| Literature DB >> 28932237 |
Weide Li1, Demeng Kong1, Jinran Wu1,2.
Abstract
Air pollution in China is becoming more serious especially for the particular matter (PM) because of rapid economic growth and fast expansion of urbanization. To solve the growing environment problems, daily PM2.5 and PM10 concentration data form January 1, 2015, to August 23, 2016, in Kunming and Yuxi (two important cities in Yunnan Province, China) are used to present a new hybrid model CI-FPA-SVM to forecast air PM2.5 and PM10 concentration in this paper. The proposed model involves two parts. Firstly, due to its deficiency to assess the possible correlation between different variables, the cointegration theory is introduced to get the input-output relationship and then obtain the nonlinear dynamical system with support vector machine (SVM), in which the parameters c and g are optimized by flower pollination algorithm (FPA). Six benchmark models, including FPA-SVM, CI-SVM, CI-GA-SVM, CI-PSO-SVM, CI-FPA-NN, and multiple linear regression model, are considered to verify the superiority of the proposed hybrid model. The empirical study results demonstrate that the proposed model CI-FPA-SVM is remarkably superior to all considered benchmark models for its high prediction accuracy, and the application of the model for forecasting can give effective monitoring and management of further air quality.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28932237 PMCID: PMC5592417 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2843651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1The process and pseudocode of FPA.
Figure 2The basic structure of CI-FPA-SVM.
Figure 3The locations of study areas.
Figure 4The original PM2.5 and PM10 of Kunming and Yuxi.
Statistical parameters of PM2.5 and PM10 in each data set.
| Particular matter | Region | Min | Max | Mean | Std | SK | CV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM2.5 | Kunming | ||||||
| All | 7.70 | 95.80 | 28.34 | 12.33 | 0.98 | 0.43 | |
| Training | 7.70 | 95.80 | 30.45 | 12.26 | 0.95 | 0.40 | |
| Test | 7.80 | 35.50 | 18.95 | 7.20 | 0.55 | 0.38 | |
| Yuxi | |||||||
| All | 4.80 | 91.00 | 24.20 | 12.06 | 1.23 | 0.50 | |
| Training | 5.90 | 91.00 | 26.28 | 12.00 | 1.25 | 0.46 | |
| Test | 4.80 | 36.00 | 14.92 | 6.91 | 0.79 | 0.46 | |
|
| |||||||
| PM10 | Kunming | ||||||
| All | 14.00 | 129.00 | 53.12 | 20.72 | 0.69 | 0.39 | |
| Training | 14.00 | 129.00 | 56.16 | 20.66 | 0.63 | 0.37 | |
| Test | 15.00 | 82.50 | 39.55 | 14.74 | 0.89 | 0.37 | |
| Yuxi | |||||||
| All | 6.80 | 121.00 | 42.18 | 17.85 | 0.52 | 0.42 | |
| Training | 6.80 | 121.00 | 45.19 | 17.27 | 0.51 | 0.38 | |
| Test | 10.30 | 64.80 | 28.76 | 13.81 | 0.85 | 0.48 | |
Min: the minimum. Max: the maximum. Std: the standard deviation. SK: the skewness. CV: the coefficient of variation.
The ADF unit root test on time series.
| Kunming_PM2.5 | Kunming_PM10 | Yuxi_PM2.5 | Yuxi_PM10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| −11.35 | −11.87 | −4.46 | −9.80 |
| Prob. | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
The unrestricted cointegration rank test on four time series.
| Hypothesized number of CE(s) | Eigenvalue | Trace statistic | 0.05 critical value | Prob. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unrestricted cointegration rank test (trace) | None | 0.11 | 216.72 | 47.86 | 0.00 |
| At most 1 | 0.11 | 144.37 | 29.80 | 0.00 | |
| At most 2 | 0.07 | 76.86 | 15.49 | 0.00 | |
| At most 3 | 0.06 | 35.31 | 3.84 | 0.00 | |
|
| |||||
| Unrestricted cointegration rank test (maximum eigenvalue) | None | 0.11 | 72.34 | 27.58 | 0.00 |
| At most 1 | 0.11 | 67.51 | 21.13 | 0.00 | |
| At most 2 | 0.07 | 41.55 | 14.26 | 0.00 | |
| At most 3 | 0.06 | 35.31 | 3.84 | 0.00 | |
Figure 5The predictive results of particular matter in Kunming.
Figure 6The predictive results of particular matter in Yuxi.
The results of predicting PM2.5 for seven models.
| Region | Indicator | Model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
| Kunming | MAE | 5.31 | 5.34 | 5.78 | 8.61 | 10.59 | 5.56 | 13.71 |
| RMSE | 6.58 | 6.57 | 6.97 | 10.06 | 12.07 | 6.79 | 16.98 | |
| MBE | −2.57 | −2.72 | −3.12 | −7.64 | −10.67 | −2.86 | −0.46 | |
|
| 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.80 | 0.58 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Yuxi | MAE | 4.06 | 4.32 | 5.6 | 6.6 | 9.18 | 4.48 | 13.04 |
| RMSE | 4.96 | 5.21 | 6.95 | 7.86 | 10.44 | 4.99 | 15.81 | |
| MBE | −2.22 | −2.55 | −3.45 | −5.47 | −8.66 | −2.61 | −0.59 | |
|
| 0.84 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.75 | 0.67 | 0.81 | 0.61 | |
The results of predicting PM10 for seven models.
| Region | Indicator | Model | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
| Kunming | MAE | 6.6 | 9.18 | 10.56 | 10.57 | 10.93 | 8.69 | 14.02 |
| RMSE | 7.86 | 10.44 | 13.23 | 12.98 | 13.41 | 11.03 | 18.63 | |
| MBE | −3.22 | −3.32 | −3.65 | −5.47 | −8.66 | −3.46 | −1.29 | |
|
| 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.82 | 0.62 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Yuxi | MAE | 8.37 | 8.59 | 8.64 | 9.62 | 9.76 | 8.61 | 14.06 |
| RMSE | 10.35 | 10.60 | 10.65 | 12.01 | 12.08 | 10.63 | 18.93 | |
| MBE | −3.71 | −3.84 | −3.97 | −4.28 | −4.92 | −3.89 | −1.64 | |
|
| 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.81 | 0.68 | |