ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
High-Resolution Air Pollution Mapping with Google Street View Cars: Exploiting Big Data
My Activity

Figure 1Loading Img
  • Open Access
Article

High-Resolution Air Pollution Mapping with Google Street View Cars: Exploiting Big Data
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 United States
Environmental Defense Fund, New York, New York 10010 United States
§ School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z3 Canada
Energy Technologies Area, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720 United States
Aclima, Inc., 10 Lombard St., San Francisco, California 94111 United States
# Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 United States
Institute for Risk Assessment Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CM Netherlands
Open PDFSupporting Information (2)

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 12, 6999–7008
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891
Published June 5, 2017

Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Air pollution affects billions of people worldwide, yet ambient pollution measurements are limited for much of the world. Urban air pollution concentrations vary sharply over short distances (≪1 km) owing to unevenly distributed emission sources, dilution, and physicochemical transformations. Accordingly, even where present, conventional fixed-site pollution monitoring methods lack the spatial resolution needed to characterize heterogeneous human exposures and localized pollution hotspots. Here, we demonstrate a measurement approach to reveal urban air pollution patterns at 4–5 orders of magnitude greater spatial precision than possible with current central-site ambient monitoring. We equipped Google Street View vehicles with a fast-response pollution measurement platform and repeatedly sampled every street in a 30-km2 area of Oakland, CA, developing the largest urban air quality data set of its type. Resulting maps of annual daytime NO, NO2, and black carbon at 30 m-scale reveal stable, persistent pollution patterns with surprisingly sharp small-scale variability attributable to local sources, up to 5–8× within individual city blocks. Since local variation in air quality profoundly impacts public health and environmental equity, our results have important implications for how air pollution is measured and managed. If validated elsewhere, this readily scalable measurement approach could address major air quality data gaps worldwide.

Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society

1 Introduction

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Air pollution is a major global risk factor for ill-health and death. (1-4) Air pollution measurements are crucial for epidemiology and air quality management, but the extent of ground-based air pollution observations is limited. (5, 6) For many developing-country regions, especially in populous parts of Asia and Africa, robust air quality monitoring is largely absent. (5) Even for high-income regions, ambient monitors are generally sparsely sited. For the 60% of the U.S. census urban areas with continuous regulatory monitoring, there are a mean of ∼2–5 monitors per million people and 1000 km2 (Supporting Information (SI) Table S1). However, primary air pollutant concentrations in cities can vary sharply over short distances (∼0.01–1 km) owing to unevenly distributed emissions sources, dilution, and physicochemical transformations. (7-10) Such gradients are not well represented with routine ambient measurements, but have important implications for exposure assessment, epidemiology, air quality management, and environmental equity. (10-13)
Advances in air pollution exposure assessment techniques over the past two decades have helped address limitations of (i) data coverage and (ii) spatial resolution that are associated with central-site ambient monitoring. (10, 14) These methods include satellite remote sensing (RS), chemical transport models (CTMs), land-use regression (LUR) models, and direct personal exposure measurements. (14) Each of these approaches has distinct advantages and limitations. Satellite RS instruments and CTMs are spatially coarse (>1–10 km resolution), and cannot characterize the fine-scale gradients (10–300 m) that drive population exposure to local emissions such as traffic. Satellites are unable to measure some pollutants of key health concern (e.g., black carbon, ultrafine particles). Dispersion models and CTMs are only as reliable as their underlying emissions inventories, and thus cannot reveal unexpected sources. Empirical and geostatistical models such as LUR and kriging can estimate concentrations at high spatial resolution. (10, 14-17) However, these models provide limited temporal information, often require local training data sets to be available or collected, and struggle to predict the tails of air pollution distributions, especially where idiosyncratic local sources exist. Alternative methods to measure how air pollution concentrations vary within cities and neighborhoods could complement these existing techniques and fill important data gaps. (18, 19)
We explore here the potential of routine mobile monitoring with fleet vehicles for measuring time-integrated concentrations at high spatial resolution. The use of vehicles for mobile air pollution sampling dates to the 1970s or earlier, (20) and has been common since the early 2000s. (12, 13, 21-27) However, even purpose-built “mobile labs” are rarely deployed for extended periods, and often depend on trained research staff as drivers. (25-28) As a result, few mobile monitoring data sets have sufficient repetition frequency or statistical power to precisely reveal consistent long-term spatial patterns over wide areas. We consider here an alternative approach, equipping professionally driven fleet vehicles with air quality instruments, repeatedly sampling every street of an urban area, and applying data reduction algorithms to distill stable long-term spatial patterns from time-resolved data. This approach has been implemented for public transportation vehicles along fixed routes, including trams in Karlsruhe and Zürich. (24, 29) We report here on a 1 year pilot study in the San Francisco Bay Area using extensive route-free driving representative of a broad sample of city streets. In addition to testing the feasibility of this approach at scale, we explicitly aimed to “overdesign” our sampling scheme to enable quantitative characterization of trade-offs between sampling frequency and measurement precision/accuracy. (A similar oversampling approach has been tested on shorter cycling routes in the U.S. and Belgium). (15, 30, 31) We demonstrate that our measurement approach is capable of precisely (±10–20% of median) revealing urban pollution gradients at very fine ∼30 m scales, or 104–105× greater spatial resolution than with urban-ambient monitors. Our results corroborate current understandings and also provide new insights into the spatial variability of urban air pollution.

2 Materials and Methods

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

In brief, we equipped two Google Street View (SV) mapping vehicles with an Aclima environmental intelligence fast-response pollution measurement and data integration platform (Aclima, Inc., San Francisco, CA). Using these vehicles, we repeatedly measured weekday daytime concentrations of black carbon particles (BC), NO, and NO2 over 1 year for every road within diverse residential, commercial and industrial areas of Oakland, CA. BC, NO, and NO2 are key health relevant pollutants whose sources include vehicular traffic, shipping, industrial combustion, cooking, and heating. The large resulting data set (3 × 106 1-Hz measurements within a 30 km2 area; 24 000 total vehicle-km on 750 road-km) is unique among mobile monitoring studies in its very high coverage density and repeat-visit frequency (average of 31 days and 200 1-Hz measurements for each 30 m of road, SI Figure S2). Through data reduction and bootstrap resampling (32) algorithms, we compute median ± standard error (SE) annual daytime concentrations for ∼21 000 unique road segments. While instantaneous pollution levels vary rapidly in on-road environments, by repeatedly sampling each road and computing long-term medians, we obtained stable, precise (±10–20%) estimates of time-integrated pollution at fine 30 m spatial scales. Overall, these data reduction methods produce maps of systematic spatial variation in long-term air pollution that are robust to the stochastic temporal variability in the underlying 1-Hz data.

2.1 Measurement Platform

Two Google Street View (SV) vehicles were equipped with the Aclima Ei measurement and data acquisition platform. This platform provides data management, quality control, and visualization functions, facilitating extensive, routine measurements. In the present configuration, monitors employed were fast-response (1 Hz) laboratory-grade analyzers: BC was measured using a photoacoustic extinctiometer, NO was measured using chemiluminescence, and NO2 was measured using cavity-attenuation phase-shift spectroscopy. The inlet system was designed to minimize self-sampling and particle sampling losses. Further details of the instrumentation design, routine calibrations, and QA/QC protocols/algorithms are provided as SI.

2.2 Study Area Description and Sampling Protocol

Sampling during the 1 year study duration emphasized three main areas within Oakland, CA: West Oakland (WO, ∼10 km2), Downtown Oakland (DT, ∼5 km2), and East Oakland (EO, ∼15 km2). WO is bounded by major interstate highways (I-880, I-980, I-580), the fifth-largest U.S. container port, and associated rail and trucking facilities. Residential blocks are interspersed with industries in this lower-income neighborhood. DT has mixed residential and commercial mid- and high-rise buildings. EO is divided between industrial and mixed-income residential areas.
We undertook mobile monitoring on weekdays from May 28, 2015 to May 14, 2016. During routine operation, cars left garages in either Mountain View, CA or San Francisco, CA at around 9:00 AM local time and drove to Oakland, CA for ∼6–8 h of driving. Barring operational constraints (e.g., maintenance), two cars were operated simultaneously on each driving day.
Drivers were provided daily driving assignments consisting of polygons (∼1–5 km2) in which the driver was tasked with driving every road at least once. Drivers were instructed to drive in the normal flow of traffic. Mean speeds were ∼25 km h–1 on surface streets and ∼88 km h–1 on highways. Routine sampling was conducted during all seasons. Vehicles were operated without regard to weather, except during 1–2 exceptional storms that precluded safe driving. The prevailing wind direction for the study area was from the west (∼85% of all study hours; median wind speed 4 m s–1). A total of 2.7 M 1-Hz observations, or 800 h, on ∼16 000 unique 30 m road segments were collected in core WO+DT+EO domain. Additional monitoring incorporated interstate highways linking the study areas and car maintenance garages (∼300 k 1-Hz measurements on ∼4500 unique 30 m road segments). Further information about the study domain and operational considerations are provided as SI, including detailed maps (Figure S1–S2).

2.3 Data Reduction

We developed a series of data reduction algorithms to convert our data set of ∼3 million instantaneous observations into estimates of median annual weekday concentrations for individual 30-m road segments. First, we accounted for the possible biases of daily diurnal variation in urban-background concentrations by applying an hourly multiplicative adjustment factor to our 1-Hz mobile data based on ambient concentrations at a regulatory fixed-site monitor in WO. (15, 23, 30, 33) This adjustment approach makes the implicit assumption that temporal patterns are spatially invariant. This common assumption is conceptually imperfect but may be acceptable for well-mixed daytime hours. (15, 23, 30, 33) In any case, the temporal adjustment had only a minor (±10%) impact on the observed spatial patterns in long-term concentrations, likely because the numerous repeated measurements were already balanced in space and time.
Next, we employed a “snapping” procedure to assign each 1-Hz measurement to the nearest 30 m road segment on the basis of measured GPS coordinates, thereby allowing repeated measurements along the same road to be analyzed as a group. (15) We chose to use 30 m road segments for analysis after weighing considerations of spatial resolution (smaller segments show more spatial variability) and sample size (outliers and GPS errors have proportionally greater influence when data are “thinly sliced”). A virtue of this data reduction step is that it ensures that road segments with a high number of raw 1-Hz samples (e.g., owing to low average speeds) are not over-represented in our spatial analyses: regardless of the number of 1-Hz samples, a single point estimate of concentration is produced for each road segment. We restrict our analysis to include only the ∼21 000 road segments in our study domain with at least 10 unique days of measurement between 8 am and 6:59 pm local time between 28 May 2015 and 18 May 2016. The typical road segment contains ∼150–250 individual 1-Hz samples collected on ∼20–50 distinct days. The SI provides further details on the performance of our “snapping” and temporal adjustment algorithms (see Figures S4–S5).
For each of the ∼21 000 road segments, we computed distributional parameters of repeated 1-Hz observations. Similar to some recent mobile monitoring studies, (15, 30) but unlike others, (28) we explicitly chose not to filter out “peak” 1-Hz concentration measurements resulting from encounters with other vehicles’ exhaust plumes in assessing spatial patterns. The frequency with which plumes occur in space and time provides valuable information about the conditions that give rise to on-road concentrations. (30) We evaluated both the median and mean as metrics of central-tendency. In initial study design, we had two a priori concerns about the possible use of the mean as a reliable metric: First, that a small number of extreme outlier observations (true concentration “peaks” or rare spurious measurements) might bias our estimation of “typical” concentrations for each road segment, and second, that if we under-sampled the tails of a skewed concentration distribution, we might not obtain stable means. Also, for a log-normal or similarly skewed distribution, median is generally a more appropriate measure of central tendency than is mean. Accordingly, we chose to use median concentrations as our core estimate of central tendency for 30 m road segments, and evaluated means in sensitivity analyses.
We used a set of bootstrap resampling procedures to quantify the effect of sample-to-sample variability and sampling error on the precision of central-tendency 30 m concentration estimates. For each individual road segment, we computed the standardized error (SE) of the median and mean concentration. As a metric of precision, we consider normalized SE: the ratio of the standard error of the median (mean) concentration to the median (mean) concentration itself (SI Table S4). On average, the normalized SE of individual 30 m median (mean) concentrations was low: respectively 20% (21%), 16% (15%), and 9% (8%) for BC, NO, and NO2. Road segment mean concentrations were well correlated with medians (mean > median owing to positive skew, r2 ∼ 0.6–0.9). In sum, for our sample size, central-tendency concentrations can be estimated with good precision and minimal sampling error from stochastic variability. For large groups of road segments (e.g., all residential streets), we estimate the precision of the central tendency to be within ≪1% of the normalized SE.
The SI provides further information on bootstrapping and precision calculations, comparisons between mean and median metrics, and summary tables of raw and reduced data (SI Tables S2–S3). The distributions of all ∼21 000 30 m-median road segment concentrations for NO, NO2, and BC are positively skewed, but based on a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test do not conform to a single parametric distribution (SI Figure S6).

