印度化学输运模式研究的统计性能评估

Rishi Shandilya, Pranav Chaudhari and Srinidhi Balasubramanian*, 
{"title":"印度化学输运模式研究的统计性能评估","authors":"Rishi Shandilya,&nbsp;Pranav Chaudhari and Srinidhi Balasubramanian*,&nbsp;","doi":"10.1021/acsestair.4c0007210.1021/acsestair.4c00072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >India’s public health is seriously endangered by air pollution and linked to ∼0.8–0.98 million and 0.17 million premature deaths annually from chronic exposure to particulate matter (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) and ozone, respectively. Air quality forecasting tools are needed to assess the spatiotemporal variability of air pollutants and evaluate the impact of potential mitigation measures. Gridded concentrations of PM<sub>2.5</sub> and ozone are typically derived from first principle models called Chemical Transport Models (CTMs). Widespread application of CTMs, particularly for regulatory purposes, requires an understanding of model performance in comparison with observation data. A landscape approach that systematically reviews CTM model predictions and proposes benchmarks for assessing model performance can offer a way forward to build confidence in CTM-backed forecasting tools. Following similar efforts in the United States and China, we systematically shortlisted and examined model performance outcomes for 46 CTM studies reporting PM<sub>2.5</sub> and ozone predictions in India between 2008 and 2023. The reported statistical metrics for each pollutant (normalized mean bias (NMB), normalized mean error (NME), coefficient of correlation (<i>r</i>), and index of agreement (IOA) were rank ordered to identify two types of benchmarks: “goals” (highest achievable model accuracy based on top one-third performing studies) and “criteria” (typical model accuracy based on the top two-third performing studies). The identified goal performance for PM<sub>2.5</sub> was 17% (NMB), 34% (NME), and 0.67 (<i>r</i>), and ozone was 14% (NMB), 43% (NME), and 0.89 (<i>r</i>). These benchmarks are less restrictive than those reported for the United States and China. This highlights the need for the CTM community to coalesce around a common set of practices in evaluating CTMs. Additionally, complementary efforts in developing representative emissions inventories and including air pollution data from the expanding observational networks are required to update such benchmarks periodically. This study seeks to advance the capabilities of CTMs as a cornerstone of air quality forecasting tools and augment air quality management frameworks in India.</p>","PeriodicalId":100014,"journal":{"name":"ACS ES&T Air","volume":"1 12","pages":"1519–1530 1519–1530"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of the Statistical Performance of Chemical Transport Model Studies in India\",\"authors\":\"Rishi Shandilya,&nbsp;Pranav Chaudhari and Srinidhi Balasubramanian*,&nbsp;\",\"doi\":\"10.1021/acsestair.4c0007210.1021/acsestair.4c00072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p >India’s public health is seriously endangered by air pollution and linked to ∼0.8–0.98 million and 0.17 million premature deaths annually from chronic exposure to particulate matter (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) and ozone, respectively. Air quality forecasting tools are needed to assess the spatiotemporal variability of air pollutants and evaluate the impact of potential mitigation measures. Gridded concentrations of PM<sub>2.5</sub> and ozone are typically derived from first principle models called Chemical Transport Models (CTMs). Widespread application of CTMs, particularly for regulatory purposes, requires an understanding of model performance in comparison with observation data. A landscape approach that systematically reviews CTM model predictions and proposes benchmarks for assessing model performance can offer a way forward to build confidence in CTM-backed forecasting tools. Following similar efforts in the United States and China, we systematically shortlisted and examined model performance outcomes for 46 CTM studies reporting PM<sub>2.5</sub> and ozone predictions in India between 2008 and 2023. The reported statistical metrics for each pollutant (normalized mean bias (NMB), normalized mean error (NME), coefficient of correlation (<i>r</i>), and index of agreement (IOA) were rank ordered to identify two types of benchmarks: “goals” (highest achievable model accuracy based on top one-third performing studies) and “criteria” (typical model accuracy based on the top two-third performing studies). The identified goal performance for PM<sub>2.5</sub> was 17% (NMB), 34% (NME), and 0.67 (<i>r</i>), and ozone was 14% (NMB), 43% (NME), and 0.89 (<i>r</i>). These benchmarks are less restrictive than those reported for the United States and China. This highlights the need for the CTM community to coalesce around a common set of practices in evaluating CTMs. Additionally, complementary efforts in developing representative emissions inventories and including air pollution data from the expanding observational networks are required to update such benchmarks periodically. This study seeks to advance the capabilities of CTMs as a cornerstone of air quality forecasting tools and augment air quality management frameworks in India.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS ES&T Air\",\"volume\":\"1 12\",\"pages\":\"1519–1530 1519–1530\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS ES&T Air\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestair.4c00072\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS ES&T Air","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestair.4c00072","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

