| Literature DB >> 28869527 |
Abstract
Particulate matters (PM) at the pedestrian level significantly raises the health impacts in the compact urban environment of Hong Kong. A detailed investigation of the fine-scale spatial variation of pedestrian-level PM is necessary to assess the health risk to pedestrians in the outdoor environment. However, the collection of PM data is difficult in the compact urban environment of Hong Kong due to the limited amount of roadside monitoring stations and the complicated urban context. In this study, we measured the fine-scale spatial variability of the PM in three of the most representative commercial districts of Hong Kong using a backpack outdoor environmental measuring unit. Based on the measurement data, 13 types of geospatial interpolation methods were examined for the spatial mapping of PM2.5 and PM10 with a group of building geometrical covariates. Geostatistical modelling was adopted as the basis of spatial interpolation of the PM. The results show that the original cokriging with the exponential kernel function provides the best performance in the PM mapping. Using the fine-scale building geometrical features as covariates slightly improves the interpolation performance. The study results also imply that the fine-scale, localized pollution emission sources heavily influence pedestrian exposure to PM.Entities:
Keywords: fine-scale spatial variability; geospatial interpolation; particulate matters; pedestrian level
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28869527 PMCID: PMC5615545 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14091008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The location and the building morphology of the three study areas (the size of the red rectangle is 500 × 500 m).
Figure 2The instrumentation of the backpack measuring unit, and the walking measurement routes in the three selected study areas for measuring the pedestrian-level PM concentration. (The walking measurement routes shown in this figure are labelled based on the forward direction of the walkthrough).
List of the 13 types of spatial interpolation methods used in this study.
| The 13 Types of Methods | Basic Interpolation Algorithm 1 | Weight Factors 2 | Covariates 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| LPI | LPI | none | n/a |
| LPISVF | LPI | 1 | n/a |
| LPIFAI | LPI | 2 | n/a |
| LPIRDA | LPI | 3 | n/a |
| OK | OK | n/a | none |
| OCKSVF | OCK | n/a | 1 |
| OCKFAI | OCK | n/a | 2 |
| OCKRDA | OCK | n/a | 3 |
| OCKALL | OCK | n/a | 1, 2, 3 |
| KIB | KIB | none | n/a |
| KIBSVF | KIB | 1 | n/a |
| KIBFAI | KIB | 2 | n/a |
| KIBRDA | KIB | 3 | n/a |
The basic interpolation algorithm: Local polynomial interpolation (LPI), Original kriging (OK), Original cokriging (OCK) and Kernel smoothing interpolation with barriers (KIB); The weight factors and covariates: (1) Sky-view factor within 50-m buffer (SVF50m), (2) Frontal-area index within 50-m buffer (FAI50m), and (3) Road-area ratio within 50-m buffer (RDA50m).
Figure 3The quantiles box plots (10%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 90%; Mean and Standard Deviation) of PM2.5 and PM10 concentration levels and the three covariates (SVF50m, FAI50m and RDA50m) in the three study areas.
The kernel function comparison based on the RMSE/ of the predicted PM concentration value by the LPI method. The method produces the minimum RMSE and the highest values of the PM2.5 and PM10 estimation of the three study areas were italicized.
| Study Areas | Tsim Sha Tsui | Mong Kok | Causeway Bay | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kernel Functions | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | |
| Exponential | |||||||
| Polynomial5 | 6.313/0.840 | 6.645/0.839 | 4.816/0.711 | 5.099/0.769 | 3.166/0.696 | 5.645/0.844 | |
| Gaussian | 6.073/0.854 | 6.387/0.853 | 4.767/0.719 | 5.045/0.775 | 3.169/0.691 | 5.668/0.837 | |
| Epanechnikov | 6.825/0.775 | 7.216/0.771 | 5.347/0.657 | 5.643/0.724 | 3.612/0.560 | 6.406/0.766 | |
| Quartic | 6.513/0.815 | 6.865/0.813 | 4.976/0.695 | 5.263/0.755 | 3.316/0.649 | 5.895/0.818 | |
| Constant | 7.071/0.725 | 7.479/0.723 | 6.087/0.574 | 6.383/0.657 | 4.051/0.436 | 7.166/0.686 | |
Figure 4The six resultant semivariogram models established for PM2.5 and PM10 of the three study areas.
The Comparison of the RMSE/ of PM concentration levels by the different interpolation algorithms. The method produces the minimum RMSE and the highest values of the PM2.5 and PM10 estimation of the three study areas were italicized.
| StudyAreas | Tsim Sha Tsui | Mong Kok | Causeway Bay | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algorithms | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | |
| LPI | 5.820/0.869 | 6.202/0.861 | 4.581/0.736 | 4.850/0.794 | 3.051/0.732 | 5.508/0.848 | |
| OK | 2.070/0.883 | ||||||
| OCK | 4.647/0.913 | 4.858/0.905 | 3.578/0.841 | 3.771/0.866 | 2.155/0.875 | 3.794/0.923 | |
| KIB | 4.733/0.908 | 4.943/0.903 | 3.631/0.835 | 3.818/0.863 | 3.853/0.922 | ||
The comparison of the RMSE/ of PM concentration levels by the consideration either on different weight factors or different covariates. The method produces the minimum RMSE and the highest values of the PM2.5 and PM10 estimation of the three study areas were italicized.
| Study Areas | Tsim Sha Tsui | Mong Kok | Causeway Bay | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates/Weight Factors | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | PM2.5 (μg/m3) | PM10 (μg/m3) | |
| None | 5.043/0.898 | 5.361/0.890 | 3.987/0.803 | 4.205/0.840 | 2.434/0.828 | 4.436/0.895 | |
| SVF50m (1) | 5.295/0.893 | 3.922/0.807 | 4.134/0.843 | ||||
| FAI50m (2) | 5.061/0.897 | 3.907/0.810 | 4.122/0.844 | 2.447/0.826 | 4.394/0.897 | ||
| RDA50m (3) | 5.079/0.895 | 5.334/0.891 | 2.378/0.837 | 4.355/0.899 | |||
Figure 5The resultant interpolation mapping of the PM2.5 and PM10 concentration in all three study areas.
Figure 6The validation of all resultant interpolation mappings of the PM2.5 and PM10 concentration in the three districts.