2.4 Stability Analysis: Monte Carlo Subsampling

We utilize a subsampling analysis to investigate whether a less intensive program of repeated monitoring can reproduce the long-term pollution patterns observed from the full data set. (15, 30, 31) A specific question of interest here is whether there is a point of “diminishing return,” beyond which additional repeat driving provides relatively little added information.
We use Monte Carlo simulation to repeatedly subsample our full data set to systematically introduce fewer days of driving for analysis. Briefly, we randomly sample without replacement 1 ≤ N ≤ 50 unique drive days at each location from our full data set. Within our core domain, the mean road segment has 31 days of sampling (10% trimmed range: 17–49 days). For each value of N, we performed 250 random draws to produce 250 subsampled “maps” of 30 m median concentrations. For road segments with fewer than N days of sampling, the “subsampling” effectively includes all observations collected over the duration of our campaign. Thus, the subsampled maps converge to the result of the full data set as N approaches the total number of unique driving days for the full measurement campaign. We compute three metrics to compare the performance of each subsampled concentration map to that of our full data set. First, as a metric of precision, we computed the r2 between each subsampled map and the corresponding full data set of 30 m median concentrations. Second, as a metric of bias, we compute the normalized root-mean-square error (normalized RMSE, or equivalently, the coefficient of variation of the RMSE, CV-RMSE) as the square root of the mean of the squared difference between each subsampled 30 m median concentration and its corresponding median from the full data set. Third, as a metric of the temporal stability of subsampled spatial patterns, we computed the intraclass correlation (ICC) of each subsampled iteration, grouped by 30 m road segments. For this application, ICC values of 0.75–1 reflect large and systematic spatial differences, with low residual temporal variability at each location (see Section S1.5). We find that spatial variability dominates the total variability in our data set, with ICC values in the range of 0.8–0.95 for all pollutants (see SI Table S5), indicating that our observed long-term spatial patterns are robust to stochastic variability among individual 1-Hz samples.

2.5 Data Mining: Spatial Patterns

We conducted two “data mining” investigations to explore the determinants of the spatial patterns that are revealed by our mobile monitoring data, specifically (i) near-highway distance-decay relationships and (ii) the effect of local, transient sources on spatial patterns.
Distance-decay relationships for pollutant concentrations near major roadways have been documented in the literature, (8, 34, 35) relying predominantly on experiments along carefully selected near-highway upwind-downwind transects. (35) Here, we demonstrate a “big data” approach that provides complementary information, using our full mobile data set to characterize time-averaged, isotropic (i.e., direction-independent) daytime distance-decay relationships. For every road segment within WO and DT, we computed a distance-to-nearest-highway parameter d (“spatial lag”). We bin all road segments by d, and compute the median concentration as a function of spatial lag using 50 m bins. For each pollutant we estimate a three-parameter exponential distance-decay relationship for the mean highway normalized concentration ratio as a function of spatial lag. The SI provides further detail on this fitting approach.
To investigate how localized or transient emissions sources contribute to the on-road concentrations measured by our mobile monitors, we employed a peak detection algorithm. (25, 28, 36, 37) The basic conceptual approach uses a moving-window function to identify a localized concentration baseline, and then attributes the difference between the measured value and the baseline to short-duration concentration “peaks”. We applied a 10 s moving average filter to the entire input data set to prevent spurious extreme low values in the raw data (e.g., instrument noise) from influencing the baseline determination. We established the concentration baseline for each second in this 10 s smoothed data set as the smaller of two quantities: the instantaneous value in the data set, or the p = fifth percentile concentration within a moving window of t = 120 s. By selecting the fifth percentile, the algorithm identifies a value that is representative of the cleanest local conditions, which are more influenced by the urban background than by localized sources. We chose t = 120 s to ensure that the time window was longer than the typical traffic light cycle, but short enough that the baseline concentrations on surface streets was established using measurements collected within ∼1 km of each location (30 km/h for 2 min = 1 km).
After establishing the baseline concentration, we derived the peak fraction parameter PF by computing (i) the mean baseline value over all repeated observations, and (ii) the mean 10s-smoothed observed concentration. Then, we compute PF as 1.0 minus the ratio of the mean baseline value to the mean observed concentration. Thus, PF is an indicator of the contribution to mean observed levels on each road segment of concentrations above the mean local baseline. While PF is inherently a semiquantitative indicator metric that is somewhat influenced by parameter choice, it usefully reveals spatial patterns in the density and magnitude of local, transient emissions sources. As a sensitivity analysis, we computed PF where the moving window period t was doubled to 4 min. For that analysis, overall spatial patterns in PF were nearly identical, but with an upward shift of 5–10% in PF: a longer window results in somewhat lower and more spatially homogeneous baseline concentrations.

3 Results and Discussion

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

3.1 Spatial Patterns and Hotspots

Our mobile monitoring data set paints a vivid picture of within-urban pollution patterns, revealing remarkable and stable heterogeneity in daytime weekday pollutant concentrations (Figure 1, Figure S7). Figure 1b illustrates fine-scale variability in pollution for an indicative 0.6 km2 industrial/residential zone in West Oakland (WO). Within this small area, time integrated 30-m median primary pollutant concentrations vary by >5× within individual city blocks, and by >8× overall, as the result of local emissions sources and traffic congestion. A surprising feature throughout our data set is the ubiquity of persistent daytime “hotspots” (length <100 m), tentatively classified as locations where concentrations of multiple pollutants exceed nearby ambient levels by 50% or more. Figure 2 presents data and plausible causes for an indicative set of hotspots based on analysis of Google Street View imagery. Examples include intersections along a major truck route, vehicle repair facilities, and industrial sites with associated truck traffic. As one indication of a localized source, most hotspots show sharp spatial “peaks” for multiple pollutants. (For the full data set, spatial patterns of 30 m-median concentrations for the three pollutants are moderately correlated, r2: BC-NO = 0.71, NO-NO2 = 0.57, BC-NO2 = 0.50). The SI provides further detail on the hotspot identification scheme.

Figure 1

Figure 1. High-resolution mapping of time-integrated concentrations. Annual median daytime concentrations for 30 m-length road segments based on 1 year of repeated driving for a 16 km2 domain in West Oakland [WO] and Downtown (a), and for a 0.6 km2 industrial-residential area in WO (b). Median ± SE concentrations are tabulated by road type in c. Annual median daytime ambient concentrations Camb at a regulatory fixed-site monitor in WO are plotted as shaded stars. Localized hotspots in b correspond to major intersections, industries, and businesses with truck traffic, and are interspersed with lower-income housing (see aerial image). Locations of hotspots are similar among pollutants. d, Distributions of 780 1-Hz NO measurements for a transect of eight 30 m road segments (see b, from point X to Y) to illustrate relationship between 1-Hz samples (∼100 per segment over 1 year) and plotted long-term medians (colored bars, blue horizontal lines). Elevated levels near midpoint of transect are associated with operations at a metal recycler (see Figure 2). Wind rose data are provided in SI Figure S1, and show consistent westerly winds. Imagery © 2016 Google, map data © 2016 Google.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Illustrative pollution hotspots. a. Street View and aerial imagery of the metals recycling cluster highlighted in Figure 4a–c. Frequent heavy-duty and medium-duty truck traffic is evident in repeated Street View images. b,c. Multipollutant hotspots (i.e., prominent local concentration outliers) were identified from BC, NO, and NO2 median concentrations as described in SI. Twelve illustrative hotspots labeled A–L here, overlaid on the 30 m BC map in b for context. List in c enumerates possible emissions sources for each illustrative hotspot, with the following classification scheme for each pollutant: (+) indicates a prominent localized hotspot or cluster of roads where concentrations are sharply elevated above nearby background levels, (∼) indicates a less prominent hotspot or cluster with moderately elevated levels, and (×) indicates the absence of a clearly discernible hotspot. Imagery © 2016 Google, map data © 2016 Google.

To demonstrate how hotspots consistently emerge from time-resolved data, Figure 1d shows long-term median and 1-Hz concentrations for the 240 m transect labeled X–Y in Figure 1b. Over the short length of this transect, time-integrated median NO levels rise and fall 4×. Concentrations are highest directly in front of the entrance to a metals recycling facility, where the 1-Hz distribution exhibits a large number of high NO concentrations. SV and aerial photos show a high volume of trucks and heavy equipment operating at this facility (Figure 2).
At broader spatial scales, pollutant levels differ substantially among three major road classes: highways, arterial roads, and residential streets (Figure 1). Median weekday daytime concentrations for WO and Downtown Oakland (DT) residential streets are approximately consistent with daytime observations at a regulatory fixed-site monitor in West Oakland (Figure 1c, road vs ambient: 0.41 ± 0.01 vs 0.50 μg m–3 BC, 5.3 ± 0.11 vs 3.5 ppb NO, 13.2 ± 0.18 vs 10.4 ppb NO2). In contrast, concentrations on busier streets and highways are substantially elevated above urban-background levels. For BC, median highway [arterial] concentrations exceed those on residential streets by a factor of 2.7 [1.3]; for NO by a factor of 4.8 [1.9]; and for NO2 by a factor of 1.8 [1.3]. Atypically high pollutant concentrations for a given road class are evident in several areas of Figure 1, especially for NO and BC. Median concentrations on city-designated truck routes linking highways to industrial areas are 1.9–3.6× higher than on other surface streets (SI Table S6). We observe consistently higher BC and NO levels (1.5–2.0× higher) on I-880 (high truck density) than on I-580 (trucks prohibited, see SI and Figure S8).

3.2 Distance-Decay Relationships

Between the extremes of polluted freeways and cleaner residential streets, concentrations on average follow “distance-decay” relationships similar to those observed elsewhere. (8, 9, 34, 35) An unconstrained three parameter exponential model, C(d) = α + β exp (−3d/k), reproduces the concentration-distance relationship C(d) with high fidelity (r2 ≥ 0.96, see Figure 3). Here, the isotropic parameter d reflects the distance to highways (m), the urban background parameter α represents concentrations far-from-highway (d → ∞), the near-road parameter β represents the concentration increment resulting from proximity to the highway, and the decay parameter k governs the spatial scale over which concentrations relax to α. For all pollutants, estimated values of (α + β) ∼ 1.0, indicating that the combined contribution of the urban background and the near-highway increment approaches the levels observed on highways.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Decay of concentrations from major highways into city streets for WO and DT. a. Plotted points represent the ratio of median concentrations at a given distance from highways (d, “spatial lag”) to median on-highway concentrations; error bars present standard error from bootstrap resampling. An unconstrained three parameter exponential model reproduces observed decay relationships with high fidelity. Here, the parameter α represents the ratio of urban-background to highway concentrations (d → ∞), β represents the additional increment in pollution at near-highway conditions, and the decay parameter k governs the spatial scale of the decay process. The value of α is intermediate for BC (primary, conserved pollutant); lower for NO (consumed rapidly during daytime by reaction with O3) and higher for NO2 (elevated background from regional secondary photochemical conversion from NO). Data in SI demonstrate that parameter estimates are consistent among alternative fitting approaches. b. Distance-to-highway metric d for surface streets in WO and DT, computed based on the harmonic mean distance of each surface street segment to closest portion of the four major highways in the domain (see SI). Map data © 2016 Google.

