1 s2.0 S2352938522001720 Main

Journal Pre-proof
Improved Hourly and long-term PM2.5 Prediction Modeling Based on MODIS in

Bangkok
Wilawan Kumharn, Sumridh Sudhibrabha, Kesrin Hanprasert, Serm Janjai, Itsara

Masiri, Sumaman Buntoung, Somjet Pattarapanitchai, Rungrat Wattan, Oradee
Pilahome, Wichaya Ninssawan, Yuttapichai Jankondee
PII: S2352-9385(22)00172-0
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2022.100864
Reference: RSASE 100864
To appear in: Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment
Received Date: 12 August 2022

Revised Date: 17 October 2022
Accepted Date: 26 October 2022
Please cite this article as: Kumharn, W., Sudhibrabha, S., Hanprasert, K., Janjai, S., Masiri, I., Buntoung,
S., Pattarapanitchai, S., Wattan, R., Pilahome, O., Ninssawan, W., Jankondee, Y., Improved Hourly
and long-term PM2.5 Prediction Modeling Based on MODIS in Bangkok, Remote Sensing Applications:
Society and Environment (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsase.2022.100864.
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1
1 Improved Hourly and long-term PM2.5 Prediction Modeling Based on MODIS in Bangkok
2
3 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wilawan Kumharn
4 Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Sakon Nakhon Rajabhat University, Sakon Nakhon,
5 Thailand.
6 Sumridh Sudhibrabha
7 Thai Meteorological Department, Bangkok, Thailand
8 Kesrin Hanprasert
9 Thai Meteorological Department, Bangkok, Thailand
10 Prof. Dr. Serm Janjai
11 Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom Thailand
12 Assist Prof. Dr. Itsara Masiri
14 Assist Prof. Dr. Sumaman Buntoung
16 Assist Prof. Dr. Somjet Pattarapanitchai
17
of
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom Thailand
18 Assist Prof. Dr. Rungrat Wattan
ro
20 Oradee Pilahome
-p
22 Thailand.
23 Wichaya Ninssawan
24
re
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Sakon Nakhon Rajabhat University, Sakon Nakhon,
25 Thailand.
26 Yuttapichai Jankondee
lP
28 Thailand.
29
na
30
31
32
ur
33
34
35
Jo
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 Corresponding author address:
53 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Wilawan Kumharn, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science and Technology Sakon Nakhon
54 Rajabhat University, Sakon Nakhon 47000, Thailand
55 Telephone: (+66)42970030 or (+66)885636227, Fax: (+66)42970029429
56 Email: wilawan_kumharn@snru.ac.th and wilawankumharn2015@gmail.com
2
57 Abstract
58 This study used an innovative combination of ground-based, satellite, climate variables (temperature (T), relative
59 humidity (RH), wind speed (WS)), normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), and Height of the Planetary
60 Boundary Layer (HPBL) data at the site for generating PM2.5 model. Interestingly, a new parameter called “ventilation
61 rate (VRA)” was utilized in the model. Aerosol optical depth (AOD) data were obtained from the MODIS satellite
62 data. Monthly and daily data were combined for filling non-retrieval days. The linear mixed effect model (LMEM)
63 was applied as a tool for prediction. Validation of the PM2.5 model is handled by comparing ground based PM2.5
64 concentrations at monitoring sites. The funding shows that the optimal subset LMEM model with the other factors
65 can substantially enhance the precision of predicting ground based hourly PM2.5 concentrations. The coefficient (R2)
66 rises from 0.64 to 0.87, and the root mean square error (RMSE) reduces from 10 to 6μg/m3. The optimal subset LMEM
67 were generated for all seasons. The hourly R2 values were above 0.65, with a high value of R2 in the summer season
68 (R2=0.78) and a low value of R2 in rainy (R2=0.65). PM2.5 patterns between observed and predicted show a similar
69 representative and are a slight increase from 2018 to 2022. Therefore, our study provides MODIS AODs data with a
70 potentially helpful estimation of PM2.5 concentrations, giving more information for urban scale studies.
