0.9990 | 0.1972 | |
| Average | 1.0179 | 0.2051 | |
| New urban development zone | Fangshan | 0.9772 | 0.1982 |
| Tongzhou | 0.9595 | 0.1874 | |
| Shunyi | 0.9614 | 0.1900 | |
| Changping | 0.9658 | 0.2036 | |
| Daxing | 0.9707 | 0.1950 | |
| Average | 0.9669 | 0.1948 | |
| Ecological conservation development zone | Mentougou | 1.0146 | 0.1437 |
| Huairou | 0.9856 | 0.1336 | |
| Pinggu | 0.9930 | 0.1318 | |
| Miyun | 1.0049 | 0.1380 | |
| Yanqing | 1.0071 | 0.1438 | |
| Average | 1.0010 | 0.1382 |