| Literature DB >> 34857891 |
Xiaoling Ren1, Zhenfu Luo2, Shuyu Qin3, Xinqian Shu4, Yuanyuan Zhang3.
Abstract
To scientifically and reasonably evaluate air quality with a large amount of monitored data, this paper proposes a new evaluation method called ideal grey close function cluster correlation analysis (IGCFCCA). Taking the air quality in Ningxia Province, China, as an example, according to China's air quality standard, SO2, NO2, PM10, PM2.5 and O3 are selected as evaluation indexes to perform the evaluation. The results show that the air quality in this region in 2018 can be divided into three classifications, among which the relatively poor air quality in March, April and May is the first classification, the better air quality in August and September is the third classification, and the air quality in other months falls under the second classification. Correlation analysis is used to qualitatively determine that these three classifications correspond to first-level air quality in China's air quality standard, and the correlation degree, which is the distance between the three classifications and the first-level air quality, is quantitatively determined. Specifically, the correlation degrees of the first-classification, second-classification and third-classification of air quality are 0.674, 0.697 and 0.71, respectively. The research results indicate potential directions and objectives for air quality management to achieve scientific management.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34857891 PMCID: PMC8639721 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-02880-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Air quality in Ningxia Province in 2018.
| Index | Monthly average concentrations of major monitored pollutants (μg/m3) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SO2 ( | NO2 ( | PM10 ( | PM2.5 ( | O3 ( | |
| January | 93 | 46 | |||
| February | 40 | 27 | 86 | 40 | 104 |
| March | 30 | 32 | 167 | 55 | 129 |
| April | 18 | 27 | 159 | 47 | 141 |
| May | 14 | 23 | 150 | 45 | 162 |
| June | 14 | 24 | 74 | 26 | 178 |
| July | 9 | 17 | 81 | 29 | 160 |
| August | 10 | 20 | 56 | 25 | 150 |
| September | 13 | 27 | 65 | 26 | 129 |
| October | 19 | 37 | 87 | 39 | 112 |
| November | 27 | 43 | 155 | 57 | 83 |
| December | 32 | 37 | 141 | 50 | 76 |
Grey close function value and the comprehensive analysis value.
| Index | Comprehensive analysis value ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.225 | 0.630 | 0.651 | 0.625 | 0.731 | 0.651 | |
| 0.300 | 0.531 | 0.335 | 0.455 | 0.589 | 0.464 | |
| 0.500 | 0.630 | 0.352 | 0.532 | 0.539 | 0.481 | |
| 0.643 | 0.739 | 0.373 | 0.556 | 0.469 | 0.482 | |
| 0.643 | 0.708 | 0.757 | 0.962 | 0.427 | 0.641 | |
| 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.691 | 0.862 | 0.475 | 0.673 | |
| 0.900 | 0.850 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.507 | 0.787 | |
| 0.692 | 0.630 | 0.862 | 0.962 | 0.589 | 0.736 | |
| 0.474 | 0.459 | 0.644 | 0.641 | 0.679 | 0.631 | |
| 0.333 | 0.395 | 0.361 | 0.439 | 0.916 | 0.590 | |
| 0.281 | 0.459 | 0.397 | 0.500 | 1.000 | 0.645 |
Grey close values P.
| 1.0000 | |||||||||||
| 0.7127 | 1.0000 | ||||||||||
| 0.7389 | 0.9647 | 1.0000 | |||||||||
| 0.7404 | 0.9627 | 0.9979 | 1.0000 | ||||||||
| 0.9846 | 0.7239 | 0.7504 | 0.7520 | 1.0000 | |||||||
| 0.9673 | 0.6895 | 0.7147 | 0.7162 | 0.9525 | 1.0000 | ||||||
| 0.8272 | 0.5896 | 0.6112 | 0.6125 | 0.8145 | 0.8551 | 1.0000 | |||||
| 0.8845 | 0.6304 | 0.6535 | 0.6549 | 0.8709 | 0.9144 | 0.9352 | 1.0000 | ||||
| 0.9693 | 0.7353 | 0.7623 | 0.7639 | 0.9844 | 0.9376 | 0.8018 | 0.8573 | 1.0000 | |||
| 0.9063 | 0.7864 | 0.8153 | 0.8169 | 0.9204 | 0.8767 | 0.7497 | 0.8016 | 0.9350 | 1.0000 | ||
| 0.9908 | 0.7194 | 0.7457 | 0.7473 | 0.9938 | 0.9584 | 0.8196 | 0.8764 | 0.9783 | 0.9147 | 1.0000 |
The classifications of air.
| Index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First classification | 20.67 | 27.33 | 158.67 | 49.00 | 144.00 |
| Second classification | 23.50 | 30.83 | 104.00 | 40.17 | 118.83 |
| Third classification | 11.50 | 23.50 | 60.50 | 25.50 | 139.50 |
Figure 1Comparison of the samples to be evaluated with the two levels of air standards.
Data initialization results.
| Index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.000 | 1.322 | 7.676 | 2.371 | 6.967 | |
| 1.000 | 1.312 | 4.426 | 1.709 | 5.057 | |
| 1.000 | 2.043 | 5.261 | 2.217 | 12.130 | |
| 1.000 | 2.000 | 2.000 | 0.750 | 5.000 | |
| 1.000 | 0.667 | 1.167 | 0.583 | 2.667 |
Correlation with the first-level air standard.
| Correlation coefficient and correlation degree | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.000 | 0.807 | 0.333 | 0.637 | 0.591 | 0.674 | |
| 1.000 | 0.638 | 0.333 | 0.558 | 0.955 | 0.697 | |
| 1.000 | 0.988 | 0.522 | 0.708 | 0.333 | 0.710 |
Correlation with the second-level air standard.
| Correlation coefficient and correlation degree | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.000 | 0.832 | 0.333 | 0.646 | 0.431 | 0.648 | |
| 1.000 | 0.716 | 0.333 | 0.591 | 0.405 | 0.609 | |
| 1.000 | 0.775 | 0.536 | 0.743 | 0.333 | 0.677 |