Predicting Particulate (PM<sub>10</sub>) Personal Exposure Distributions Using a Random Component Superposition Statistical Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".