Use of visual range measurements to predict fine particulate matter exposures in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map showing selected PM_2.5 and VR sampling stations in Kuwait.

Table 1. Output for PM_2.5 predictive model.

Effect	Estimate	Standard error	p value
Intercept	−39.3691	3.4377	<0.0001
1/VR (m)	732372	26717	<0.0001
RH^2 (%)	−0.00319	0.000550	<0.0001

Figure 2. Relationship between trimester-averaged predictions and the corresponding PM_2.5 measurements in Kuwait.

Table 2. Results of 10-fold cross-validation of mean trimester-averaged PM_2.5 predictions and measurements.

Trial	n	PM2.5 (µg/m^3)	Pred. PM2.5 (µg/m^3)	%MRE
1	8	46.2	45.4	−7.5
2	6	55.3	50.5	5.1
3	9	55.9	45.1	6.3
4	8	47.1	46.5	−10.1
5	7	45.9	47.6	−5.2
6	10	43.2	46.8	−15.3
7	10	46.3	45.9	−3.2
8	8	39.7	43.8	−12.3
9	10	42.6	41.2	1.4
10	8	41.5	46.0	−12.1
Mean	8.4	46.5	45.9	−5.3

Figure 3. Internal cross-validation using trimester-averaged predicted versus measured PM_2.5 for the northern and southern sites in Kuwait.

Figure 4. Frequency distribution of monthly PM_2.5 predictions for 104 military sites in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan from 2000 to 2012.

Figure 5. Monthly PM_2.5 predictions for 104 military sites in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan from 2000 to 2012.

Figure 6. Comparison of seasonal average PM_2.5 predictions for Kuwait calibration sites and for six countries across Southwest Asia and Afghanistan.