Enhancing Models and Measurements of Traffic-Related Air Pollutants for Health Studies Using Dispersion Modeling and Bayesian Data Fusion.

Abstract

Introduction: The adverse health effects associated with exposure to traffic-related air pollutants (TRAPs) remain a key public health issue. Often, exposure assessments have not represented the small-scale variation and elevated concentrations found near major roads and in urban settings. This research explores approaches aimed at improving exposure estimates of TRAPs that can reduce exposure measurement error when used in health studies. We consider dispersion models designed specifically for the near-road environment, as well as spatiotemporal and data fusion models. These approaches are implemented and evaluated utilizing data collected in recent modeling, monitoring, and epidemiological studies conducted in Detroit, Michigan.

Approach: Dispersion models, which estimate near-road pollutant concentrations and individual exposures based on first principles - and in particular, high fidelity models - can provide great flexibility and theoretical strength. They can represent the spatial variability of TRAP concentrations at locations not measured by conventional and spatially sparse air quality monitoring networks. A number of enhancements to dispersion modeling and mobile on-road emissions inventories were considered, including the representation of link-based road networks and updated estimates of temporal allocation of traffic activity, emission factors, and meteorological inputs. The recently developed Research LINE-source model (RLINE), a Gaussian line-source dispersion model specifically designed for the near-road environment, was used in an operational evaluation that compared predicted concentrations of nitrogen oxides (NO_x), carbon monoxide (CO), and PM_2.5 (particulate matter ≤ 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter) with observed concentrations at air quality monitoring stations located near high-traffic roads. Spatiotemporal and data fusion models provided additional and complementary approaches for estimating TRAP exposures. We formulated both nonstationary universal kriging models that exploit the spatial correlation in the monitoring data, and data fusion models that leverage the information contained in both the monitoring data and the output of numerical models, specifically RLINE. These models were evaluated using observations of nitric oxide (NO), NO_x, black carbon (BC), and PM_2.5 monitored along transects crossing major roads in Detroit. We also examined model assumptions, including the appropriateness of the covariance functions, errors in RLINE outputs, and the effects of jointly modeling two pollutants and using an updated emission inventory.

Results: For CO and NO_x, dispersion model performance was best when monitoring sites were close to major roads, during downwind conditions, during weekdays, and during certain seasons. The ability to discern local and particularly the traffic-related portion of PM_2.5 was limited, a result of high background levels, the sparseness of the monitoring network, and large uncertainties for certain sources (e.g., area, fugitive) and some processes (e.g., formation of secondary aerosols). Sensitivity analyses of alternative meteorological inputs and updated emission factors showed some performance gain when using local (on-site) meteorological data and updated inventories. Overall, the operational evaluation suggested RLINE's usefulness for estimating spatially and temporally resolved exposure estimates. The application of the universal kriging models confirmed that wind speed and direction are important drivers of nonstationarity in pollutant concentrations, and that these models can predict exposure estimates that have lower prediction errors than do stationary model counterparts. The application of the Bayesian data fusion models suggested that the RLINE output had a spatially varying additive bias for NO_x and PM_2.5 and provided little additional information for NO_x, besides what is already contained in traffic and geographical information system (GIS) covariates, but had improved estimates of PM_2.5 concentrations. Results of the nonstationary Bayesian data fusion model that used RLINE output across a field spanning the measurement sites were similar to a regression-based Bayesian data fusion approach that used only RLINE output at the monitoring locations, with the latter being computationally less burdensome. Using the regression-based Bayesian data fusion model, we found that RLINE with the updated emission inventory provided results that were more useful for estimating NO_x concentration at unmonitored sites, but the updated emission inventory did not improve predictions of PM_2.5 concentrations. Joint modeling of NO_x and PM_2.5 was not useful, a result of differences in RLINE's utility in predicting PM_2.5 and NO_x - useful for the former, but not for the latter - and differences in the spatial dependence structures of the two pollutants. Overall, information provided by RLINE was shown to have the potential to improve spatiotemporal estimates of TRAP concentrations.

Conclusions: The study results should be interpreted and generalized cautiously given the limitations of the data used. Similar analyses in other settings are recommended for confirming and extending our findings. Still, the study highlights considerations that are relevant for exposure estimates used in health studies. The ability of a dispersion model to accurately reproduce and predict a pollutant depends on the pollutant as well as on spatial and temporal factors, such as the distance and direction from the road, time-of-day, and day-of-week. The nature and source of exposure measurement errors should be taken into consideration, particularly in health studies that take advantage of time- activity information that describes where and when individuals are exposed to pollution. Efforts to refine model inputs and improve model performance can be helpful; meteorological inputs may be the most critical. For both dispersion and spatiotemporal statistical models, sufficient and high-quality monitoring data are essential for developing and evaluating these models. Our analyses using Bayesian data fusion models confirm the presence of spatially varying errors in dispersion model outputs and allow quantification of both the magnitude and the spatial nature of these errors. This valuable information can be leveraged in health studies examining air pollution exposure as well as in studies informing regulatory responses.