| Literature DB >> 34070868 |
Junli Liu1, Panli Cai1, Jin Dong1, Junshun Wang1, Runkui Li1,2,3, Xianfeng Song1,2,4,5.
Abstract
The spatiotemporal locations of large populations are difficult to clearly characterize using traditional exposure assessment, mainly due to their complicated daily intraurban activities. This study aimed to extract hourly locations for the total population of Beijing based on cell phone data and assess their dynamic exposure to ambient PM2.5. The locations of residents were located by the cellular base stations that were keeping in contact with their cell phones. The diurnal activity pattern of the total population was investigated through the dynamic spatial distribution of all of the cell phones. The outdoor PM2.5 concentration was predicted in detail using a land use regression (LUR) model. The hourly PM2.5 map was overlapped with the hourly distribution of people for dynamic PM2.5 exposure estimation. For the mobile-derived total population, the mean level of PM2.5 exposure was 89.5 μg/m3 during the period from 2013 to 2015, which was higher than that reported for the census population (87.9 μg/m3). The hourly activity pattern showed that more than 10% of the total population commuted into the center of Beijing (e.g., the 5th ring road) during the daytime. On average, the PM2.5 concentration at workplaces was generally higher than in residential areas. The dynamic PM2.5 exposure pattern also varied with seasons. This study exhibited the strengths of mobile location in deriving the daily spatiotemporal activity patterns of the population in a megacity. This technology would refine future exposure assessment, including either small group cohort studies or city-level large population assessments.Entities:
Keywords: activity pattern; cell phone; exposure assessment; fine particulate matter; land use regression model
Year: 2021 PMID: 34070868 PMCID: PMC8199116 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115884
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Some of the prepared land use variables. (a) building; (b) major road; (c) terrain slope; and (d) distance to the south boundary.
LUR models for seasonal PM2.5 concentration.
| Prediction Function a | Adjusted R2 | CV R2 |
|---|---|---|
| Spring = 62.45 − 0.20 × DTS2190m − 22.96 × NDVI60m + 60.67 × YearlyAOD1500m | 0.86 | 0.83 |
| Summer = 70.30 − 0.22 × DTS4020m + 49.25 × Road5010m | 0.77 | 0.74 |
| Autumn = 115.71 − 0.50 × DTS1890m − 1.26 × Slope3840m | 0.85 | 0.84 |
| Winter = 22.90 + 323.41 × WinterAOD990m − 0.410 × DTS2370m | 0.89 | 0.86 |
| Average = 115.83 − 0.48 × DTS2400m − 1.15 × Slope4620m | 0.89 | 0.87 |
a LUR models for the average PM2.5 concentration during each season from 2013 to 2015 (μg/m3); DTS2190m is the distance to the south boundary of Beijing with a buffer size of 2190 m, and the unit of this distance is km; NDVI60m is the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index with a buffer size of 60 m; YearlyAOD1500m is the yearly average AOD with a buffer size of 1500 m; Road5010m is the road area ratio with a buffer size of 5010 m; Slope4620m is the terrain slope with a buffer size of 4620 m; and the unit of the slope is percent (%).
Error indices for LUR models for the different seasons during the modeling period and the cross-validation period.
| Season | Mean | Modeling (μg/m3) | Cross-Validation (μg/m3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAE | RMSE | MAE | RMSE | ||
| Spring | 80.60 | 2.52 | 3.15 | 2.84 | 3.55 |
| Summer | 67.03 | 2.87 | 3.63 | 3.13 | 3.97 |
| Autumn | 85.74 | 4.25 | 5.25 | 4.65 | 5.67 |
| Winter | 117.31 | 6.30 | 8.30 | 7.03 | 9.63 |
| Average | 87.42 | 3.37 | 4.33 | 3.72 | 4.75 |
Figure 2Average PM2.5 concentration map and base station distribution, with the cell phone number of each base station at 15:00.
Proportion of the total population commuted into each ringed road in the central urban area during the daytime.
| Ringed Road | Net increase during Daytime |
|---|---|
| 2nd | 2.9 |
| 3rd | 6.4 |
| 4th | 9.7 |
| 5th | 10.8 |
| Outside 5th | −10.8 |
Figure 3Diurnal change of PM2.5 in different seasons.
Figure 4Average hourly variation of PM2.5 exposure from 2013 to 2015. The blue line represented the hourly variation solely caused by the commute of the population, and the black line represented the total variation caused by both the commute of the population and the hourly change of PM2.5 concentrations.
Figure 5Hourly variation of PM2.5 exposure for different seasons after subtracting their mean values. (a) the hourly variation of exposure solely caused by the commute of the population, (b) the hourly total variation of exposure caused by both the commute of population and the hourly change of PM2.5 concentration.
Figure 6The change in the exposure curve due to the commute of the population. The line at 2:00 represents people at home addresses, and the line at 15:00 represents the working addresses after commuting.
Different measures of outdoor PM2.5 exposure.
| Exposure Method | Mean of the U.S. Embassy | Mean of the 35 Sites | Mean of the PM2.5 Map | Population Density-Weighted | Mobile Population-Weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposed PM2.5 (μg/m3) | 93.5 | 87.2 | 68.3 | 87.9 | 89.5 |