RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Predicting personal exposure to pm 2.5using different
determinants and machine learning algorithms in two megacities, China
Li, N., Li, Y., Xu, D., Liu, Z., Li, N., Chartier, R., Chang, J., Wang, Q., & Xu, C. (2024). Predicting personal exposure to pm 2.5using different
determinants and machine learning algorithms in two megacities, China. Indoor Air, 2024, Article 5589891. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/5589891
The primary aim of this study is to explore the utility of machine learning algorithms for predicting personal PM2.5 exposures of elderly participants and to evaluate the effect of individual variables on model performance. Personal PM2.5 was measured on five consecutive days across seasons in 66 retired adults in Beijing (BJ) and Nanjing (NJ), China. The potential predictors were extracted from routine monitoring data (ambient PM2.5 concentrations and meteorological factors), basic questionnaires (personal and household characteristics), and time-activity diary (TAD). Prediction models were developed based on either traditional multiple linear regression (MLR) or five advanced machine learning methods. Our results revealed that personal PM2.5 exposures were well predicted by both MLR and machine learning models with predictors extracted from routine monitoring data, which was indicated by the high nested cross-validation (CV) ranging from 0.76 to 0.88. The addition of predictors from either the questionnaire or TAD did not improve predictive accuracy for all algorithms. The ambient PM2.5 concentrations were the most important predictor. Overall, the random forest, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting algorithms outperformed the reference MLR method. Compared with the traditional MLR approach, the CV of the RF model increased up to 7% (from 0.82 +/- 0.13 to 0.88 +/- 0.10 ), while the RMSE reduced up to 18% (from 19.8 +/- 5.4 to 16.3 +/- 4.5 ) in BJ.