印度的公众健康受到空气污染的严重威胁,每年分别有80万至98万和17万因长期暴露于颗粒物(PM2.5)和臭氧而过早死亡。需要空气质量预报工具来评估空气污染物的时空变异性,并评估可能的缓解措施的影响。PM2.5和臭氧的网格浓度通常来自称为化学传输模型(CTMs)的第一性原理模型。CTMs的广泛应用,特别是用于监管目的,需要将模型性能与观测数据进行比较。系统地审查CTM模型预测并提出评估模型性能的基准的景观方法可以为建立对CTM支持的预测工具的信心提供一种方法。继美国和中国的类似努力之后,我们系统地筛选并检查了报告2008年至2023年印度PM2.5和臭氧预测的46项CTM研究的模型性能结果。报告的每种污染物的统计指标(归一化平均偏差(NMB)、归一化平均误差(NME)、相关系数(r)和一致性指数(IOA))被排序,以确定两种类型的基准:“目标”(基于前三分之一执行研究的最高可实现模型精度)和“标准”(基于前三分之二执行研究的典型模型精度)。PM2.5的目标绩效为17% (NMB)、34% (NME)和0.67 (r),臭氧的目标绩效为14% (NMB)、43% (NME)和0.89 (r)。与美国和中国的基准相比,这些基准的限制更少。这突出表明,在评估CTM时,CTM社区需要围绕一套共同的实践进行联合。此外,还需要在制定有代表性的排放清单和包括不断扩大的观测网络的空气污染数据方面作出补充努力,以定期更新这些基准。本研究旨在提高CTMs作为空气质量预测工具基石的能力,并增强印度的空气质量管理框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Assessment of the Statistical Performance of Chemical Transport Model Studies in India

Assessment of the Statistical Performance of Chemical Transport Model Studies in India

India’s public health is seriously endangered by air pollution and linked to ∼0.8–0.98 million and 0.17 million premature deaths annually from chronic exposure to particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, respectively. Air quality forecasting tools are needed to assess the spatiotemporal variability of air pollutants and evaluate the impact of potential mitigation measures. Gridded concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone are typically derived from first principle models called Chemical Transport Models (CTMs). Widespread application of CTMs, particularly for regulatory purposes, requires an understanding of model performance in comparison with observation data. A landscape approach that systematically reviews CTM model predictions and proposes benchmarks for assessing model performance can offer a way forward to build confidence in CTM-backed forecasting tools. Following similar efforts in the United States and China, we systematically shortlisted and examined model performance outcomes for 46 CTM studies reporting PM2.5 and ozone predictions in India between 2008 and 2023. The reported statistical metrics for each pollutant (normalized mean bias (NMB), normalized mean error (NME), coefficient of correlation (r), and index of agreement (IOA) were rank ordered to identify two types of benchmarks: “goals” (highest achievable model accuracy based on top one-third performing studies) and “criteria” (typical model accuracy based on the top two-third performing studies). The identified goal performance for PM2.5 was 17% (NMB), 34% (NME), and 0.67 (r), and ozone was 14% (NMB), 43% (NME), and 0.89 (r). These benchmarks are less restrictive than those reported for the United States and China. This highlights the need for the CTM community to coalesce around a common set of practices in evaluating CTMs. Additionally, complementary efforts in developing representative emissions inventories and including air pollution data from the expanding observational networks are required to update such benchmarks periodically. This study seeks to advance the capabilities of CTMs as a cornerstone of air quality forecasting tools and augment air quality management frameworks in India.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信