Results in Figure 3 represent average weekday daytime decay patterns. These results reflect the average surface-street to highway concentration ratio as a function of d; as averages, they do not explore temporal differences (traffic, meteorology), the impact of wind direction, or heterogeneity among individual road segments. Interestingly, the fitted values of the parameters α and β correspond closely (within ±5%) to the results of the comprehensive meta-analysis of Karner et al. (2009). (8) Consistent with expectations about sources and atmospheric dynamics, our observed distance-decay relationships are sharpest for NO, intermediate for BC, and most shallow for NO2. BC and NO are primary air pollutants from combustion sources. Unlike BC, NO is rapidly depleted during daylight hours by reaction with ozone (NO + O3→ NO2, τ ∼ 1–5 min). (38) Because most (but not all (39, 40)) daytime NO2 is formed through secondary chemistry, spatial patterns of NO2 tend to be more homogeneous than NO or BC. Further analysis of the robustness of our decay fitting approach and comparison with Karner et al. is provided as SI.

3.3 Localized Concentration Peaks

To further elucidate determinants of spatial patterns in air pollution, we mined the time-resolved data that underlie long-term median concentrations. The time evolution of concentrations collected by a mobile monitor reflects the superposition of (i) spatiotemporally localized concentration peaks from primary emissions and (ii) a comparatively less variable urban background condition. (28, 37)Figure 4a illustrates the application of our baseline-and-peak decomposition algorithm to a 10 min excerpt from our WO mobile monitoring data. Four coincident NO and NO2 peaks in this time series correspond in space (Figure 4b,c) to roads on the perimeter of the metals recycling facility illustrated in Figure 1b, demonstrating how spatially localized peaks are superimposed onto the urban background. For measurements at each 30 m road segment, we estimate the fractional contribution of localized sources to observed conditions (“peak fraction”, PF) as 1.0 minus the ratio of the mean 30-m baseline concentration to mean 30-m observed concentration (Figure 4d–f). (Thus, at any given location, the observed 30 m median concentration is algebraically equivalent to the sum of the baseline plus peak contributions). Median values of PF are highest for NO and BC (∼65%), indicating the predominant contribution of transient localized sources (e.g., traffic, industrial facilities). Spatial variations in PF values (Figure 4d) reveal that the urban background dominates NO levels on low-traffic residential streets (PF ∼ 25–40%), whereas transient peaks govern concentrations on arterials (PF ∼ 60–80%) and near industrial facilities. In contrast, for NO2, PF is consistently low (∼20%), reflecting the high baseline contribution from photochemistry. Future work could explore whether PF and other derived metrics (e.g., pollutant ratios) may be useful in representing the “freshness” of emissions to inform epidemiological analyses of multipollutant mixtures.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Identification of localized concentration peaks. a. Example 10 min time series of NO and NO2 on afternoon of 4/22/2016. Baseline-fitting algorithm decomposes measurements (solid traces) into an ambient baseline component (dashed lines) and a high-frequency component indicative of localized pollutant sources (“peaks”, difference between observation and baseline). Peak fraction PF indicates contribution of peaks to total sampled mass. PF is high for NO (low baseline, sharp peaks), and low for NO2 (elevated ambient levels from photochemistry). Temporal progress along route indicated by blue-white-red color scale in a, and mapped in space in b. The drive route for these 10 min is a 4 km sequence of right-hand turns. As indicated by the time color scale in a and b, the starred NO peaks are spatially concentrated around a single city block with a scrap metal plant (marked × in b and c, cf. Figure 1b and Figure 2a). c, Spatial concentration profile for this example period. d,e,f. Application of peak-separation algorithm to entire data set. d,e. Blue-green-red color scale for PF quantifies fraction of mean concentration at each 30 m road segment attributable to transient peaks. f. Median PF values by road class. Imagery © 2016 Google, map data © 2016 Google.

Taken in combination, our findings suggest that consistent spatial variability of air pollution exists at much finer scales than is generally detected using conventional measurements and predicted by models. Because hotspots are revealed through repeated measurement, this approach may be useful for evaluating the fine-scale performance of LUR and other models that use spatial surrogate data. We demonstrate that weekday, daytime primary pollutant levels persistently vary by a factor of 2–8× or more within neighborhoods and individual city blocks. For the median road segment, the absolute concentration difference from the single WO ambient regulatory monitor is 32% (BC), 61% (NO), and 35% (NO2) during weekday daytime hours. Sparse monitoring networks may therefore provide an imprecise approximation and underestimate the true variability in heterogeneous population exposures.
The implications of these findings for population exposure and public health depend in part on the degree to which on-road concentrations can represent exposures. Many epidemiological studies use predicted home-address concentrations as a proxy for long-term personal exposures. These predicted home-address concentrations are often based upon models derived from roadside measurements given the ease of access to roadsides (e.g., utility poles) for monitoring. Recent research suggests that on-road concentrations can be well correlated with residential address exposures, even when on-road concentrations are higher than surrounding off-road areas owing to proximate traffic emissions. (17, 41) Future work could validate the predictive power of routine mobile monitoring data using either residential fixed-site or personal exposure measurements.

3.4 Scaling and Future Prospects

Through systematic subsampling of our weekday daytime measurement data set, we find that 10–20 drive days (or 2–3× fewer data than collected here) are sufficient to reproduce key spatial patterns with good precision and low bias (Figure 5). The following trends hold: A small number of drive days (N < 5) typically results in a poor approximation of long-term spatial patterns from the full data set, with generally low precision (r2) and high bias (CV-RMSE). However, each additional sampling day, across a year, results in a substantial improvement in r2 and CV-RMSE. For our data set, diminishing returns for improvement in r2 set in at ∼10–20 drive days, with mean r2 for BC and NO approaching 0.7 after 10 days of driving, and approaching 0.9 after 20–25 days of driving. Mean values of ICC (SI Figure S9) are generally high for 10 or fewer drive days, indicating that stochastic temporal variability from a small number of drive days does not obscure an overall spatially dominated pollution pattern. Similar conclusions on the number of sampling days required for convergence to stable patterns have recently been reported in studies using repeated bicycle-based BC and PM measurements. (15, 30, 31) Our sampling was restricted to weekday daytime conditions; in general, spatial patterns may differ at other times (nights, weekends, holidays). (42) Future work may reveal whether similar scaling considerations hold over a broader range of conditions, and in locales with less consistent meteorology than Oakland.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Scaling analysis through systematic subsampling. Using the systematic subsampling algorithm described in Section 2.4, we investigated the relationship between number of drive days and metrics of precision and bias. a. Mean subsampled r2 as a function of 30 m-median road segment concentrations relative to the full data set, plotted as function the number of unique drive days for BC, NO, and NO2. See SI for details of the subsampling algorithm and r2 calculations. b. Mean subsampled coefficient of variation of root mean squared errors (CV-RMSE) versus the number of unique drive days for BC, NO, and NO2.

This study demonstrates a straightforward approach for dramatically increasing the spatial resolution with which air pollution is measured. The instrumentation costs of this technique using reference-grade monitors are perhaps comparable to those of traditional ambient monitoring. However, this routine mobile monitoring approach can provide several orders of magnitude more spatial information, albeit with lower temporal resolution. Future developments in fast-response low-cost sensor technologies could lower the costs of this approach. Moreover, in future studies, a considerably less intensive sampling scheme may provide similar results (Figure 5). Here, we employed Google SV vehicles to enable future analyses of contemporaneous 3D imagery, but other vehicle fleets (e.g., taxis, delivery vehicles, public transit) could routinely collect analogous data by repeatedly driving fixed or variable routes within a city. To facilitate scaling, our data reduction algorithms could be easily automated. Equipping ∼500 such vehicles could enable high-resolution mapping of the 25 largest U.S. urban areas, which in combination account for ∼50% [36%] of the U.S. urban [total] population. Likewise, prior experience (12) suggests that this approach could be extended to global megacities (world’s 20 largest cities have 480 M people, >10% of world urban population (43)) and to the thousands of other cities where air quality management is impaired by an absence of robust monitoring infrastructure. Future research could explore whether this approach can effectively be translated to such settings.
Routine availability of high-resolution air quality data in all major urban areas could have transformative implications for environmental management, air pollution science, epidemiology, public awareness, and policy. By highlighting localized pollution hotspots, these data may identify new opportunities for pollution control. Street-level air quality data can complement, challenge, and validate other diverse air quality data sets, including regulatory data, CTM outputs, land-use regression predictions, and remotely sensed observations. In turn, this refinement can help address exposure misclassification in epidemiological studies. (44, 45) Through combination with personal GPS data on smartphone applications, rich “personal exposure analytics” become possible, (46, 47) which could inform epidemiological studies and alter personal behavior, much as real-time traffic data now inform individual driving patterns. Broader societal consequences of the public awareness enabled by high-resolution pollution maps might include shifts in urban land-use decisions, regulatory actions, and in the political economy of environmental “riskscapes”.

Supporting Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00891.

  • Text, figures and tables with detailed information on experimental methods, QA/QC procedures, sampling protocols, data reduction/analysis techniques, supplemental analyses, and a data dictionary (PDF)

  • High-resolution concentration data (XLS)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
  • Authors
    • Kyle P. Messier - Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 United StatesEnvironmental Defense Fund, New York, New York 10010 United States
    • Shahzad Gani - Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712 United States
    • Michael Brauer - School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T 1Z3 Canada
    • Thomas W. Kirchstetter - Energy Technologies Area, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720 United States
    • Melissa M. Lunden - Aclima, Inc., 10 Lombard St., San Francisco, California 94111 United States
    • Julian D. Marshall - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195 United States
    • Christopher J. Portier - Environmental Defense Fund, New York, New York 10010 United States
    • Roel C.H. Vermeulen - Institute for Risk Assessment Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CM Netherlands
    • Steven P. Hamburg - Environmental Defense Fund, New York, New York 10010 United States
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of K. Tuxen-Bettman, A. Raman, R. Moore, L. Vincent, C. Owens, D. Herzl, O. Puryear, A. Teste, M. Gordon, B. Beveridge, L. Clark, M. Chu Baird, C. Ely, A. Roy, J. Choi, R. Alvarez, S. Fruin, D. Holstius, P. Martien, and the Google Street View and Aclima mobile platform teams. Funding was provided by a grant from Signe Ostby and Scott Cook to Environmental Defense Fund. JSA was supported by a Google Earth Engine Research Award, MML is employed by Aclima, Inc., and TWK has been an investigator on unrelated research sponsored by Aclima. Data will be made available in an interactive online archive.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 47 other publications.

