4.7 Article

A land use regression model for predicting ambient volatile organic compound concentrations in Toronto, Canada

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 44, Issue 29, Pages 3529-3537

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.06.015

Keywords

Land use regression; Volatile organic compound; Nitrogen dioxide; GIS; Remote sensing; Air pollution; Toronto

Ask authors/readers for more resources

More than 25 studies have employed land use regression (LUR) models to estimate nitrogen oxides and to a lesser extent particulate matter indicators, but these methods have been less commonly applied to ambient concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Some VOCs have high plausibility as sources of health effects and others are specific indicators of motor vehicle exhaust. We used LUR models to estimate spatial variability of VOCs in Toronto. Canada. Benzene, n-hexane and total hydrocarbons (THC) were measured from July 25 to August 9, 2006 at 50 locations using the TraceAir organic vapor monitors. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was also sampled to assess its spatial pattern agreement with VOC exposures. Buffers for land use, population density, traffic density, physical geography, and remote sensing measures of greenness and surface brightness were also tested. The remote sensing measures have the highest correlations with VOCs and NO2 levels (i.e., explains >36% of the variance). Our regression models explain 66-68% of the variance in the spatial distribution of VOCs, compared to 81% for the NO2 model. The ranks of agreement between various VOCs range from 48 to 63% and increases substantially - up to 75% - for the top and bottom quartile groups. Agreements between NO2 and VOCs are much smaller with an average rank of 36%. Future epidemiologic studies may therefore benefit from using VOCs as potential toxic agents for traffic-related pollutants. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available