71
72
73
of
74
75
ro
76
77
-p
78
79
80
re
81
82
lP
83
84
85
na
86
87
88
ur
89
90
91
Jo
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112 Keywords: PM2.5, MODIS, AOD, LMEM, Climate variables, Aerosol particles
3
113 1. Introduction
114 Recently, Thailand has experienced rapid urbanization and industrialization, causing air pollution, particularly in the
115 capital city of Bangkok. Fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or smaller (PM2.5) was a substantial part of haze pollution
116 (Kumharn and Hanprasert, 2016; Kumharn et al., 2020; Mao et al., 2012; Pilahome et al., 2022; Spandana et al., 2021;
117 Yang et al., 2020; Zeydan and Wang, 2019). The pollution levels appear to be increasing dramatically. PM2.5
118 monitoring is essential to evaluate the possible health effects of PM2.5. However, Bangkok's areas with the highest
119 fine particulate air pollution (1,569 km²) often lack adequate ground-based monitoring. As remote sensing technology
120 can offer comprehensive spatial coverage, satellite AOD data can provide surface PM2.5 concentrations. To better
121 examine PM2.5 exposure to air pollution and climate change and conduct pollution-related epidemiological research,
122 satellite PM2.5 concentrations at high spatial resolution are likely necessary. Research has shown that PM2 . 5 is linked
123 to numerous harmful human health effects and is the primary driver of air pollutant-induced mortality (Bai et al., 2018;
124 Shi et al., 2019). More accurate retrievals of PM2.5 concentrations may lead to a practical air quality assessment and
125 valuable data for conducting health-related studies. Previous research has established that PM2.5 can be evaluated from
126 Aerosol optical depth (AOD) retrieved from satellite data (the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
127 (MODIS) (Guo et al., 2017; Kong et al., 2016; Li et al., 2007; Ma et al., 2016; Song et al., 2019; Unnithan and
128 Gnanappazham, 2020; Xin et al., 2016). The potential exposure levels of PM2.5 have previously been observed in
129
of
Bangkok. Tsai et al. (2000) applied Spearman rank correlation to aerosol particles and meteorological data in Bangkok
130 to estimate daily PM10 and PM2.5. Fold et al. (2020) generated daily PM2.5/PM10 ratios from 2012-2018 to interpolate
131 missing values to assess annual humanity attributable to ambient PM2.5 in Bangkok. Kanabkaew (2013) presented the
ro
132 statistical models for predicting PM2.5 concentration using MODIS-Terra AOD satellite data with some ground-based
133 meteorological data (RH and Temperature) correction. So far, however, there has been little discussion about
-p
134 estimating hourly PM2.5 from MODIS AOD Terra and Aqua satellite data with meteorological parameters (T, RH, and
135 WS), NDVI, and HPBL using LMEM. Therefore, we developed the previous method by adding one more parameter
136
re
called VRA, expressed as the area of air entering or leaving in a given time, improving predicted PM2.5 due to this
137 factor significant influences air pollutants, mainly in the high season (Stamp et al., 2022; Xia et al., 2020). VRA can
138 be calculated as follows:
lP
139 VRA (m2/s) = Mixing Height (m) x Transport Wind (m/s) (1)
140 Furthermore, cloud cover is a substantial problem in non-retrieval AOD data; thus, PM2.5 could not be estimated,
141 mainly in the rainy seasons. Similarly, recent developments have heightened the need for hourly ground based PM2 . 5
na
142 concentration evaluation with full spatial coverage (Hua et al., 2019; Luong et al., 2021). Therefore, all non-retrieval
143 values of satellite AODs data were retrieved in this study by using the MODIS Deep blue (DB) AOD Terra and Aqua
144 daily level 2 data resolution 10x10 km (MOD20 (Terra) and MYD20 (Aqua)). Monthly level 3 data (1x1)
ur
145 MOD08_M3 (Terra) and MYD08_M3 (Aqua) were also included to fulfill all non-retrieval data each day downloaded
146 from (https://ladsweb.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov). Numerous models have been utilized to clarify the mathematical
Jo
147 relationship between MODIS AODs and ground based PM2.5 using linear regression and statistical models such as the
148 LMEM (Mhawish et al., 2020; Mirzaei et al., 2020; Sotoudeheian and Arhami, 2021; Wang et al., 2017). LMEM has
149 broadly been utilized to determine the relationship between PM2.5 and other parameters. This investigation aimed to
150 new assess PM2.5 using the LMEM employed for AODs, meteorological parameters, HPBL, VRA, and NDVI for
151 estimating a full-coverage hourly PM2.5 concentration in Bangkok.
152 2 Data collection and Methodology
153 Bangkok is the capital and important city of Thailand where is a center of business, industrial, economic, and culture.
