| Literature DB >> 32370183 |
Yaqiong Wang1, Ke Xu2, Shaomin Li1.
Abstract
In recent years, with rapid industrialization and massive energy consumption, ground-level ozone ( O 3 ) has become one of the most severe air pollutants. In this paper, we propose a functional spatio-temporal statistical model to analyze air quality data. Firstly, since the pollutant data from the monitoring network usually have a strong spatial and temporal correlation, the spatio-temporal statistical model is a reasonable method to reveal spatial correlation structure and temporal dynamic mechanism in data. Secondly, effects from the covariates are introduced to explore the formation mechanism of ozone pollution. Thirdly, considering the obvious diurnal pattern of ozone data, we explore the diurnal cycle of O 3 pollution using the functional data analysis approach. The spatio-temporal model shows great applicational potential by comparison with other models. With application to O 3 pollution data of 36 stations in Beijing, China, we give explanations of the covariate effects on ozone pollution, such as other pollutants and meteorological variables, and meanwhile we discuss the diurnal cycle of ozone pollution.Entities:
Keywords: O3 pollution; functional data analysis; spatio-temporal statistical model
Year: 2020 PMID: 32370183 PMCID: PMC7246770 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17093172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Thirty-six air quality monitoring stations with red dots and nine meteorological stations with blue triangles.
Figure 2Fourier basis function system with and .
Figure 3Ozone data fitting by using five Fourier basis functions.
Figure 4Methodology summary.
The selection of model covariates according to AIC.
| Iteration | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Spring | NO2 | SO2 | PM10 | CO | PRES | UVB | Iws | IRAIN | TEMP | DEWP |
| Summer | NO2 | PM10 | SO2 | TEMP | IRAIN | UVB | DEWP | PRES | CO | Iws |
| Autumn | NO2 | SO2 | TEMP | DEWP | PM10 | UVB | CO | Iws | PRES | IRAIN |
Figure 5Improvement of AIC at each iteration for summertime modeling.
Criteria , , and under different numbers of Fourier basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 3 | 3 | 357.58 | 0.9206 | −255,385 |
| 5 | 3 | 5 | 356.32 | 0.9209 | −254,607 |
| 5 | 3 | 7 | 356.47 | 0.9208 | −254,599 |
| 5 | 5 | 3 | 352.61 | 0.9215 | −254,235 |
| 5 | 5 | 5 | 352.25 | 0.9216 | −253,459 |
| 5 | 5 | 7 | 352.39 | 0.9215 | −253,454 |
| 5 | 7 | 3 | 352.14 | 0.9215 | −254,116 |
| 5 | 7 | 5 | 351.62 | 0.9217 | −253,309 |
| 5 | 7 | 7 | 351.76 | 0.9217 | −253,306 |
| 7 | 3 | 3 | 332.95 | 0.9259 | −249,514 |
| 7 | 3 | 5 | 331.88 | 0.9261 | −248,723 |
| 7 | 3 | 7 | 331.99 | 0.9261 | −248,713 |
| 7 | 5 | 3 | 330.06 | 0.9264 | −248,848 |
| 7 | 5 | 5 | 329.80 | 0.9264 | −248,066 |
| 7 | 5 | 7 | 329.90 | 0.9264 | −248,062 |
| 7 | 7 | 3 | 329.09 | 0.9266 | −248,656 |
| 7 | 7 | 5 | 328.97 | 0.9266 | −247,879 |
| 7 | 7 | 7 | 329.05 | 0.9266 | −247,876 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 324.08 | 0.9278 | −246,673 |
| 9 | 3 | 5 | 323.13 | 0.9280 | −245,937 |
| 9 | 3 | 7 | 323.19 | 0.9280 | −245,928 |
| 9 | 5 | 3 | 322.07 | 0.9281 | −246,056 |
| 9 | 5 | 5 | 321.80 | 0.9282 | −245,327 |
| 9 | 5 | 7 | 321.86 | 0.9282 | −245,322 |
| 9 | 7 | 3 | 321.28 | 0.9283 | −245,879 |
| 9 | 7 | 5 | 321.12 | 0.9283 | −245,152 |
| 9 | 7 | 7 | 321.13 | 0.9283 | −245,150 |
, , and AIC for the five models.
| Number of Basis | Model Criteria | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Equation ( | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1880.54 | 0.5863 | −414,714 | −414,700 | 7 |
| Equation (23) | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1171.55 | 0.7423 | −395,874 | −395,812 | 31 |
| Equation (24) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 552.7 | 0.879 | −256,960 | −256,940 | 10 |
| Equation (25) | 0 | 7 | 0 | 336.88 | 0.925 | −252,426 | −252,370 | 28 |
| Equation (26) | 5 | 7 | 0 | 329.8 | 0.9264 | −248,066 | −247,954 | 56 |
1 log likelihood, 2 number of parameters.
Figure 6Estimated , and , with - confidence bands.
tests for significance of fixed effects.
| Covariate | ||
|---|---|---|
| Cons | 282.77 | 0 |
|
| 2114.06 | 0 |
|
| 1048.50 | 0 |
|
| 29,032.23 | 0 |
|
| 5554.16 | 0 |
|
| 0.91 | 0.96 |
|
| 30,934 | 0 |
Estimates and standard error of parameter , and .
| Transition | Variance | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Est | Std.err | Est | Std.err | Est | Std.err | |
| Basis 1 | 0.739 | 0.018 | 63.12 | 4.57 | 8422.14 | 549.12 |
| Basis 2 | 0.229 | 0.026 | 50.94 | 0.96 | 3799.47 | 176.33 |
| Basis 3 | 0.179 | 0.03 | 36.98 | 1.02 | 2027.63 | 106.59 |
| Basis 4 | 0.034 | 0.032 | 36.34 | 0.54 | 896.86 | 50.61 |
| Basis 5 | 0.106 | 0.034 | 39.75 | 0.84 | 702.64 | 41.65 |
| Basis 6 | 0.043 | 0.043 | 31.92 | 0.87 | 191.09 | 13.53 |
| Basis 7 | −0.210 | 0.042 | 37.10 | 0.35 | 151.80 | 10.78 |
Figure 7Estimated and , with - confidence bands.