  1. 1
    Apte, J. S.; Marshall, J. D.; Brauer, M.; Cohen, A. J. Addressing global mortality from ambient PM2.5 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8057 8066 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01236
  2. 2
    Lim, S. S.; Vos, T.; Flaxman, A. D.; Danaei, G.; Shibuya, K.; Adair-Rohani, H.; Amann, M.; Anderson, H. R.; Andrews, K. G.; Aryee, M. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 Lancet 2012, 380, 2224 2260 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8
  3. 3
    Pope, C. A.; Dockery, D. W. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: Lines that connect J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2006, 56, 709 742 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464485
  4. 4
    Brook, R. D.; Rajagopalan, S.; Pope, C. A., III; Brook, J. R.; Bhatnagar, A.; Diez-Roux, A. V.; Holguin, F.; Hong, Y.; Luepker, R. V.; Mittleman, M. A. Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association Circulation 2010, 121, 2331 2378 DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1
  5. 5
    Carvalho, H. The air we breathe: differentials in global air quality monitoring Lancet Respir. Med. 2016, 4, 603 605 DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30180-1
  6. 6
    Brauer, M.; Freedman, G.; Frostad, J.; van Donkelaar, A.; Martin, R. V.; Dentener, F.; Dingenen, R. v.; Estep, K.; Amini, H.; Apte, J. S. Ambient air pollution exposure estimation for the Global Burden of Disease 2013 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 79 88 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03709
  7. 7
    Zhang, K. M.; Wexler, A. S.; Zhu, Y. F.; Hinds, W. C.; Sioutas, C. Evolution of particle number distribution near roadways. Part II: the ‘Road-to-Ambient’ process Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 6655 6665 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.06.044
  8. 8
    Karner, A. A.; Eisinger, D. S.; Niemeier, D. A. Near-roadway air quality: Synthesizing the findings from real-world data Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 5334 5344 DOI: 10.1021/es100008x
  9. 9
    Zhu, Y. F.; Hinds, W. C.; Kim, S.; Shen, S.; Sioutas, C. Study of ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 4323 4335 DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00354-0
  10. 10
    Marshall, J. D.; Nethery, E.; Brauer, M. Within-urban variability in ambient air pollution: Comparison of estimation methods Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 1359 1369 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.08.012
  11. 11
    Morello-Frosch, R.; Pastor, M.; Sadd, J. Environmental justice and Southern California’s “riskscape”: the distribution of air toxics exposures and health risks among diverse communities Urban Affairs Review 2001, 36, 551 578 DOI: 10.1177/10780870122184993
  12. 12
    Apte, J. S.; Kirchstetter, T. W.; Reich, A. H.; Deshpande, S. J.; Kaushik, G.; Chel, A.; Marshall, J. D.; Nazaroff, W. W. Concentrations of fine, ultrafine, and black carbon particles in auto-rickshaws in New Delhi, India Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 4470 4480 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.028
  13. 13
    Boogaard, H.; Kos, G. P. A.; Weijers, E. P.; Janssen, N. A. H.; Fischer, P. H.; van der Zee, S. C.; de Hartog, J. J.; Hoek, G. Contrast in air pollution components between major streets and background locations: Particulate matter mass, black carbon, elemental composition, nitrogen oxide and ultrafine particle number Atmos. Environ. 2010, 45, 650 658 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.10.033
  14. 14
    Jerrett, M.; Arain, A.; Kanaroglou, P.; Beckerman, B.; Potoglou, D.; Sahsuvaroglu, T.; Morrison, J.; Giovis, C. A review and evaluation of intraurban air pollution exposure models J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 2005, 15, 185 204 DOI: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500388
  15. 15
    Hankey, S.; Marshall, J. D. Land use regression models of on-road particulate air pollution (particle number, black carbon, PM2.5, particle size) using mobile monitoring Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 9194 9202 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01209
  16. 16
    Reyes, J. M.; Serre, M. L. An LUR/BME framework to estimate PM2.5 explained by on road mobile and stationary sources Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1736 1744 DOI: 10.1021/es4040528
  17. 17
    Kerckhoffs, J.; Hoek, G.; Messier, K. P.; Brunekreef, B.; Meliefste, K.; Klompmaker, J. O.; Vermeulen, R. Comparison of ultrafine particle and black carbon concentration predictions from a mobile and short-term stationary land-use regression model Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 12894 12902 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03476
  18. 18
    Snyder, E. G.; Watkins, T. H.; Solomon, P. A.; Thoma, E. D.; Williams, R. W.; Hagler, G. S. W.; Shelow, D.; Hindin, D. A.; Kilaru, V. J.; Preuss, P. W. The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11369 11377 DOI: 10.1021/es4022602
  19. 19
    West, J. J.; Cohen, A.; Dentener, F.; Brunekreef, B.; Zhu, T.; Armstrong, B.; Bell, M. L.; Brauer, M.; Carmichael, G.; Costa, D. L. What we breathe impacts our health: Improving understanding of the link between air pollution and health Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 4895 4904 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03827
  20. 20
    Whitby, K. T.; Clark, W. E.; Marple, V. A.; Sverdrup, G. M.; Sem, G. J.; Willeke, K.; Liu, B. Y. H.; Pui, D. Y. H. Characterization of California aerosols--I. Size distributions of freeway aerosol Atmos. Environ. 1975, 9, 463 482 DOI: 10.1016/0004-6981(75)90107-9
  21. 21
    Westerdahl, D.; Fruin, S.; Sax, T.; Fine, P. M.; Sioutas, C. Mobile platform measurements of ultrafine particles and associated pollutant concentrations on freeways and residential streets in Los Angeles Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 3597 3610 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.02.034
  22. 22
    Hudda, N.; Gould, T.; Hartin, K.; Larson, T. V.; Fruin, S. A. Emissions from an international airport increase particle number concentrations 4-fold at 10 km downwind Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 6628 6635 DOI: 10.1021/es5001566
  23. 23
    Larson, T.; Henderson, S. B.; Brauer, M. Mobile monitoring of particle light absorption coefficient in an urban area as a basis for land use regression Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4672 4678 DOI: 10.1021/es803068e
  24. 24
    Hasenfratz, D.; Saukh, O.; Walser, C.; Hueglin, C.; Fierz, M.; Arn, T.; Beutel, J.; Thiele, L. Deriving high-resolution urban air pollution maps using mobile sensor nodes Pervasive and Mobile Computing 2015, 16 (Part B) 268 285 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2014.11.008
  25. 25
    Bukowiecki, N.; Dommen, J.; Prevot, A. S. H.; Richter, R.; Weingartner, E.; Baltensperger, U. A mobile pollutant measurement laboratory-measuring gas phase and aerosol ambient concentrations with high spatial and temporal resolution Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 5569 5579 DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00694-5
  26. 26
    Pirjola, L.; Parviainen, H.; Hussein, T.; Valli, A.; Hameri, K.; Aaalto, P.; Virtanen, A.; Keskinen, J.; Pakkanen, T. A.; Makela, T. ″Sniffer″ - a novel tool for chasing vehicles and measuring traffic pollutants Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 3625 3635 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.03.047
  27. 27
    Kolb, C.; Herndon, S. C.; McManus, J. B.; Shorter, J. H.; Zahniser, M. S.; Nelson, D. D.; Jayne, J. T.; Canagaratna, M. R.; Worsnop, D. R. Mobile laboratory with rapid response instruments for real-time measurement of urban and regional trace gas and particulate distributions and emissions source characteristics Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 5694 5703 DOI: 10.1021/es030718p
  28. 28
    Brantley, H. L.; Hagler, G. S. W.; Kimbrough, E. S.; Williams, R. W.; Mukerjee, S.; Neas, L. M. Mobile air monitoring data-processing strategies and effects on spatial air pollution trends Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2014, 7, 2169 2183 DOI: 10.5194/amt-7-2169-2014
  29. 29
    Hagemann, R.; Corsmeier, U.; Kottmeier, C.; Rinke, R.; Wieser, A.; Vogel, B. Spatial variability of particle number concentrations and NOx in the Karlsruhe (Germany) area obtained with the mobile laboratory ‘AERO-TRAM’ Atmos. Environ. 2014, 94, 341 352 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.05.051
  30. 30
    Van den Bossche, J.; Peters, J.; Verwaeren, J.; Botteldooren, D.; Theunis, J.; De Baets, B. Mobile monitoring for mapping spatial variation in urban air quality: Development and validation of a methodology based on an extensive dataset Atmos. Environ. 2015, 105, 148 161 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.017
  31. 31
    Peters, J.; Theunis, J.; Van Poppel, M.; Berghmans, P. Monitoring PM10 and ultrafine particles in urban environments using mobile measurements Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2013, 13, 509 522 DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2012.06.0152
  32. 32
    Efron, B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife Ann. Stat. 1979, 7, 1 26 DOI: 10.1214/aos/1176344552
  33. 33
    Dons, E.; Int Panis, L.; Van Poppel, M.; Theunis, J.; Wets, G. Personal exposure to black carbon in transport microenvironments Atmos. Environ. 2012, 55, 392 398 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.03.020
  34. 34
    Zhou, Y.; Levy, J. I. Factors influencing the spatial extent of mobile source air pollution impacts: a meta-analysis BMC Public Health 2007, 7, 89 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-89
  35. 35
    Zhu, Y.; Hinds, W. C.; Kim, S.; Sioutas, C. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2002, 52, 1032 1042 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2002.10470842
  36. 36
    Both, A. F.; Balakrishnan, A.; Joseph, B.; Marshall, J. D. Spatiotemporal aspects of real-time PM2.5: Low- and middle-income neighborhoods in Bangalore, India Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 5629 5636 DOI: 10.1021/es104331w
  37. 37
    Watson, J. G.; Chow, J. C. Estimating middle-, neighborhood-, and urban-scale contributions to elemental carbon in Mexico City with a rapid response aethalometer J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2001, 51, 1522 1528 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2001.10464379
  38. 38
    Seinfeld, J. H.; Pandis, S. N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change, 2nd ed.; Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, NJ, 2006.
  39. 39
    Dallmann, T. R.; Harley, R. A.; Kirchstetter, T. W. Effects of diesel particle filter retrofits and accelerated fleet turnover on drayage truck emissions at the Port of Oakland Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 10773 10779 DOI: 10.1021/es202609q
  40. 40
    Jenkin, M. E. Analysis of sources and partitioning of oxidant in the UK—Part 2: contributions of nitrogen dioxide emissions and background ozone at a kerbside location in London Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 5131 5138 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.05.055
  41. 41
    Riley, E. A.; Schaal, L.; Sasakura, M.; Crampton, R.; Gould, T. R.; Hartin, K.; Sheppard, L.; Larson, T.; Simpson, C. D.; Yost, M. G. Correlations between short-term mobile monitoring and long-term passive sampler measurements of traffic-related air pollution Atmos. Environ. 2016, 132, 229 239 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.001
  42. 42
    Hu, S.; Fruin, S.; Kozawa, K.; Mara, S.; Paulson, S. E.; Winer, A. M. A wide area of air pollutant impact downwind of a freeway during pre-sunrise hours Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 2541 2549 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.02.033
  43. 43
    Brinkhoff, T. Major agglomerations of the world. http://citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html 2016, (accessed February 14, 2017).
  44. 44
    Zeger, S. L.; Thomas, D.; Dominici, F.; Samet, J. M.; Schwartz, J.; Dockery, D.; Cohen, A. Exposure measurement error in time-series studies of air pollution: concepts and consequences Environ. Health Persp. 2000, 108, 419 426 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.00108419
  45. 45
    Sheppard, L.; Burnett, R. T.; Szpiro, A. A.; Kim, S.-Y.; Jerrett, M.; Pope, C. A.; Brunekreef, B. Confounding and exposure measurement error in air pollution epidemiology Air Qual., Atmos. Health 2012, 5, 203 216 DOI: 10.1007/s11869-011-0140-9
  46. 46
    de Nazelle, A.; Seto, E.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Mendez, M.; Matamala, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J.; Jerrett, M. Improving estimates of air pollution exposure through ubiquitous sensing technologies Environ. Pollut. 2013, 176, 92 99 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2012.12.032
  47. 47
    Nyhan, M.; Grauwin, S.; Britter, R.; Misstear, B.; McNabola, A.; Laden, F.; Barrett, S. R. H.; Ratti, C. “Exposure Track”—the impact of mobile-device-based mobility patterns on quantifying population exposure to air pollution Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 9671 9681 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02385

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 498 publications.

