| Literature DB >> 27447442 |
Kees de Hoogh1, John Gulliver2, Aaron van Donkelaar3, Randall V Martin4, Julian D Marshall5, Matthew J Bechle6, Giulia Cesaroni7, Marta Cirach Pradas8, Audrius Dedele9, Marloes Eeftens10, Bertil Forsberg11, Claudia Galassi12, Joachim Heinrich13, Barbara Hoffmann14, Bénédicte Jacquemin15, Klea Katsouyanni16, Michal Korek17, Nino Künzli18, Sarah J Lindley19, Johanna Lepeule20, Frederik Meleux21, Audrey de Nazelle22, Mark Nieuwenhuijsen23, Wenche Nystad24, Ole Raaschou-Nielsen25, Annette Peters26, Vincent-Henri Peuch27, Laurence Rouil28, Orsolya Udvardy29, Rémy Slama30, Morgane Stempfelet31, Euripides G Stephanou32, Ming Y Tsai33, Tarja Yli-Tuomi34, Gudrun Weinmayr35, Bert Brunekreef36, Danielle Vienneau37, Gerard Hoek38.
Abstract
Satellite-derived (SAT) and chemical transport model (CTM) estimates of PM2.5 and NO2 are increasingly used in combination with Land Use Regression (LUR) models. We aimed to compare the contribution of SAT and CTM data to the performance of LUR PM2.5 and NO2 models for Europe. Four sets of models, all including local traffic and land use variables, were compared (LUR without SAT or CTM, with SAT only, with CTM only, and with both SAT and CTM). LUR models were developed using two monitoring data sets: PM2.5 and NO2 ground level measurements from the European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE) and from the European AIRBASE network. LUR PM2.5 models including SAT and SAT+CTM explained ~60% of spatial variation in measured PM2.5 concentrations, substantially more than the LUR model without SAT and CTM (adjR2: 0.33-0.38). For NO2 CTM improved prediction modestly (adjR2: 0.58) compared to models without SAT and CTM (adjR2: 0.47-0.51). Both monitoring networks are capable of producing models explaining the spatial variance over a large study area. SAT and CTM estimates of PM2.5 and NO2 significantly improved the performance of high spatial resolution LUR models at the European scale for use in large epidemiological studies.Entities:
Keywords: Air pollution; Exposure; Fine particulate matter; Nitrogen dioxide; Spatial modelling
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27447442 DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.07.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Res ISSN: 0013-9351 Impact factor: 6.498