Developing particle emission inventories using remote sensing (PEIRS)

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study area and EPA monitoring network.

Figure 2. Box model dynamics.

Figure 3. Example of upwind cells identification. wd, Wind direction; N, north; NW, northwest; W, west.

Table 1. 10-Fold cross-validation: R² (dimensionless) and RMSE (μg/m³).

	Temporal		Spatial
	R^2	RMSE	R^2	RMSE
Training performance	0.85	2.56	0.75	0.90
10-Fold cross-validation	0.80	2.85	0.66	1.06

Figure 4. Estimated emission in U.S. Northeast.

Figure 5. Estimated emission in (a) Greater Boston, MA, (b) New York, NY, and (c) Providence, RI. Land cover type from NLCD 2011 database in (d) Greater Boston, (e) New York, and (f) Providence. Population of year 2000 in (g) Greater Boston, (h) New York, and (i) Providence.

Table 2. LUR estimated emission from different land use for U.S. Northeast.

Land use type/emission sources		Averaged emission (ton/yr/km^2)
On road	A1–A3 major road	0.4 ~ 28
Developed area	High density	13
	Medium density	13
	Low density	6.7
	Open area	5.6
Population	250 people/cell	0.1
	10,000 people/cell	2.7
Farms	Crop and livestock	0.34
NEI point source	(NEI 2008 mean = 0.53)	0.58
Model R^2 = 0.65

Figure 6. Residual map of land use regression (LUR) model in (a) the U.S. Northeast and (b) Massachusetts. The residuals are emissions that are not related to land use parameters.

Table 3. LUR estimated emission from different land use for Massachusetts.

Land use type/emission sources		Averaged emission (ton/yr/km^2)
On road	A1–A3 major road	0.4–24.5
	Public transit	2.5
Developed area	High-density residential	3.6
	Medium-density residential	3.5
	Low-density residential	1.8
	Multifamily residential	2.1
	Open area	2.4
	Industrial	4.3
	Mining	2.4
	Commercial	3.1
	Junkyard	4.6
Population	400 people/cell	0.32
	10,000 people/cell	8
Farms	Crop and livestock	0.7
	Cranberry bog, nursery, orchard gardens	2.2–7.8
NEI point source		1.5
Model R^2 = 0.67

Figure 7. (a) Estimated emission vs. EPA NEI nonpoint emission in (b) 2008 and (c) 2011 at county level.

Table 4. Evaluation results of estimated emission vs. EPA NEI emission 2008 at county level.

	R^2	CV	Slope (β1)	Intercept (β0)
Connecticut	0.85	6.61%	0.73	–6.8
Maine	0.65	9.11%	0.54	–5.5
New Hampshire	0.86	15.0%	1.44	–15.5
Massachusetts	0.58 (0.87)	75.4% (6.97%)	1.84 (0.47)	–26.8 (1.0)
Rhode Island	0.21	13.3%	0.20	5.03
New York	0.58 (0.67)	211.1% (26.3%)	2.99 (0.71)	–45.44 (–6.6)
Vermont	0.01	7.45%	0.02	3.40

Note. Values in parentheses are model parameters when data are restricted to counties with ≤50 tons/yr NEI emission.

Table 5. Evaluation results of emission estimates vs. EPA NEI emission 2011 at county level.

	R^2	CV	Slope (β1)	Intercept (β0)
Connecticut	0.88	7.15%	1.41	–11.7
Maine	0.70	7.69%	0.76	–8.87
New Hampshire	0.89	8.13%	1.35	–14.6
Massachusetts	0.63 (0.27)	60.1% (16.1%)	2.37 (0.43)	–32.3 (3.7)
Rhode Island	0.49	10.7%	0.50	–0.47
New York	0.70 (0.80)	159.6% (21.2%)	3.80 (1.26)	–54.7 (–14.3)
Vermont	0.08	6.98%	0.11	1.96

Note. Values in parentheses are model parameter when data is restricted to counties with ≤50 tons/yr NEI emission.