  1. Yuzhou Wang, Julian D. Marshall, Joshua S. Apte. U.S. Ambient Air Monitoring Network Has Inadequate Coverage under New PM2.5 Standard. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2024, Article ASAP.
  2. Manickam Rajkumar S. I. Davis Presley Nathiya Thiyagarajulu Ramasundaram Thangaraj Soundarapandian Kannan . Recent Advances in Nanotechnology: A New Paradigm toward Wastewater Treatment. , 89-110. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2024-1476.ch005
  3. Isabella M. Dressel, Sixuan Zhang, Mary Angelique G. Demetillo, Shan Yu, Kimberly Fields, Laura M. Judd, Caroline R. Nowlan, Kang Sun, Alexander Kotsakis, Alexander J. Turner, Sally E. Pusede. Neighborhood-Level Nitrogen Dioxide Inequalities Contribute to Surface Ozone Variability in Houston, Texas. ACS ES&T Air 2024, 1 (9) , 973-988. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.4c00009
  4. Zhendong Yuan, Jules Kerckhoffs, Hao Li, Jibran Khan, Gerard Hoek, Roel Vermeulen. Hyperlocal Air Pollution Mapping: A Scalable Transfer Learning LUR Approach for Mobile Monitoring. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (32) , 14372-14383. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c06144
  5. Chirag Manchanda, Robert A. Harley, Julian D. Marshall, Alexander J. Turner, Joshua S. Apte. Integrating Mobile and Fixed-Site Black Carbon Measurements to Bridge Spatiotemporal Gaps in Urban Air Quality. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (28) , 12563-12574. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c10829
  6. Ellis S. Robinson, Mina W. Tehrani, Amira Yassine, Shivang Agarwal, Benjamin A. Nault, Carolyn Gigot, Andrea A. Chiger, Sara N. Lupolt, Conner Daube, Anita M. Avery, Megan S. Claflin, Harald Stark, Elizabeth M. Lunny, Joseph R. Roscioli, Scott C. Herndon, Kai Skog, Jonathan Bent, Kirsten Koehler, Ana M. Rule, Thomas Burke, Tara I. Yacovitch, Keeve Nachman, Peter F. DeCarlo. Ethylene Oxide in Southeastern Louisiana’s Petrochemical Corridor: High Spatial Resolution Mobile Monitoring during HAP-MAP. Environmental Science & Technology 2024, 58 (25) , 11084-11095. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c10579
  7. Hugo S. Russell, Louise B. Frederickson, Martin O. B. Sørensen, Johan A. Schmidt, Ole Hertel, Matthew S. Johnson. Hyperlocal Air Pollution in London: Validating Low-Cost Sensors for Mobile Measurements from Vehicles. ACS ES&T Air 2024, 1 (6) , 438-450. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.3c00043
  8. Sofia D. Hamilton, Robert A. Harley. A Machine Learning Approach for High-Resolution Modeling and Apportionment of Black Carbon Concentrations in an Impacted Community. ACS ES&T Air 2024, 1 (5) , 376-385. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestair.3c00082
  9. Maria E. S. Sabedotti, Anna C. O’Regan, Marguerite M. Nyhan. Data Insights for Sustainable Cities: Associations between Google Street View-Derived Urban Greenspace and Google Air View-Derived Pollution Levels. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (48) , 19637-19648. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c05000
  10. Nikolaos Zirogiannis, April Byrne, Alex J. Hollingsworth, David M. Konisky. Polluting under the Radar: Emissions, Inequality, and Concrete Batch Plants in Houston. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (31) , 11410-11419. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04412
  11. An Wang, Sanjana Paul, Priyanka deSouza, Yuki Machida, Simone Mora, Fábio Duarte, Carlo Ratti. Key Themes, Trends, and Drivers of Mobile Ambient Air Quality Monitoring: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (26) , 9427-9444. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06310
  12. Annie Doubleday, Magali N. Blanco, Elena Austin, Julian D. Marshall, Timothy V. Larson, Lianne Sheppard. Characterizing Ultrafine Particle Mobile Monitoring Data for Epidemiology. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (26) , 9538-9547. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c00800
  13. Md Hasibul Hasan, Haofei Yu, Cesunica Ivey, Ajay Pillarisetti, Ziyang Yuan, Khanh Do, Yi Li. Unexpected Performance Improvements of Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone Sensors by Including Carbon Monoxide Sensor Signal. ACS Omega 2023, 8 (6) , 5917-5924. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c07734
  14. Jun Song, Hongwei Fan, Meng Gao, Yibo Xu, Maohao Ran, Xiaoran Liu, Yike Guo. Toward High-Performance Map-Recovery of Air Pollution Using Machine Learning. ACS ES&T Engineering 2023, 3 (1) , 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.2c00248
  15. Rishabh U. Shah, Lauren E. Padilla, Daniel R. Peters, Megan Dupuy-Todd, Elizabeth R. Fonseca, Geoffrey Q. Ma, Olalekan A. M. Popoola, Roderic L. Jones, Jim Mills, Nicholas A. Martin, Ramón A. Alvarez. Identifying Patterns and Sources of Fine and Ultrafine Particulate Matter in London Using Mobile Measurements of Lung-Deposited Surface Area. Environmental Science & Technology 2023, 57 (1) , 96-108. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c08096
  16. Isabella M. Dressel, Mary Angelique G. Demetillo, Laura M. Judd, Scott J. Janz, Kimberly P. Fields, Kang Sun, Arlene M. Fiore, Brian C. McDonald, Sally E. Pusede. Daily Satellite Observations of Nitrogen Dioxide Air Pollution Inequality in New York City, New York and Newark, New Jersey: Evaluation and Application. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (22) , 15298-15311. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02828
  17. Provat K. Saha, Albert A. Presto, Steve Hankey, Benjamin N. Murphy, Chris Allen, Wenwen Zhang, Julian D. Marshall, Allen L. Robinson. National Exposure Models for Source-Specific Primary Particulate Matter Concentrations Using Aerosol Mass Spectrometry Data. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (20) , 14284-14295. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c03398
  18. Yu Ting Yu, Sheng Xiang, Tong Zhang, Yan You, Shuchun Si, Shaojun Zhang, Ye Wu. Evaluation of City-Scale Disparities in PM2.5 Exposure Using Hyper-Localized Taxi-Based Mobile Monitoring. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (19) , 13584-13594. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c02354
  19. Zhendong Yuan, Jules Kerckhoffs, Gerard Hoek, Roel Vermeulen. A Knowledge Transfer Approach to Map Long-Term Concentrations of Hyperlocal Air Pollution from Short-Term Mobile Measurements. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (19) , 13820-13828. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05036
  20. Junshi Xu, Mingqian Zhang, Arman Ganji, Keni Mallinen, An Wang, Marshall Lloyd, Alessya Venuta, Leora Simon, Junwon Kang, James Gong, Yazan Zamel, Scott Weichenthal, Marianne Hatzopoulou. Prediction of Short-Term Ultrafine Particle Exposures Using Real-Time Street-Level Images Paired with Air Quality Measurements. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (18) , 12886-12897. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c03193
  21. Meng Qi, Kuldeep Dixit, Julian D. Marshall, Wenwen Zhang, Steve Hankey. National Land Use Regression Model for NO2 Using Street View Imagery and Satellite Observations. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (18) , 13499-13509. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c03581
  22. Lara P. Clark, Maria H. Harris, Joshua S. Apte, Julian D. Marshall. National and Intraurban Air Pollution Exposure Disparity Estimates in the United States: Impact of Data-Aggregation Spatial Scale. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2022, 9 (9) , 786-791. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.2c00403
  23. Sheng Xiang, Shaojun Zhang, Hui Wang, Yu Ting Yu, Timothy J. Wallington, Wei Shen, Ulf Kirchner, Ye Deng, Qinwen Tan, Zihang Zhou, Ye Wu. Variability of NO2/NOx Ratios in Multiple Microenvironments from On-Road and Near-Roadway Measurements. ACS ES&T Engineering 2022, 2 (9) , 1599-1610. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.2c00027
  24. Magali N. Blanco, Amanda Gassett, Timothy Gould, Annie Doubleday, David L. Slager, Elena Austin, Edmund Seto, Timothy V. Larson, Julian D. Marshall, Lianne Sheppard. Characterization of Annual Average Traffic-Related Air Pollution Concentrations in the Greater Seattle Area from a Year-Long Mobile Monitoring Campaign. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (16) , 11460-11472. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c01077
  25. Ye Tian, Priyanka deSouza, Simone Mora, Xiaobai Yao, Fabio Duarte, Leslie K Norford, Hui Lin, Carlo Ratti. Evaluating the Meteorological Effects on the Urban Form–Air Quality Relationship Using Mobile Monitoring. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (11) , 7328-7336. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04854
  26. Jules Kerckhoffs, Jibran Khan, Gerard Hoek, Zhendong Yuan, Thomas Ellermann, Ole Hertel, Matthias Ketzel, Steen Solvang Jensen, Kees Meliefste, Roel Vermeulen. Mixed-Effects Modeling Framework for Amsterdam and Copenhagen for Outdoor NO2 Concentrations Using Measurements Sampled with Google Street View Cars. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (11) , 7174-7184. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c05806
  27. Garima Raheja, Kokou Sabi, Hèzouwè Sonla, Eric Kokou Gbedjangni, Celeste M. McFarlane, Collins Gameli Hodoli, Daniel M. Westervelt. A Network of Field-Calibrated Low-Cost Sensor Measurements of PM2.5 in Lomé, Togo, Over One to Two Years. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry 2022, 6 (4) , 1011-1021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00391
  28. Haley M. Lane, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Julian D. Marshall, Joshua S. Apte. Historical Redlining Is Associated with Present-Day Air Pollution Disparities in U.S. Cities. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 2022, 9 (4) , 345-350. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c01012
  29. Deo Okure, Joel Ssematimba, Richard Sserunjogi, Nancy Lozano Gracia, Maria Edisa Soppelsa, Engineer Bainomugisha. Characterization of Ambient Air Quality in Selected Urban Areas in Uganda Using Low-Cost Sensing and Measurement Technologies. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (6) , 3324-3339. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01443
  30. Rivkah Gardner-Frolick, David Boyd, Amanda Giang. Selecting Data Analytic and Modeling Methods to Support Air Pollution and Environmental Justice Investigations: A Critical Review and Guidance Framework. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (5) , 2843-2860. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01739
  31. Chun-Ying Chao, Huang Zhang, Melanie Hammer, Yu Zhan, David Kenney, Randall V. Martin, Pratim Biswas. Integrating Fixed Monitoring Systems with Low-Cost Sensors to Create High-Resolution Air Quality Maps for the Northern China Plain Region. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry 2021, 5 (11) , 3022-3035. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsearthspacechem.1c00174
  32. Tianjun Lu, Julian D. Marshall, Wenwen Zhang, Perry Hystad, Sun-Young Kim, Matthew J. Bechle, Matthias Demuzere, Steve Hankey. National Empirical Models of Air Pollution Using Microscale Measures of the Urban Environment. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (22) , 15519-15530. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04047
  33. Dana E. Goin, Sylvia Sudat, Corinne Riddell, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Joshua S. Apte, M. Maria Glymour, Deborah Karasek, Joan A. Casey. Hyperlocalized Measures of Air Pollution and Preeclampsia in Oakland, California. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (21) , 14710-14719. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c02151
  34. Marshall Lloyd, Ellison Carter, Florencio Guzman Diaz, Kento Taro Magara-Gomez, Kris Y. Hong, Jill Baumgartner, Víctor M. Herrera G, Scott Weichenthal. Predicting Within-City Spatial Variations in Outdoor Ultrafine Particle and Black Carbon Concentrations in Bucaramanga, Colombia: A Hybrid Approach Using Open-Source Geographic Data and Digital Images. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (18) , 12483-12492. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01412
  35. Sofia D. Hamilton, Robert A. Harley. High-Resolution Modeling and Apportionment of Diesel-Related Contributions to Black Carbon Concentrations. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (18) , 12250-12260. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03913
  36. Nikhil Rastogi, H. Christopher Frey. Characterizing Fuel Use and Emission Hotspots for a Diesel-Operated Passenger Rail Service. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (15) , 10633-10644. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00273
  37. Provat K. Saha, Steve Hankey, Julian D. Marshall, Allen L. Robinson, Albert A. Presto. High-Spatial-Resolution Estimates of Ultrafine Particle Concentrations across the Continental United States. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (15) , 10320-10331. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03237
  38. Bu Zhao, Long Yu, Chunyan Wang, Chenyang Shuai, Ji Zhu, Shen Qu, Morteza Taiebat, Ming Xu. Urban Air Pollution Mapping Using Fleet Vehicles as Mobile Monitors and Machine Learning. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (8) , 5579-5588. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c08034
  39. Joshua W. Smith, Robert N. O’Meally, Derek K. Ng, Jian-Guo Chen, Thomas W. Kensler, Robert N. Cole, John D. Groopman. Biomonitoring of Ambient Outdoor Air Pollutant Exposure in Humans Using Targeted Serum Albumin Adductomics. Chemical Research in Toxicology 2021, 34 (4) , 1183-1196. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.1c00055
  40. Mei W. Tessum, Lianne Sheppard, Timothy V. Larson, Timothy R. Gould, Joel D. Kaufman, Sverre Vedal. Improving Air Pollution Predictions of Long-Term Exposure Using Short-Term Mobile and Stationary Monitoring in Two US Metropolitan Regions. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (6) , 3530-3538. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04328
  41. Minmeng Tang, Deb A. Niemeier. Using Big Data Techniques to Better Understand High-Resolution Cumulative Exposure Assessment of Traffic-Related Air Pollution. ACS ES&T Engineering 2021, 1 (3) , 436-445. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsestengg.0c00167
  42. Meng Qi, Steve Hankey. Using Street View Imagery to Predict Street-Level Particulate Air Pollution. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (4) , 2695-2704. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c05572
  43. Lucas R. F. Henneman, Huizhong Shen, Christian Hogrefe, Armistead G. Russell, Corwin M. Zigler. Four Decades of United States Mobile Source Pollutants: Spatial–Temporal Trends Assessed by Ground-Based Monitors, Air Quality Models, and Satellites. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (2) , 882-892. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c07128
  44. Kerry E. Kelly, Wei W. Xing, Tofigh Sayahi, Logan Mitchell, Tom Becnel, Pierre-Emmanuel Gaillardon, Miriah Meyer, Ross T. Whitaker. Community-Based Measurements Reveal Unseen Differences during Air Pollution Episodes. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (1) , 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02341
  45. Xiansheng Liu, Xun Zhang, Jürgen Schnelle-Kreis, Gert Jakobi, Xin Cao, Josef Cyrys, Lanyan Yang, Brigitte Schloter-Hai, Gülcin Abbaszade, Jürgen Orasche, Mohamed Khedr, Michal Kowalski, Marcus Hank, Ralf Zimmermann. Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Driving Factors of Black Carbon in Augsburg, Germany: Combination of Mobile Monitoring and Street View Images. Environmental Science & Technology 2021, 55 (1) , 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04776
  46. Rachel Sousa, Cory M. Simon. Evaluating the Fitness of Combinations of Adsorbents for Quantitative Gas Sensor Arrays. ACS Sensors 2020, 5 (12) , 4035-4047. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.0c02014
  47. Derek V. Mallia, Logan E. Mitchell, Lewis Kunik, Ben Fasoli, Ryan Bares, Kevin R. Gurney, Daniel L. Mendoza, John C. Lin. Constraining Urban CO2 Emissions Using Mobile Observations from a Light Rail Public Transit Platform. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (24) , 15613-15621. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c04388
  48. Aurélie Laguerre, Linda A. George, Elliott T. Gall. High-Efficiency Air Cleaning Reduces Indoor Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Alters Indoor Air Chemistry in a Near-Roadway School. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (19) , 11798-11808. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02792
  49. Sebastian Nufer, Peter J. Lynch, Matthew J. Large, Sean P. Ogilvie, Jonathan P. Salvage, Mario Pelaez-Fernandez, Thomas Waters, Izabela Jurewicz, Edgar Muñoz, Raul Arenal, Ana M. Benito, Wolfgang K. Maser, Nikos Tagmatarchis, Christopher P. Ewels, Adam Brunton, Alan B. Dalton. Laser-Deposited Carbon Aerogel Derived from Graphene Oxide Enables NO2-Selective Parts-per-Billion Sensing. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020, 12 (35) , 39541-39548. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c09112
