4.7 Article

Near roadway air pollution across a spatially extensive road and cycling network

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 212, Issue -, Pages 498-507

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.02.041

Keywords

Air pollution; Environmental monitoring; Ultrafine particles; Land use regression

Funding

  1. National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [336477]
  2. Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) [336477]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the variability in near-road concentrations of ultra-fine particles (UFP). Our results are based on a mobile data collection campaign conducted in 2012 in Montreal, Canada using instrumented bicycles and covering approximately 475 km of unique roadways. The spatial extent of the data collected included a diverse array of roads and land use patterns. Average concentrations of UFP per roadway segment varied greatly across the study area (1411-192,340 particles/cm(3)) as well as across the different visits to the same segment. Mixed effects linear regression models were estimated for UFP (R-2 = 43.80%), incorporating a wide range of predictors including land-use, built environment, road characteristics, and meteorology. Temperature and wind speed had a large negative effect on near-road concentrations of UFP. Both the day of the week and time of day had a significant effect with Tuesdays and afternoon periods positively associated with UFP. Since UFP are largely associated with traffic emissions and considering the wide spatial extent of our data collection campaign, it was impossible to collect traffic volume data. For this purpose, we used simulated data for traffic volumes and speeds across the region and observed a positive effect for volumes and negative effect for speed. Finally, proximity to truck routes was also associated with higher UFP concentrations. (C) 2016 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