154 It is in 15687 km2 along the Chao Phraya delta in central Thailand and has the highest population density in the
155 country, with about 10.539 million people in 2020. and fourteen million people (22.2%) live within the Bangkok
156 metropolitan region.
157 2.1 AOD data
158 MODIS has been set up on Terra and Aqua satellites, which operated by the NASA-centered international earth
159 observing system project, since 1999. Terra orbit around the Earth from north to south and passes Thailand in the
160 morning at about 10.30 am, while Aqua across the south to north in the afternoon at about 2.30 pm. MODIS instrument
161 processes radiances at spatial resolutions of 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0 km at 36 spectral channels between 0.41 and 14.23μm
162 with a viewing swath of 2330 km. Both ocean and land AOD product were generated. The MODIS Deep blue (DB)
163 AOD Terra and Aqua daily level 2 data and monthly level 3 data were applied. The MODIS DB Collection 6 retrieval
164 has three channels (0.47, 0.66, and 2.12 µm), mainly utilized for AOD over land. The final AOD at 0.55 µm is reported
165 from those three channels. The maximum AOD value is less than 3.0, and negative values are omitted to avoid bias.
166 The uncertainty in MODIS AOD measurements can be estimated:
167 AOD = ±0.05±0.15×AOD over land.
168
4
169 2.2. Climate variables and other data

170 The climate variables (T, RH, WS, and HPBL) were collected from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF).
171 WRF is a numerical weather prediction system for local impact studies provided by the National Centers for
172 Environmental Prediction (NCEP) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) at a temporal
173 resolution of approximately every 4 hours with horizontal solutions of 1–30 km (Table 1). In addition, the NDVI with
174 a spatial resolution of 1 km at a temporal resolution of approximately every 16 days was obtained from the EOSDIS
175 website (https://search.earthdata.nasa.gov). Hourly VRA data was obtained from the Thai meteorology department.
176 All parameters were collected at 10 km due to the spatial resolution of the MODIS data. All parameters are interpolated
177 for obtaining hourly and daily data. The pollution control department collected an hourly and daily average of PM2.5
178 data. PM2.5 data were applied in the model from 1 January 2020 through 31 December 2020. The predicted hourly
179 PM2.5 concentrations were addressed independently for comparison. A single hourly AOD–PM2.5 and climate
180 parameters were applied to the model.
181 2.3 Linear mixed effect
182 2.3.1. PM2.5 model
183 Climate variables, HPBL, VRA, and land use directly impact local daily aerosol concentrations. The LMEM is
184 employed to estimate PM2.5 (Guo et al., 2021; Huang et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). All those
185
of
parameters were added for accuracy at different regions and times. Then, the LMEM was applied to all parameters
186 using Equation (1).
187 PM2.5 s = (β0 + μ0 ) + (β1 + μ1 ) × AODs + (β2 + μ2 )Ts + (β3 + μ3 )RHs + (β4 + μ4 )WSs + (β5 μ5 )HPBLs +
ro
188 (β6 + μ6 )VRAs + (β7 + μ7s )NDVIs +εr (1)
189 where PM2.5s is in a station (s); 𝛽 is the fixed intercept and 𝜇 is the random intercept, respectively. AODs, Ts (◦C),
-p
190 RHs (%), WSs (m/s), VRAs (m2/s) and HPBLs (m) are the parameters at station; β1∼β6 are the fixed and µ1∼µ6 are
191 random slopes; NDVIs (unitless) is at station; β7 are the fixed slope and µ7M are the random slopes; and ε is the residual
re
192 error.
193 2.4 Cross-validation method
194 This study applied the cross-validation (CV) method for processing model development and validation. The
lP
195 correlation coefficient (R2), mean bias error (MBE), and root mean square error (RMSE) were used to estimate the
196 predicted PM2.5 and ground based PM2.5 concentrations.
