| Literature DB >> 31731743 |
Mingxiao Li1,2,3, Song Gao3, Feng Lu1,4,5, Huan Tong6, Hengcai Zhang1,4.
Abstract
The spatiotemporal variability in air pollutant concentrations raises challenges in linking air pollution exposure to individual health outcomes. Thus, understanding the spatiotemporal patterns of human mobility plays an important role in air pollution epidemiology and health studies. With the advantages of massive users, wide spatial coverage and passive acquisition capability, mobile phone data have become an emerging data source for compiling exposure estimates. However, compared with air pollution monitoring data, the temporal granularity of mobile phone data is not high enough, which limits the performance of individual exposure estimation. To mitigate this problem, we present a novel method of estimating dynamic individual air pollution exposure levels using trajectories reconstructed from mobile phone data. Using the city of Shanghai as a case study, we compared three different types of exposure estimates using (1) reconstructed mobile phone trajectories, (2) recorded mobile phone trajectories, and (3) residential locations. The results demonstrate the necessity of trajectory reconstruction in exposure and health risk assessment. Additionally, we measure the potential health effects of air pollution from both individual and geographical perspectives. This helped reveal the temporal variations in individual exposures and the spatial distribution of residential areas with high exposure levels. The proposed method allows us to perform large-area and long-term exposure estimations for a large number of residents at a high spatiotemporal resolution, which helps support policy-driven environmental actions and reduce potential health risks.Entities:
Keywords: air pollution; human mobility; individual exposure estimation; mobile phone sensor; trajectory reconstruction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31731743 PMCID: PMC6888556 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16224522
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Illustration of the influence of the data sparsity problem in human movement data.
Figure 2The workflow of the dynamic individual exposure estimation method.
Figure 3Flowchart of the anchor-point-based clustering method.
Figure 4Architecture of the trajectory reconstruction algorithm.
Figure 5Illustration of the geographically weighted regression (GWR) model.
Figure 6Map of the study area.
Instance of one individual’s trajectory data.
| User ID | Date | Time (t) | Longitude (x) | Latitude (y) | Event Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1EF53 ***** | 1 | 02:14:25 | 121.13 ** | 31.06 ** | Regular update |
| 1EF53 ***** | 1 | 08:15:11 | 121.13 ** | 31.02 ** | Call (inbound) |
| 1EF53 ***** | 1 | 09:17:12 | 121.12 ** | 31.02 ** | Cellular handover |
| 1EF53 ***** | … | … | … | … | |
| 1EF53 ***** | 7 | 21:13:06 | 121.44 ** | 31.08 ** | Call (outbound) |
Note: Accurate coordinate information and user ID were hidden with ** for privacy concern.
Figure 7The distributions of the probability density function (PDF) and the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of time intervals between two adjacent call detail records in the recorded mobile phone data.
Instance of ground-station PM2.5 Concentration Data.
| Station ID | Day | Time (t) | Longitude (x) | Latitude (y) | PM2.5 Concentration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1144A | 1 | 00:00 | 121.41 ** | 31.16 ** | 43 |
| 1144A | 1 | 01:00 | 121.41 ** | 31.16 ** | 49 |
| 1144A | 1 | 02:00 | 121.41 ** | 31.16 ** | 52 |
| … | … | … | … | … | |
| 1150A | 7 | 23:00 | 121.57 ** | 31.20 ** | 20 |
Note: Accurate coordinate information and user ID were hidden with ** for privacy concern.
Instance of ground-station meteorological Data.
| Station ID | Day | Time (t) | Longitude (x) | Latitude (y) | Wind Speed | Horizontal | Air Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58012 | 1 | 00:00 | 116.65 ** | 34.66 ** | 1.5 | 200 | −0.5 |
| 58012 | 1 | 01:00 | 116.65 ** | 34.66 ** | 1.5 | 300 | −0.5 |
| 58012 | 1 | 02:00 | 116.65 ** | 34.66 ** | 1.7 | 200 | −0.4 |
| … | … | … | … | … | |||
| 58752 | 7 | 23:00 | 120.65 ** | 27.78 ** | 1.7 | 4500 | 8.8 |
Note: Accurate coordinate information and user ID were hidden with ** for privacy concern.
Figure 8Different facets of PM2.5 concentration. (a) Hourly maps of PM2.5 concentration distribution on a workday and a weekend. (b) Temporal variation of PM2.5 concentration on a workday. (c) Temporal variation of PM2.5 concentration on a weekend.
Figure 9Comparison of the proposed method with baseline approaches using the indicators of mean absolute error (MAE) and StDev.
K-S test results.
| Day Type | Estimate Pairs | K-S Statistics | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workday | TR-EE & REC-EE | 0.0039 | |
| TR-EE & SL-EE | 0.0214 | ||
| Weekend | TR-EE & REC-EE | 0.0036 | |
| TR-EE & SL-EE | 0.0233 |
Figure 10Box plots of the differences in each pair of exposure estimates on a workday and a weekend.
PM2.5 concentrations and health implications.
| Category | PM2.5 | Health Implications |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent | <35 | Without health implications. |
| Good | 35–70 | Outdoor activities normally. |
| Lightly Polluted | 70–115 | Slight irritations for healthy people and slightly impact on sensitive individuals. |
| Moderately | 115–150 | Serious conditions for sensitive individuals. The hearts and respiratory systems of healthy people may be affected. |
| Severely Polluted | >150 | Significant impact on sensitive individuals. Healthy people will commonly show symptoms. |
Figure 11Illustration of individual exposure-level trajectories.
Figure 12Residential locations with high exposure individuals.
Figure 13Relationship between the percentage of residents’ time away from residence and the corresponding percentage of exposure levels.
Details of the exposure risk percentage of residents in the top five subdistricts.
| Subdistrict | Excellent | Good | Lightly | Moderately | Severely |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anting County | 0.94 | 46.03 | 39.43 | 8.56 | 5.04 |
| Jiangqiao County | 2.45 | 46.95 | 38.33 | 7.30 | 4.97 |
| Xiayang Subdistrict | 12.13 | 29.72 | 46.65 | 6.03 | 5.46 |
| Huacao County | 2.44 | 46.45 | 38.75 | 7.29 | 5.07 |
| Fangsong Subdistrict | 13.15 | 30.53 | 45.97 | 4.76 | 5.58 |