Evaluating Chemical Transport and Machine Learning Models for Wildfire Smoke PM2.5: Implications for Assessment of Health Impacts

IF 10.8 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Minghao Qiu, Makoto Kelp, Sam Heft-Neal, Xiaomeng Jin, Carlos F. Gould, Daniel Q. Tong, Marshall Burke
{"title":"Evaluating Chemical Transport and Machine Learning Models for Wildfire Smoke PM2.5: Implications for Assessment of Health Impacts","authors":"Minghao Qiu, Makoto Kelp, Sam Heft-Neal, Xiaomeng Jin, Carlos F. Gould, Daniel Q. Tong, Marshall Burke","doi":"10.1021/acs.est.4c05922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Growing wildfire smoke represents a substantial threat to air quality and human health. However, the impact of wildfire smoke on human health remains imprecisely understood due to uncertainties in both the measurement of exposure of population to wildfire smoke and dose–response functions linking exposure to health. Here, we compare daily wildfire smoke-related surface fine particulate matter (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) concentrations estimated using three approaches, including two chemical transport models (CTMs): GEOS-Chem and the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) and one machine learning (ML) model over the contiguous US in 2020, a historically active fire year. In the western US, compared against surface PM<sub>2.5</sub> measurements from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and PurpleAir sensors, we find that CTMs overestimate PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations during extreme smoke episodes by up to 3–5 fold, while ML estimates are largely consistent with surface measurements. However, in the eastern US, where smoke levels were much lower in 2020, CTMs show modestly better agreement with surface measurements. We develop a calibration framework that integrates CTM- and ML-based approaches to yield estimates of smoke PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations that outperform individual approach. When combining the estimated smoke PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations with county-level mortality rates, we find consistent effects of low-level smoke on mortality but large discrepancies in effects of high-level smoke exposure across different methods. Our research highlights the differences across estimation methods for understanding the health impacts of wildfire smoke and demonstrates the importance of bench-marking estimates with available surface measurements.","PeriodicalId":36,"journal":{"name":"环境科学与技术","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"环境科学与技术","FirstCategoryId":"1","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c05922","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Growing wildfire smoke represents a substantial threat to air quality and human health. However, the impact of wildfire smoke on human health remains imprecisely understood due to uncertainties in both the measurement of exposure of population to wildfire smoke and dose–response functions linking exposure to health. Here, we compare daily wildfire smoke-related surface fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations estimated using three approaches, including two chemical transport models (CTMs): GEOS-Chem and the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) and one machine learning (ML) model over the contiguous US in 2020, a historically active fire year. In the western US, compared against surface PM2.5 measurements from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and PurpleAir sensors, we find that CTMs overestimate PM2.5 concentrations during extreme smoke episodes by up to 3–5 fold, while ML estimates are largely consistent with surface measurements. However, in the eastern US, where smoke levels were much lower in 2020, CTMs show modestly better agreement with surface measurements. We develop a calibration framework that integrates CTM- and ML-based approaches to yield estimates of smoke PM2.5 concentrations that outperform individual approach. When combining the estimated smoke PM2.5 concentrations with county-level mortality rates, we find consistent effects of low-level smoke on mortality but large discrepancies in effects of high-level smoke exposure across different methods. Our research highlights the differences across estimation methods for understanding the health impacts of wildfire smoke and demonstrates the importance of bench-marking estimates with available surface measurements.

Abstract Image

评估野火烟雾PM2.5的化学传输和机器学习模型:对健康影响评估的影响
越来越多的野火烟雾对空气质量和人类健康构成了重大威胁。然而,野火烟雾对人类健康的影响仍然无法准确理解,因为人口暴露于野火烟雾的测量和暴露与健康相关的剂量反应函数都存在不确定性。在这里,我们比较了使用三种方法估计的每日野火烟雾相关的表面细颗粒物(PM2.5)浓度,包括两种化学运输模型(CTMs): GEOS-Chem和社区多尺度空气质量(CMAQ)以及2020年美国连续的一种机器学习(ML)模型,这是一个历史上活跃的火灾年。在美国西部,与美国环境保护署(EPA)和PurpleAir传感器的地面PM2.5测量值相比,我们发现CTMs在极端烟雾事件期间高估PM2.5浓度高达3-5倍,而ML估计值与地面测量值基本一致。然而,在2020年烟雾水平低得多的美国东部,CTMs与地面测量结果的一致性略好一些。我们开发了一个校准框架,该框架整合了基于CTM和ml的方法,以产生优于单个方法的烟雾PM2.5浓度估计值。当将估计的烟雾PM2.5浓度与县级死亡率结合起来时,我们发现低水平烟雾对死亡率的影响是一致的,但不同方法中高水平烟雾暴露的影响差异很大。我们的研究强调了了解野火烟雾对健康影响的估计方法之间的差异,并证明了利用可用的地面测量进行基准估计的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
环境科学与技术
环境科学与技术 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
17.50
自引率
9.60%
发文量
12359
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) is a co-sponsored academic and technical magazine by the Hubei Provincial Environmental Protection Bureau and the Hubei Provincial Academy of Environmental Sciences. Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) holds the status of Chinese core journals, scientific papers source journals of China, Chinese Science Citation Database source journals, and Chinese Academic Journal Comprehensive Evaluation Database source journals. This publication focuses on the academic field of environmental protection, featuring articles related to environmental protection and technical advancements.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信