  50. Tanzila Khan, H. Christopher Frey, Nikhil Rastogi, Tongchuan Wei. Geospatial Variation of Real-World Tailpipe Emission Rates for Light-Duty Gasoline Vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (14) , 8968-8979. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00489
  51. Sarah E. Chambliss, Chelsea V. Preble, Julien J. Caubel, Troy Cados, Kyle P. Messier, Ramón A. Alvarez, Brian LaFranchi, Melissa Lunden, Julian D. Marshall, Adam A. Szpiro, Thomas W. Kirchstetter, Joshua S. Apte. Comparison of Mobile and Fixed-Site Black Carbon Measurements for High-Resolution Urban Pollution Mapping. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (13) , 7848-7857. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c01409
  52. Jianbang Xiang, Elena Austin, Timothy Gould, Timothy Larson, Michael Yost, Jeffry Shirai, Yisi Liu, Sukyong Yun, Edmund Seto. Using Vehicles’ Rendezvous for In Situ Calibration of Instruments in Fleet Vehicle-Based Air Pollution Mobile Monitoring. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (7) , 4286-4294. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00612
  53. David J. Miller, Blake Actkinson, Lauren Padilla, Robert J. Griffin, Katie Moore, P. Grace Tee Lewis, Rivkah Gardner-Frolick, Elena Craft, Christopher J. Portier, Steven P. Hamburg, Ramón A. Alvarez. Characterizing Elevated Urban Air Pollutant Spatial Patterns with Mobile Monitoring in Houston, Texas. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (4) , 2133-2142. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05523
  54. James Adam Mahady, Claudia Octaviano, Oscar Sebastian Araiza Bolaños, Erick Rosas López, Daniel M. Kammen, Sergio Castellanos. Mapping Opportunities for Transportation Electrification to Address Social Marginalization and Air Pollution Challenges in Greater Mexico City. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (4) , 2103-2111. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b06148
  55. Ellis Shipley Robinson, Rishabh Urvesh Shah, Kyle Messier, Peishi Gu, Hugh Z. Li, Joshua Schulz Apte, Allen L. Robinson, Albert A. Presto. Land-Use Regression Modeling of Source-Resolved Fine Particulate Matter Components from Mobile Sampling. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (15) , 8925-8937. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b01897
  56. Julien J. Caubel, Troy E. Cados, Chelsea V. Preble, Thomas W. Kirchstetter. A Distributed Network of 100 Black Carbon Sensors for 100 Days of Air Quality Monitoring in West Oakland, California. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (13) , 7564-7573. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b00282
  57. Provat K. Saha, Hugh Z. Li, Joshua S. Apte, Allen L. Robinson, Albert A. Presto. Urban Ultrafine Particle Exposure Assessment with Land-Use Regression: Influence of Sampling Strategy. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (13) , 7326-7336. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02086
  58. Steve Hankey, Peter Sforza, Matt Pierson. Using Mobile Monitoring to Develop Hourly Empirical Models of Particulate Air Pollution in a Rural Appalachian Community. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (8) , 4305-4315. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b05249
  59. Ani Wang, Xinxin Pi, Ruiqing Fan, Sue Hao, Yulin Yang. Micromesoporous Nitrogen-Doped Carbon Materials Derived from Direct Carbonization of Metal–Organic Complexes for Efficient CO2 Adsorption and Separation. Inorganic Chemistry 2019, 58 (8) , 5345-5355. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.inorgchem.9b00500
  60. Ani Wang, Ruiqing Fan, Xinxin Pi, Sue Hao, Xubin Zheng, Yulin Yang. N-Doped Porous Carbon Derived by Direct Carbonization of Metal–Organic Complexes Crystal Materials for SO2 Adsorption. Crystal Growth & Design 2019, 19 (3) , 1973-1984. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.cgd.8b01925
  61. Kyle P. Messier, Sarah E. Chambliss, Shahzad Gani, Ramon Alvarez, Michael Brauer, Jonathan J. Choi, Steven P. Hamburg, Jules Kerckhoffs, Brian LaFranchi, Melissa M. Lunden, Julian D. Marshall, Christopher J. Portier, Ananya Roy, Adam A. Szpiro, Roel C. H. Vermeulen, Joshua S. Apte. Mapping Air Pollution with Google Street View Cars: Efficient Approaches with Mobile Monitoring and Land Use Regression. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (21) , 12563-12572. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03395
  62. Ani Wang, Ruiqing Fan, Xinxin Pi, Yuze Zhou, Guangyu Chen, Wei Chen, Yulin Yang. Nitrogen-Doped Microporous Carbons Derived from Pyridine Ligand-Based Metal–Organic Complexes as High-Performance SO2 Adsorption Sorbents. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2018, 10 (43) , 37407-37416. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.8b12739
  63. Peishi Gu, Hugh Z. Li, Qing Ye, Ellis S. Robinson, Joshua S. Apte, Allen L. Robinson, Albert A. Presto. Intracity Variability of Particulate Matter Exposure Is Driven by Carbonaceous Sources and Correlated with Land-Use Variables. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (20) , 11545-11554. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03833
  64. Ellis Shipley Robinson, Peishi Gu, Qing Ye, Hugh Z. Li, Rishabh Urvesh Shah, Joshua Schulz Apte, Allen L. Robinson, Albert A. Presto. Restaurant Impacts on Outdoor Air Quality: Elevated Organic Aerosol Mass from Restaurant Cooking with Neighborhood-Scale Plume Extents. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (16) , 9285-9294. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b02654
  65. Qing Ye, Peishi Gu, Hugh Z. Li, Ellis S. Robinson, Eric Lipsky, Christos Kaltsonoudis, Alex K.Y. Lee, Joshua S. Apte, Allen L. Robinson, Ryan C. Sullivan, Albert A. Presto, Neil M. Donahue. Spatial Variability of Sources and Mixing State of Atmospheric Particles in a Metropolitan Area. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (12) , 6807-6815. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01011
  66. Georgia Miskell, Jennifer A. Salmond, David E. Williams. Solution to the Problem of Calibration of Low-Cost Air Quality Measurement Sensors in Networks. ACS Sensors 2018, 3 (4) , 832-843. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.8b00074
  67. Mei W. Tessum, Timothy Larson, Timothy R. Gould, Christopher D. Simpson, Michael G. Yost, Sverre Vedal. Mobile and Fixed-Site Measurements To Identify Spatial Distributions of Traffic-Related Pollution Sources in Los Angeles. Environmental Science & Technology 2018, 52 (5) , 2844-2853. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b04889
  68. Ivan C. Hanigan , Grant J. Williamson , Luke D. Knibbs , Joshua Horsley , Margaret I. Rolfe , Martin Cope , Adrian G. Barnett , Christine T. Cowie , Jane S. Heyworth , Marc L. Serre , Bin Jalaludin , Geoffrey G. Morgan . Blending Multiple Nitrogen Dioxide Data Sources for Neighborhood Estimates of Long-Term Exposure for Health Research. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (21) , 12473-12480. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03035
  69. Bijan Yeganeh, Masoud Zarei, Alireza Shakerdonyavi, Soheil Karimi Darmian. Comparative analysis of particle exposure in commuters: Evaluating different modes of transportation in Tehran. Building and Environment 2025, 267 , 112183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112183
  70. Vaishali Jain, Avideep Mukherjee, Soumya Banerjee, Sandeep Madhwal, Michael H. Bergin, Prakash Bhave, David Carlson, Ziyang Jiang, Tongshu Zheng, Piyush Rai, Sachchida Nand Tripathi. A hybrid approach for integrating micro-satellite images and sensors network-based ground measurements using deep learning for high-resolution prediction of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) over an indian city, lucknow. Atmospheric Environment 2024, 338 , 120798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120798
  71. Anna C. O'Regan, Henrik Grythe, Stig Hellebust, Susana Lopez-Aparicio, Colin O'Dowd, Paul D. Hamer, Gabriela Sousa Santos, Marguerite M. Nyhan. Data fusion for enhancing urban air quality modeling using large-scale citizen science data. Sustainable Cities and Society 2024, 116 , 105896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105896
  72. Junghwan Kim, Dayoung Kim, Brendan David-John. The role of privacy concerns, perceived benefits, and trust in citizens' acceptance of street-view image collection by local planning agencies. Cities 2024, 154 , 105339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2024.105339
  73. Minmeng Tang, Xinwei Li. Hyper-local black carbon prediction by integrating land use variables with explainable machine learning model. Atmospheric Environment 2024, 336 , 120733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120733
  74. Daniel L. Mendoza, Andres Gonzalez, Alexander A. Jacques, Colin M. Johnson, Peter T. Whelan, John D. Horel. Electric buses as an air pollution and meteorological observation network: Methodology and preliminary results. Science of The Total Environment 2024, 951 , 175327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175327
  75. Russell R. Dickerson, Phillip Stratton, Xinrong Ren, Paul Kelley, Christopher D. Heaney, Lauren Deanes, Matthew Aubourg, Kristoffer Spicer, Joel Dreessen, Ryan Auvil, Gregory Sawtell, Meleny Thomas, Shashawnda Campbell, Carlos Sanchez. Mobile laboratory measurements of air pollutants in Baltimore, MD elucidate issues of environmental justice. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2024, 74 (11) , 753-770. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2024.2393178
  76. Zeyin Chen, Siying Li, Chao Liu. Challenges and Potentials: Environmental Assessment of Particulate Matter in Spaces Under Highway Viaducts. Atmosphere 2024, 15 (11) , 1325. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15111325
  77. Shibao Wang, Yanxu Zhang. An attention-based CNN model integrating observational and simulation data for high-resolution spatial estimation of urban air quality. Atmospheric Environment 2024, 329 , 120921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120921
  78. Paul Morris, Cory M. Simon. Computationally predicting the performance of gas sensor arrays for anomaly detection. Sensors & Diagnostics 2024, 3 (10) , 1699-1713. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4SD00121D
  79. Madison Rutherford, Abigail Koss, Joost de Gouw. Mobile VOC measurements in Commerce City, CO reveal the emissions from different sources. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 2024, 74 (10) , 714-725. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2024.2379927
  80. M. Tarazona Alvarado, J. L. Salamanca-Coy, K. Forero-Gutièrrez, L. A. Núñez, J. Pisco-Guabave, Fr. Escobar-Diaz, D. Sierra-Porta. Assessing and monitoring air quality in cities and urban areas with a portable, modular and low-cost sensor station: calibration challenges. International Journal of Remote Sensing 2024, 45 (17) , 5713-5736. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2024.2373338
  81. Peng Wei, Song Hao, Yuan Shi, Abhishek Anand, Ya Wang, Mengyuan Chu, Zhi Ning. Combining Google traffic map with deep learning model to predict street-level traffic-related air pollutants in a complex urban environment. Environment International 2024, 51 , 108992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108992
  82. Jiayao Chen, Anna Mölter, José Pablo Gómez-Barrón, David O’Connor, Francesco Pilla. Evaluating background and local contributions and identifying traffic-related pollutant hotspots: insights from Google Air View mobile monitoring in Dublin, Ireland. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2024, 31 (44) , 56114-56129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-34903-5
  83. Provat K. Saha, Albert A. Presto, Allen L. Robinson. Hyper-local to regional exposure contrast of source-resolved PM2.5 components across the contiguous United States: implications for health assessment. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 2024, 34 (5) , 836-844. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-023-00623-0
  84. Sarah E. Chambliss, Mark Joseph Campmier, Michelle Audirac, Joshua S. Apte, Corwin M. Zigler. Local exposure misclassification in national models: relationships with urban infrastructure and demographics. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 2024, 34 (5) , 761-769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-023-00624-z
  85. Steven Stalder, Michele Volpi, Nicolas Büttner, Stephen Law, Kenneth Harttgen, Esra Suel. Self-supervised learning unveils urban change from street-level images. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 2024, 112 , 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2024.102156
  86. Cristina Ghita. Through the Looking Screen: Exploring Familiar Places Through Google Maps Street View. Postdigital Science and Education 2024, 6 (3) , 978-997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-024-00484-2
  87. Abdellatif Bekkar, Badr Hssina, Najib ABEKIRI, Samira Douzi, Khadija Douzi, . Real-time AIoT platform for monitoring and prediction of air quality in Southwestern Morocco. PLOS ONE 2024, 19 (8) , e0307214. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307214
  88. Fayma Mushtaq, Majid Farooq, Mili Ghosh Nee Lala, Saswati Banerjee, Anamika Shalini Tirkey, Farzana Shaheen, Gowhar Meraj. Analysis of spatial variability of smog episodes over National Capital Delhi during (2013–2017). Discover Applied Sciences 2024, 6 (8) https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-024-06109-4
  89. Meng-Yi Jin, John Gallagher, Xiao-Bing Li, Kai-Fa Lu, Zhong-Ren Peng, Hong-Di He. Characterizing the distribution pattern of traffic-related air pollutants in near-road neighborhoods. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2024, 196 (8) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-024-12917-3
  90. Gwang-Soon Yong, Gun-Woo Mun, Kyung-Hwan Kwak. Spatial Mapping of Air Pollution Hotspots around Commercial Meat-Cooking Restaurants Using Bicycle-Based Mobile Monitoring. Atmosphere 2024, 15 (8) , 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15080991
  91. Marie Dury, Florent Hozay, Hans Hooyberghs, Fabian Lenartz. Mobile measurements and street-level modelling to assess outdoor and indoor personal exposure to air pollution in urban environment. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 2024, 17 (8) , 1605-1616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-024-01529-y
  92. Joshua S. Apte, Chirag Manchanda. High-resolution urban air pollution mapping. Science 2024, 385 (6707) , 380-385. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq3678
  93. Weiwei Pu, Yingruo Li, Di He, Fan Dong, Jin Wu, Xiangxue Liu, Yulu Qiu, Shuangshuang Ge, Zhiqiang Ma. Mobile measurement background quantification methods for determining local traffic emissions and background source contributions to ammonia. Atmospheric Environment 2024, 329 , 120523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120523
  94. David De Ridder, Anaïs Ladoy, Yangji Choi, Damien Jacot, Séverine Vuilleumier, Idris Guessous, Stéphane Joost, Gilbert Greub. Environmental and geographical factors influencing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 over 2 years: a fine-scale spatiotemporal analysis. Frontiers in Public Health 2024, 12 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1298177
  95. Provat K. Saha, Tanbhir M. Shovon, Sheikh M. Rahman, Julian D. Marshall, Allen L. Robinson, Albert A. Presto. Contrasting intra-urban variability of ultrafine particle number and fine particle mass concentrations in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Pittsburgh, USA. Atmospheric Environment 2024, 327 , 120497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2024.120497
  96. Andrew J. Hoisington, Kelly A. Stearns-Yoder, Elizabeth J. Kovacs, Teodor T. Postolache, Lisa A. Brenner. Airborne Exposure to Pollutants and Mental Health: A Review with Implications for United States Veterans. Current Environmental Health Reports 2024, 11 (2) , 168-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-024-00437-8
  97. Dongwoo Hyun, Hye Kyung Lee. Measuring spatial heterogeneity of air quality on apartment transaction prices in Seoul, South Korea. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science 2024, 8 (2) , 681-703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-024-00337-7
  98. Habib M. Alshuwaikhat, Muhammad Aamir Basheer, Lujain T. AlAtiq. A GIS-based approach to determining optimal location for decentralized inner city smart filters: Toward net zero cities. Heliyon 2024, 10 (11) , e31645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31645
  99. Ernani F. Choma, Lisa A. Robinson, Kari C. Nadeau. Adopting electric school buses in the United States: Health and climate benefits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2024, 121 (22) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2320338121
  100. Finn Dobkin, Gaige Kerr. Demographic disparities in United States Clean Air Act PM2.5 attainment counties: assessing population living in nonattainment conditions. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2024, 51 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-024-00933-1
Load more citations

