Predicting Particulate (PM<sub>10</sub>) Personal Exposure Distributions Using a Random Component Superposition Statistical Model
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper presents a new statistical model designed to extend our understanding from prior personal exposure field measurements of urban populations to other cities where ambient monitoring data, but no personal exposure measurements, exist. The model partitions personal exposure into two distinct components: ambient concentration and nonambient concentration. It is assumed the ambient and nonambient concentration components are uncorrelated and add together; therefore, the model is called a random component superposition (RCS) model. The 24-hr ambient outdoor concentration is multiplied by a dimensionless "attenuation factor" between 0 and 1 to account for deposition of particles as the ambient air infiltrates indoors. The RCS model is applied to field PM10 measurement data from three large-scale personal exposure field studies: THEES (Total Human Environmental Exposure Study) in Phillipsburg, NJ; PTEAM (Particle Total Exposure Assessment Methodology) in Riverside, CA; and the Ethyl Corporation study in Toronto, Canada. Because indoor sources and activities (smoking, cooking, cleaning, the personal cloud, etc.) may be similar in similar populations, it was hypothesized that the statistical distribution of nonambient personal exposure is invariant across cities. Using a fixed 24-hr attenuation factor as a first approximation derived from regression analysis for the respondents, the distributions of nonambient PM10 personal exposures were obtained for each city. Although the mean ambient PM10 concentrations in the three cities varied from 27.9 micrograms/m3 in Toronto to 60.9 micrograms/m3 in Phillipsburg to 94.1 micrograms/m3 in Riverside, the mean nonambient components of personal exposures were found to be closer: 52.6 micrograms/m3 in Toronto; 52.4 micrograms/m3 in Phillipsburg; and 59.2 micrograms/m3 in Riverside. The three frequency distributions of the nonambient components of exposure also were similar in shape, giving support to the hypothesis that nonambient concentrations are similar across different cities and populations. These results indicate that, if the ambient concentrations were completely controlled and set to zero in all three cities, the median of the remaining personal exposures to PM10 would range from 32.0 micrograms/m3 (Toronto) to 34.4 micrograms/m3 (Phillipsburg) to 48.8 micrograms/m3 (Riverside). The highest-exposed 30% of the population in the three cities would still be exposed to 24-hr average PM10 concentrations of 47-74 micrograms/m3; the highest 20% would be exposed to concentrations of 56-92 micrograms/m3; the highest 10% to concentrations of 88-131 micrograms/m3; and the highest 5% to 133-175 micrograms/m3, due only to indoor sources and activities. The distribution for the difference between personal exposures and indoor concentrations, or the "personal cloud," also was similar in the three cities, with a mean of 30-35 micrograms/m3, suggesting that the personal cloud accounts for more than half of the nonambient component of PM10 personal exposure in the three cities. Using only the ambient measurements in Toronto, the nonambient data from THEES in Phillipsburg was used to predict the entire personal exposure distribution in Toronto. The PM10 exposure distribution predicted by the model showed reasonable agreement with the PM10 personal exposure distribution measured in Toronto. These initial results suggest that the RCS model may be a powerful tool for predicting personal exposure distributions and statistics in other cities where only ambient particle data are available.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».