| Literature DB >> 35805664 |
Rong Guo1, Ying Qi1, Bu Zhao2, Ziyu Pei1, Fei Wen3, Shun Wu4, Qiang Zhang1.
Abstract
Spatially explicit urban air quality information is important for urban fine-management and public life. However, existing air quality measurement methods still have some limitations on spatial coverage and system stability. A micro station is an emerging monitoring system with multiple sensors, which can be deployed to provide dense air quality monitoring data. Here, we proposed a method for urban air quality mapping at high-resolution for multiple pollutants. By using the dense air quality monitoring data from 448 micro stations in Lanzhou city, we developed a decision tree model to infer the distribution of citywide air quality at a 500 m × 500 m × 1 h resolution, with a coefficient of determination (R2) value of 0.740 for PM2.5, 0.754 for CO and 0.716 for SO2. Meanwhile, we also show that the deployment density of the monitoring stations can have a significant impact on the air quality inference results. Our method is able to show both short-term and long-term distribution of multiple important pollutants in the city, which demonstrates the potential and feasibility of dense monitoring data combined with advanced data science methods to support urban atmospheric environment fine-management, policy making, and public health studies.Entities:
Keywords: LCS network; air quality mapping; high-resolution; machine learning; micro monitoring stations
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805664 PMCID: PMC9265361 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19138005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Study area and the distribution of micro stations in Lanzhou City, China, where the red dots represent the stations in the core area.
Figure 2Study framework.
Hyperparameters search range in the GridSearchCV.
| Hyperparameter | Range | Interval |
|---|---|---|
| n_estimators | 100~500 | 100 |
| learning_rate | 0.05~0.1 | 0.01 |
| max_depth | 3~10 | 1 |
| min_child_weight | 1~6 | 1 |
| colsample_bytree | 0.7~1 | 0.1 |
| Subsample | 0.7~1 | 0.1 |
Figure 3(a) PM2.5 hourly concentration differences between two adjacent stations at the same hour; (b) PM2.5 hourly concentration differences for the same stations between two consecutive hours; (c) Spearman correlation between PM2.5 pollution and the predictors; (d) feature importance of different predictors for PM2.5 pollution inference.
Model performance comparison.
| PM2.5 | CO | SO2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methods | RMSE | R2 | COR | RMSE | R2 | COR | RMSE | R2 | COR |
| KNN | 12.710 | 0.653 | 0.814 | 0.524 | 0.659 | 0.816 | 6.426 | 0.618 | 0.794 |
| SVR | 11.666 | 0.708 | 0.851 | 0.518 | 0.668 | 0.858 | 6.135 | 0.652 | 0.844 |
| DNN | 11.171 | 0.732 | 0.860 | 0.452 | 0.747 | 0.865 | 5.607 | 0.709 | 0.842 |
| Random Forest | 11.188 | 0.731 | 0.856 | 0.455 | 0.743 | 0.862 | 5.645 | 0.705 | 0.840 |
| XGBoost | 10.999 | 0.740 | 0.861 | 0.445 | 0.754 | 0.869 | 5.537 | 0.716 | 0.846 |
The impact of different predictors on the XGBoost model performance.
| PM2.5 | CO | SO2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | RMSE | R2 | COR | RMSE | R2 | COR | RMSE | R2 | COR |
| 1 station | 12.820 | 0.647 | 0.806 | 0.567 | 0.602 | 0.784 | 6.806 | 0.571 | 0.763 |
| 3 stations | 11.414 | 0.721 | 0.849 | 0.469 | 0.727 | 0.853 | 5.879 | 0.680 | 0.825 |
| 5 stations | 11.183 | 0.732 | 0.856 | 0.458 | 0.740 | 0.861 | 5.649 | 0.705 | 0.840 |
| 7 stations | 11.093 | 0.736 | 0.858 | 0.452 | 0.747 | 0.864 | 5.569 | 0.713 | 0.844 |
| 10 stations | 11.055 | 0.738 | 0.859 | 0.449 | 0.750 | 0.866 | 5.550 | 0.715 | 0.846 |
| 10 | 11.045 | 0.738 | 0.859 | 0.449 | 0.750 | 0.866 | 5.545 | 0.715 | 0.846 |
| 10 | 11.021 | 0.739 | 0.860 | 0.447 | 0.753 | 0.868 | 5.538 | 0.716 | 0.846 |
| 10 | 10.999 | 0.740 | 0.861 | 0.445 | 0.754 | 0.869 | 5.537 | 0.716 | 0.846 |
1 Meteorological data; 2 Land-use data.
Figure 4The impact of dense monitoring data on model performance: (a) by different distances between each grid and its nearest micro stations; (b) by different numbers of micro station.
Figure 5Hourly PM2.5 concentration distribution on a typical weekday (8 February 2022) in Lanzhou, as inferred by our model.
Figure 6Average concentrations inferred by our model during 8–12 February 2022 in Lanzhou city: (a) PM2.5; (b) CO; (c) SO2.
Figure 7Citywide PM2.5 pollution mapping results on 8 February 2022 by different station densities.