Environmental Science & Technology

Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 12, 6999–7008
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891
Published June 5, 2017

Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.

Article Views

59k

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. High-resolution mapping of time-integrated concentrations. Annual median daytime concentrations for 30 m-length road segments based on 1 year of repeated driving for a 16 km2 domain in West Oakland [WO] and Downtown (a), and for a 0.6 km2 industrial-residential area in WO (b). Median ± SE concentrations are tabulated by road type in c. Annual median daytime ambient concentrations Camb at a regulatory fixed-site monitor in WO are plotted as shaded stars. Localized hotspots in b correspond to major intersections, industries, and businesses with truck traffic, and are interspersed with lower-income housing (see aerial image). Locations of hotspots are similar among pollutants. d, Distributions of 780 1-Hz NO measurements for a transect of eight 30 m road segments (see b, from point X to Y) to illustrate relationship between 1-Hz samples (∼100 per segment over 1 year) and plotted long-term medians (colored bars, blue horizontal lines). Elevated levels near midpoint of transect are associated with operations at a metal recycler (see Figure 2). Wind rose data are provided in SI Figure S1, and show consistent westerly winds. Imagery © 2016 Google, map data © 2016 Google.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Illustrative pollution hotspots. a. Street View and aerial imagery of the metals recycling cluster highlighted in Figure 4a–c. Frequent heavy-duty and medium-duty truck traffic is evident in repeated Street View images. b,c. Multipollutant hotspots (i.e., prominent local concentration outliers) were identified from BC, NO, and NO2 median concentrations as described in SI. Twelve illustrative hotspots labeled A–L here, overlaid on the 30 m BC map in b for context. List in c enumerates possible emissions sources for each illustrative hotspot, with the following classification scheme for each pollutant: (+) indicates a prominent localized hotspot or cluster of roads where concentrations are sharply elevated above nearby background levels, (∼) indicates a less prominent hotspot or cluster with moderately elevated levels, and (×) indicates the absence of a clearly discernible hotspot. Imagery © 2016 Google, map data © 2016 Google.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Decay of concentrations from major highways into city streets for WO and DT. a. Plotted points represent the ratio of median concentrations at a given distance from highways (d, “spatial lag”) to median on-highway concentrations; error bars present standard error from bootstrap resampling. An unconstrained three parameter exponential model reproduces observed decay relationships with high fidelity. Here, the parameter α represents the ratio of urban-background to highway concentrations (d → ∞), β represents the additional increment in pollution at near-highway conditions, and the decay parameter k governs the spatial scale of the decay process. The value of α is intermediate for BC (primary, conserved pollutant); lower for NO (consumed rapidly during daytime by reaction with O3) and higher for NO2 (elevated background from regional secondary photochemical conversion from NO). Data in SI demonstrate that parameter estimates are consistent among alternative fitting approaches. b. Distance-to-highway metric d for surface streets in WO and DT, computed based on the harmonic mean distance of each surface street segment to closest portion of the four major highways in the domain (see SI). Map data © 2016 Google.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Identification of localized concentration peaks. a. Example 10 min time series of NO and NO2 on afternoon of 4/22/2016. Baseline-fitting algorithm decomposes measurements (solid traces) into an ambient baseline component (dashed lines) and a high-frequency component indicative of localized pollutant sources (“peaks”, difference between observation and baseline). Peak fraction PF indicates contribution of peaks to total sampled mass. PF is high for NO (low baseline, sharp peaks), and low for NO2 (elevated ambient levels from photochemistry). Temporal progress along route indicated by blue-white-red color scale in a, and mapped in space in b. The drive route for these 10 min is a 4 km sequence of right-hand turns. As indicated by the time color scale in a and b, the starred NO peaks are spatially concentrated around a single city block with a scrap metal plant (marked × in b and c, cf. Figure 1b and Figure 2a). c, Spatial concentration profile for this example period. d,e,f. Application of peak-separation algorithm to entire data set. d,e. Blue-green-red color scale for PF quantifies fraction of mean concentration at each 30 m road segment attributable to transient peaks. f. Median PF values by road class. Imagery © 2016 Google, map data © 2016 Google.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5. Scaling analysis through systematic subsampling. Using the systematic subsampling algorithm described in Section 2.4, we investigated the relationship between number of drive days and metrics of precision and bias. a. Mean subsampled r2 as a function of 30 m-median road segment concentrations relative to the full data set, plotted as function the number of unique drive days for BC, NO, and NO2. See SI for details of the subsampling algorithm and r2 calculations. b. Mean subsampled coefficient of variation of root mean squared errors (CV-RMSE) versus the number of unique drive days for BC, NO, and NO2.

  • References


    This article references 47 other publications.

