Validation of a Novel Air Toxic Risk Model with Air Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three modeling systems were used to estimate human health risks from air pollution: two versions of MNRiskS (for Minnesota Risk Screening), and the USEPA National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). MNRiskS is a unique cumulative risk modeling system used to assess risks from multiple air toxics, sources, and pathways on a local to a state-wide scale. In addition, ambient outdoor air monitoring data were available for estimation of risks and comparison with the modeled estimates of air concentrations. Highest air concentrations and estimated risks were generally found in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and lowest risks in undeveloped rural areas. Emissions from mobile and area (nonpoint) sources created greater estimated risks than emissions from point sources. Highest cancer risks were via ingestion pathway exposures to dioxins and related compounds. Diesel particles, acrolein, and formaldehyde created the highest estimated inhalation health impacts. Model-estimated air concentrations were generally highest for NATA and lowest for the AERMOD version of MNRiskS. This validation study showed reasonable agreement between available measurements and model predictions, although results varied among pollutants, and predictions were often lower than measurements. The results increased confidence in identifying pollutants, pathways, geographic areas, sources, and receptors of potential concern, and thus provide a basis for informing pollution reduction strategies and focusing efforts on specific pollutants (diesel particles, acrolein, and formaldehyde), geographic areas (urban centers), and source categories (nonpoint sources). The results heighten concerns about risks from food chain exposures to dioxins and PAHs. Risk estimates were sensitive to variations in methodologies for treating emissions, dispersion, deposition, exposure, and toxicity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".