MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413401974 · doi:10.3390/atmos16080990

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Urban Air Quality in the Arabian Peninsula

2025· article· en· W4413401974 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Elisephane Irankunda, Mónica Menéndez, Basit Khan, Francesco Paparella, Olivier Pauluis

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmosphere · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTamkeenYork UniversityNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsPeninsulaAir quality indexMeta-analysisClimatologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyMeteorologyGeologyMedicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air pollution is causing a global health, climate, and environmental crisis. Air quality (AQ) in hyper-arid regions, such as the Arabian Peninsula, remains under-explored, posing significant concerns for public health and the scientific community. Both long-term and short-term exposure to high pollutant levels, whether from anthropogenic or natural sources, can pose serious health risks. This paper offers a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of urban AQ literature published in the region over the past decade (2013–June 2025). We aim to provide guidance and highlight key directions for future research in the field. This paper examines key pollutants, emission sources, implications of urban sources, and the most studied countries, methodologies, limitations, and recommendations from different case studies. Our analysis reveals a significant research gap highlighting insufficient recent literature. Saudi Arabia was the most studied country with 20 papers, followed by the broader Arabian Peninsula (sixteen), Qatar (twelve), the United Arab Emirates and Iraq (seven each), Kuwait (four), Oman (three), Jordan, and Bahrain (one each). The primary methods employed included measurements and sampling (28%) and remote sensing (24%), with a focus on pollutants such as dust (23.1%), NOx/NO2/NO (17.2%), PM2.5 (17.6%), and PM10 (12%). Industrial emissions (27%) and natural dust (24%) were identified as significant emission sources. Monitoring methods included grab sampling (19%), integrated sampling (34%), and continuous monitoring (47%). Notably, 13.3% of AQ sensors were linked to a station, 27.6% were self-referenced, and 59.1% did not specify calibration methods. The findings highlight the need for further research, regular calibration of air quality monitors, and the integration of advanced modeling approaches. Moreover, we recommend exploring the links between air pollution and urban development to ensure cleaner air and contribute to the global dialogue on sustainable and cross-border AQ solutions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmosphereSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207