    1. 1
      Apte, J. S.; Marshall, J. D.; Brauer, M.; Cohen, A. J. Addressing global mortality from ambient PM2.5 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 8057 8066 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01236
    2. 2
      Lim, S. S.; Vos, T.; Flaxman, A. D.; Danaei, G.; Shibuya, K.; Adair-Rohani, H.; Amann, M.; Anderson, H. R.; Andrews, K. G.; Aryee, M. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 Lancet 2012, 380, 2224 2260 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8
    3. 3
      Pope, C. A.; Dockery, D. W. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: Lines that connect J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2006, 56, 709 742 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2006.10464485
    4. 4
      Brook, R. D.; Rajagopalan, S.; Pope, C. A., III; Brook, J. R.; Bhatnagar, A.; Diez-Roux, A. V.; Holguin, F.; Hong, Y.; Luepker, R. V.; Mittleman, M. A. Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease: An update to the scientific statement from the American Heart Association Circulation 2010, 121, 2331 2378 DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e3181dbece1
    5. 5
      Carvalho, H. The air we breathe: differentials in global air quality monitoring Lancet Respir. Med. 2016, 4, 603 605 DOI: 10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30180-1
    6. 6
      Brauer, M.; Freedman, G.; Frostad, J.; van Donkelaar, A.; Martin, R. V.; Dentener, F.; Dingenen, R. v.; Estep, K.; Amini, H.; Apte, J. S. Ambient air pollution exposure estimation for the Global Burden of Disease 2013 Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 79 88 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03709
    7. 7
      Zhang, K. M.; Wexler, A. S.; Zhu, Y. F.; Hinds, W. C.; Sioutas, C. Evolution of particle number distribution near roadways. Part II: the ‘Road-to-Ambient’ process Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 6655 6665 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.06.044
    8. 8
      Karner, A. A.; Eisinger, D. S.; Niemeier, D. A. Near-roadway air quality: Synthesizing the findings from real-world data Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 5334 5344 DOI: 10.1021/es100008x
    9. 9
      Zhu, Y. F.; Hinds, W. C.; Kim, S.; Shen, S.; Sioutas, C. Study of ultrafine particles near a major highway with heavy-duty diesel traffic Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 4323 4335 DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00354-0
    10. 10
      Marshall, J. D.; Nethery, E.; Brauer, M. Within-urban variability in ambient air pollution: Comparison of estimation methods Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 1359 1369 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.08.012
    11. 11
      Morello-Frosch, R.; Pastor, M.; Sadd, J. Environmental justice and Southern California’s “riskscape”: the distribution of air toxics exposures and health risks among diverse communities Urban Affairs Review 2001, 36, 551 578 DOI: 10.1177/10780870122184993
    12. 12
      Apte, J. S.; Kirchstetter, T. W.; Reich, A. H.; Deshpande, S. J.; Kaushik, G.; Chel, A.; Marshall, J. D.; Nazaroff, W. W. Concentrations of fine, ultrafine, and black carbon particles in auto-rickshaws in New Delhi, India Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 4470 4480 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.028
    13. 13
      Boogaard, H.; Kos, G. P. A.; Weijers, E. P.; Janssen, N. A. H.; Fischer, P. H.; van der Zee, S. C.; de Hartog, J. J.; Hoek, G. Contrast in air pollution components between major streets and background locations: Particulate matter mass, black carbon, elemental composition, nitrogen oxide and ultrafine particle number Atmos. Environ. 2010, 45, 650 658 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.10.033
    14. 14
      Jerrett, M.; Arain, A.; Kanaroglou, P.; Beckerman, B.; Potoglou, D.; Sahsuvaroglu, T.; Morrison, J.; Giovis, C. A review and evaluation of intraurban air pollution exposure models J. Exposure Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 2005, 15, 185 204 DOI: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500388
    15. 15
      Hankey, S.; Marshall, J. D. Land use regression models of on-road particulate air pollution (particle number, black carbon, PM2.5, particle size) using mobile monitoring Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 9194 9202 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01209
    16. 16
      Reyes, J. M.; Serre, M. L. An LUR/BME framework to estimate PM2.5 explained by on road mobile and stationary sources Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1736 1744 DOI: 10.1021/es4040528
    17. 17
      Kerckhoffs, J.; Hoek, G.; Messier, K. P.; Brunekreef, B.; Meliefste, K.; Klompmaker, J. O.; Vermeulen, R. Comparison of ultrafine particle and black carbon concentration predictions from a mobile and short-term stationary land-use regression model Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 12894 12902 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b03476
    18. 18
      Snyder, E. G.; Watkins, T. H.; Solomon, P. A.; Thoma, E. D.; Williams, R. W.; Hagler, G. S. W.; Shelow, D.; Hindin, D. A.; Kilaru, V. J.; Preuss, P. W. The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11369 11377 DOI: 10.1021/es4022602
    19. 19
      West, J. J.; Cohen, A.; Dentener, F.; Brunekreef, B.; Zhu, T.; Armstrong, B.; Bell, M. L.; Brauer, M.; Carmichael, G.; Costa, D. L. What we breathe impacts our health: Improving understanding of the link between air pollution and health Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 4895 4904 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03827
    20. 20
      Whitby, K. T.; Clark, W. E.; Marple, V. A.; Sverdrup, G. M.; Sem, G. J.; Willeke, K.; Liu, B. Y. H.; Pui, D. Y. H. Characterization of California aerosols--I. Size distributions of freeway aerosol Atmos. Environ. 1975, 9, 463 482 DOI: 10.1016/0004-6981(75)90107-9
    21. 21
      Westerdahl, D.; Fruin, S.; Sax, T.; Fine, P. M.; Sioutas, C. Mobile platform measurements of ultrafine particles and associated pollutant concentrations on freeways and residential streets in Los Angeles Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 3597 3610 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.02.034
    22. 22
      Hudda, N.; Gould, T.; Hartin, K.; Larson, T. V.; Fruin, S. A. Emissions from an international airport increase particle number concentrations 4-fold at 10 km downwind Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 6628 6635 DOI: 10.1021/es5001566
    23. 23
      Larson, T.; Henderson, S. B.; Brauer, M. Mobile monitoring of particle light absorption coefficient in an urban area as a basis for land use regression Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4672 4678 DOI: 10.1021/es803068e
    24. 24
      Hasenfratz, D.; Saukh, O.; Walser, C.; Hueglin, C.; Fierz, M.; Arn, T.; Beutel, J.; Thiele, L. Deriving high-resolution urban air pollution maps using mobile sensor nodes Pervasive and Mobile Computing 2015, 16 (Part B) 268 285 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmcj.2014.11.008
    25. 25
      Bukowiecki, N.; Dommen, J.; Prevot, A. S. H.; Richter, R.; Weingartner, E.; Baltensperger, U. A mobile pollutant measurement laboratory-measuring gas phase and aerosol ambient concentrations with high spatial and temporal resolution Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 5569 5579 DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00694-5
    26. 26
      Pirjola, L.; Parviainen, H.; Hussein, T.; Valli, A.; Hameri, K.; Aaalto, P.; Virtanen, A.; Keskinen, J.; Pakkanen, T. A.; Makela, T. ″Sniffer″ - a novel tool for chasing vehicles and measuring traffic pollutants Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 3625 3635 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.03.047
    27. 27
      Kolb, C.; Herndon, S. C.; McManus, J. B.; Shorter, J. H.; Zahniser, M. S.; Nelson, D. D.; Jayne, J. T.; Canagaratna, M. R.; Worsnop, D. R. Mobile laboratory with rapid response instruments for real-time measurement of urban and regional trace gas and particulate distributions and emissions source characteristics Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 5694 5703 DOI: 10.1021/es030718p
    28. 28
      Brantley, H. L.; Hagler, G. S. W.; Kimbrough, E. S.; Williams, R. W.; Mukerjee, S.; Neas, L. M. Mobile air monitoring data-processing strategies and effects on spatial air pollution trends Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2014, 7, 2169 2183 DOI: 10.5194/amt-7-2169-2014
    29. 29
      Hagemann, R.; Corsmeier, U.; Kottmeier, C.; Rinke, R.; Wieser, A.; Vogel, B. Spatial variability of particle number concentrations and NOx in the Karlsruhe (Germany) area obtained with the mobile laboratory ‘AERO-TRAM’ Atmos. Environ. 2014, 94, 341 352 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.05.051
    30. 30
      Van den Bossche, J.; Peters, J.; Verwaeren, J.; Botteldooren, D.; Theunis, J.; De Baets, B. Mobile monitoring for mapping spatial variation in urban air quality: Development and validation of a methodology based on an extensive dataset Atmos. Environ. 2015, 105, 148 161 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.017
    31. 31
      Peters, J.; Theunis, J.; Van Poppel, M.; Berghmans, P. Monitoring PM10 and ultrafine particles in urban environments using mobile measurements Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2013, 13, 509 522 DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2012.06.0152
    32. 32
      Efron, B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife Ann. Stat. 1979, 7, 1 26 DOI: 10.1214/aos/1176344552
    33. 33
      Dons, E.; Int Panis, L.; Van Poppel, M.; Theunis, J.; Wets, G. Personal exposure to black carbon in transport microenvironments Atmos. Environ. 2012, 55, 392 398 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.03.020
    34. 34
      Zhou, Y.; Levy, J. I. Factors influencing the spatial extent of mobile source air pollution impacts: a meta-analysis BMC Public Health 2007, 7, 89 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-89
    35. 35
      Zhu, Y.; Hinds, W. C.; Kim, S.; Sioutas, C. Concentration and size distribution of ultrafine particles near a major highway J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2002, 52, 1032 1042 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2002.10470842
    36. 36
      Both, A. F.; Balakrishnan, A.; Joseph, B.; Marshall, J. D. Spatiotemporal aspects of real-time PM2.5: Low- and middle-income neighborhoods in Bangalore, India Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 5629 5636 DOI: 10.1021/es104331w
    37. 37
      Watson, J. G.; Chow, J. C. Estimating middle-, neighborhood-, and urban-scale contributions to elemental carbon in Mexico City with a rapid response aethalometer J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2001, 51, 1522 1528 DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2001.10464379
    38. 38
      Seinfeld, J. H.; Pandis, S. N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change, 2nd ed.; Wiley-Interscience: Hoboken, NJ, 2006.
    39. 39
      Dallmann, T. R.; Harley, R. A.; Kirchstetter, T. W. Effects of diesel particle filter retrofits and accelerated fleet turnover on drayage truck emissions at the Port of Oakland Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 10773 10779 DOI: 10.1021/es202609q
    40. 40
      Jenkin, M. E. Analysis of sources and partitioning of oxidant in the UK—Part 2: contributions of nitrogen dioxide emissions and background ozone at a kerbside location in London Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 5131 5138 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.05.055
    41. 41
      Riley, E. A.; Schaal, L.; Sasakura, M.; Crampton, R.; Gould, T. R.; Hartin, K.; Sheppard, L.; Larson, T.; Simpson, C. D.; Yost, M. G. Correlations between short-term mobile monitoring and long-term passive sampler measurements of traffic-related air pollution Atmos. Environ. 2016, 132, 229 239 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.001
    42. 42
      Hu, S.; Fruin, S.; Kozawa, K.; Mara, S.; Paulson, S. E.; Winer, A. M. A wide area of air pollutant impact downwind of a freeway during pre-sunrise hours Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 2541 2549 DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.02.033
    43. 43
      Brinkhoff, T. Major agglomerations of the world. http://citypopulation.de/world/Agglomerations.html 2016, (accessed February 14, 2017).
    44. 44
      Zeger, S. L.; Thomas, D.; Dominici, F.; Samet, J. M.; Schwartz, J.; Dockery, D.; Cohen, A. Exposure measurement error in time-series studies of air pollution: concepts and consequences Environ. Health Persp. 2000, 108, 419 426 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.00108419
    45. 45
      Sheppard, L.; Burnett, R. T.; Szpiro, A. A.; Kim, S.-Y.; Jerrett, M.; Pope, C. A.; Brunekreef, B. Confounding and exposure measurement error in air pollution epidemiology Air Qual., Atmos. Health 2012, 5, 203 216 DOI: 10.1007/s11869-011-0140-9
    46. 46
      de Nazelle, A.; Seto, E.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Mendez, M.; Matamala, J.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J.; Jerrett, M. Improving estimates of air pollution exposure through ubiquitous sensing technologies Environ. Pollut. 2013, 176, 92 99 DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2012.12.032
    47. 47
      Nyhan, M.; Grauwin, S.; Britter, R.; Misstear, B.; McNabola, A.; Laden, F.; Barrett, S. R. H.; Ratti, C. “Exposure Track”—the impact of mobile-device-based mobility patterns on quantifying population exposure to air pollution Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 9671 9681 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02385
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information


    The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b00891.

    • Text, figures and tables with detailed information on experimental methods, QA/QC procedures, sampling protocols, data reduction/analysis techniques, supplemental analyses, and a data dictionary (PDF)

    • High-resolution concentration data (XLS)


    Terms & Conditions

    Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.