Elucidating multipollutant exposure across a complex metropolitan area by systematic deployment of a mobile laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In urban areas, air quality is the outcome of multiple emission sources, each emitting a different combination of air pollutants. The result is a complex mixture of pollutants with a different spatiotemporal variability for each constituent. Studies exploring average spatial patterns across urban areas typically rely on air quality monitoring networks of a few sites, short multi-site saturation monitoring campaigns measuring a limited number of pollutants and/or air quality models. Each of these options has limitations. This study elucidates the main complexities of urban air quality with respect to small scale spatial differences for multiple pollutants so as to gain a better understanding of the variability in exposure estimates in urban areas. Mobile measurements of 23 air pollutants were taken at high resolution in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and examined with respect to space, time and their interrelationships. The same route was systematically followed on 34 measurement days spread over different seasons and measurements were compared to adjacent air quality monitoring network stations. This approach allowed linkage of the mobile measurements to the network observations and to generate average maps that provide reliable information on the typical, annual average spatial pattern. Sharp differences in the spatial distribution were found to exist between different pollutants on the sub-urban scale, i.e. the neighbourhood to street scales, even for pollutants usually associated with the same specific sources. Nearby microenvironments may have a wide range in average pollution levels varying by up to 300%, which may cause large misclassification errors in estimating chronic exposures in epidemiological studies. For example, NO2 measurements next to a main road microenvironment are shown to be 210–265% higher than levels measured at a nearby urban background monitoring site, while black carbon is higher by 180–200% and ultrafine particles are 300% higher. For some pollutants (e.g. SO2 and benzene), there is good correspondence on a large scale due to similar emission sources, but differences on a small scale in proximity to these sources. Moreover. hotspots of different pollutants were identified and quantified. These results demonstrate the ability of an independent heavily instrumented mobile laboratory survey to quantify the representativeness of the monitoring sites to unmonitored locations, reveal the complex relationships between pollutants and understand chronic multi-pollutant exposure patterns associated with outdoor concentrations in an urban environment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".