English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The immense problem of missing satellite aerosol retrievals (Aerosol Optical Depth, (AOD)) detrimentally affects the prediction ability of ground-level PM2.5 concentrations and may lead to unavoidable biases. An appropriate missing-imputation method has not been well developed to date. This study developed a two-stage approach (AOD-imputation stage and PM2.5-prediction stage) to predict short-term PM2.5 exposure in mainland China from 2013–2018. At the AOD-imputation stage, geostatistical methods and machine learning (ML) algorithms were examined to interpolate 1 km satellite aerosol retrievals. At the PM2.5-prediction stage, the daily levels of PM2.5 were predicted at a resolution of 1 km, based on interpolated AOD and meteorological data. The statistical performances of the different interpolation methods were comprehensively compared at each stage. The original coverage of retrieved AOD was 15.46% on average. For the AOD-imputation stage, ML methods produced a higher coverage (98.64%) of AOD than geostatistical methods (21.43–87.31%). Among ML algorithms, random forest (RF) or extreme gradient boosted (XG-interpolated) AOD produced better interpolated quality (CV R2 = 0.89 and 0.85) than other algorithms (0.49–0.78), but XGBoost required only 15% of the computing time of RF. For the PM2.5 predicted stage, neither RF-AOD nor XG-AOD could guarantee higher accuracy in PM2.5 estimations (CV R2 = 0.88 (RF or XG-AOD) compared to 0.85 (original)), or more stable spatial and temporal extrapolation (spatial, (temporal) CV R2 = 0.83 (0.83), 0.82 (0.82), and 0.65 (0.61) for RF, XG, and original). For the AOD-imputation stage, the missing-filled efficiency depended more on external information, while the missing-filled accuracy relied more on model structure. For the PM2.5 predicted stage, efficient AOD interpolation (or the ability to eliminate the missing data) was a precondition for the stable spatial and temporal extrapolation, while the quality of interpolated AOD showed less significant improvements. It was found that XG-AOD is a better choice to estimate daily PM2.5 exposure in health assessments.

remote sensing

Comparison of Different Missing-Imputation Methods for MAIAC (Multiangle Implementation of Atmospheric Correction) AOD in Estimating Daily PM2.5 Levels