MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4247218829 · doi:10.5194/acp-2018-962

Assessing uncertainties of a geophysical approach to estimate surface fine particulate matter distributions from satellite observed aerosol optical depth

2018· preprint· en· W4247218829 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaomeng Jin, Arlene M. Fiore, Gabriele Curci, Alexei Lyapustin, Kevin Civerolo, Michael Ku, Aaron van Donkelaar, Randall V. Martin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNew York State Energy Research and Development Authority
KeywordsSatelliteEnvironmental scienceAerosolParticulatesMeteorologyCMAQAtmospheric sciencesRemote sensingAir quality indexGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Health impact analyses are increasingly tapping the broad spatial coverage of satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD) products to estimate human exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5). We use a forward geophysical approach to derive ground-level PM2.5 distributions from satellite AOD at 1 km2 resolution for 2011 over the Northeast USA by applying relationships between surface PM2.5 and column AOD (calculated offline from speciated mass distributions) from a regional air quality model (CMAQ; 12 × 12 km2 horizontal resolution). Seasonal average satellite-derived PM2.5 reveals more spatial detail and best captures observed surface PM2.5 levels during summer. At the daily scale, however, satellite-derived PM2.5 is not only subject to measurement uncertainties from satellite instruments, but more importantly, to uncertainties in the relationship between surface PM2.5 and column AOD. Using 11 ground-based AOD measurements within 10 km of surface PM2.5 monitors, we show that uncertainties in modeled PM2.5/AOD can explain more than 70 % of the spatial and temporal variance in the total uncertainty in daily satellite-derived PM2.5 evaluated at PM2.5 monitors. This finding implies that a successful geophysical approach to deriving daily PM2.5 from satellite AOD requires model skill at capturing day-to-day variations in PM2.5/AOD relationships. Overall, we estimate that uncertainties in the modeled PM2.5/AOD lead to an error of 11 μg/m3 in daily satellite-derived PM2.5, and uncertainties in satellite AOD lead to an error of 8 μg/m3. Using multi-platform ground, airborne and radiosonde measurements, we show that uncertainties of modeled PM2.5/AOD are mainly driven by model uncertainties in aerosol column mass and speciation, while model uncertainties of relative humidity and aerosol vertical profile shape contribute some systematic biases. The parameterization of aerosol optical properties, which determines the mass-extinction efficiency, also contributes to random uncertainty, with the size distribution the largest source of uncertainty, and hygroscopicity of inorganic salt the second. Future efforts to reduce uncertainty in geophysical approaches to derive surface PM2.5 from satellite AOD would thus benefit from improving model representation of aerosol vertical distribution and aerosol optical properties, to narrow uncertainty in satellite-derived PM2.5.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→