197 3 Results and discussion
na
198 3.1 Descriptive statistics

199 The PM2.5 concentrations in Bangkok were obtained from January 2021 to December 2021, and an average of PM2.5,
200 AOD, T, RH, WS, HPBL, VAR, and NDVI are presented in Table 2. The seasons are identified as follows: summer
ur
201 includes mid-February to mid-June; rainy season includes mid-June to mid-October; winter includes mid-October to
202 mid-February. The high PM2.5 concentrations were detected in the winter (29 µg/m3) compared with the rainy season
Jo
203 (9 µg/m3). This finding may be described because temperature decreases and the cold, dense air close to the ground
204 in the winter months, so pollutants are trapped near the bottom. As a result, contaminants in winter remain in the air
205 for longer periods than in the rainy season. The average AOD is 0.42, and the seasonal average in the summer, rainy,
206 and winter seasons is 0.58, 0.30, and 0.35, respectively. The AOD showed a much smaller variation giving the highest
207 retrievals in the summer compared to rainy seasons. A possible explanation might be that AODs measure in the vertical
208 column from the Earth's surface to the top of the atmosphere. Some pollutants are emitted near the ground and find
209 their way up to the air under certain conditions. Hence, air quality has a significant influence on local weather
210 conditions. (Dejchanchaiwong et al., 2020; Mhawish et al., 2020). Transportation, industry, and biomass burning is
211 the primary source of pollutant emissions, contributing to the haze crisis in Thailand. Average climate parameters (T,
212 RH, and WS) are 27◦C, 78%, and 8.14 m/s, respectively. VRA, HPBL, and NDVI are 3793 m2/s, 698 m, and 0.41,
213 respectively.
214 3.2 MODIS AOD Validation
215 MODIS DB AODs have been addressed to AERONET AOD data, as shown in Figure 1. Terra across North to South
216 of Earth’s orbit around 10.30 am and Aqua routes South to North in the afternoon time around 1.30 pm. A pair of
217 MODIS AOD 10 km products (a 1×1-pixel sampling area with 10×10 km2) were compared to AERONET AOD with
218 a temporal window of ±30 min for AERONET. The results of Aqua and Terra MODIS AOD are a lower RMSE and
219 RMB, respectively, implying tiny aerosol estimation uncertainty with R2=0.6 1 , RMSE = 0.55, and slope=0 . 9 0 for
220 Terra, and R2=0.62, RMSE = 0.50, and slope=0.74 for Aqua.
221 3.3 PM2.5 model
222 The LMEM was applied to hourly AOD, T, RH, WS, VRA, HPBL, and daily NVDI data. Linear interpolations data
223 for each hour were employed. AOD was a significant factor due to excluding AOD having a poor result. Therefore,
224 AOD was included in all LMEM, and the other parameters were supplementary for enhancing the predictive abilities
5
225 of PM2.5. In addition, weather conditions (T, RH, and WS), HPBL, and NDVI are essential for estimating due to
226 having an impact on PM2.5 concentrations (Cheng et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2020a; Luo et al., 2020b).
227 Interestingly, VAR is a new parameter in our method, observed at high values from February to August, reaching
228 a peak in August (Figure 2a). To improve hourly PM2.5, we add this parameter because it changes during the day, as
229 seen in Figure 2b, and gives high values in the afternoon (1-3 pm). High VRA indicates unstable air, which occurs
230 heavy wind, while low VRA implies poor conditions for air quality.
231 All parameters were incrementally added to the LMEM. As a result, the simple model was utilized as a standard
232 to evaluate the enhancement of the LMEM subset models using the correlation coefficient, the RMSE, and MAE.
233 Additionally, the confidence level of each parameter was evaluated at ɑ = 0.001, 0.01, and 0.05. Table 3 presents all
234 LMEM subset models. The best model is demonstrated in the 6th row giving an R2 of 0.87 and an RMSE of 6 μg/m3.
235 The findings obtained from applying the 6th model are displayed in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2, R 2 dramatically
236 increases 190%, and RMSE decreases 60% compared with Model 1. The other factors are vital for estimating hourly
237 surface PM2.5 concentrations. The fixed intercept (β0) and the slopes (β1∼β5) of the LMEM model are demonstrated in
238 Table 3. Table 3 shows a significant at the α = 0.05 level for most parameters (AOD, T, RH, WS, NDVI, VRA, and
239 HPBL). The 6th model gave the highest R2; however, there is insignificant at the ɑ = 0.05 level for AOD and HPBL.
240 Nonetheless, HPBL also slightly improved the AOD-PM2.5 model in previous literature and fell in the significance test
241
of
(Miao et al., 2018; Zang et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2019). It is concluded that AOD and other parameters are more
242 effective in predicting hourly surface PM2.5 concentrations. Therefore, the 6th model was preferred as the best possible
243 model. The fixed intercept effects were substantial, while the random effects varied daily. The finding encourages our
ro
244 assumption that factors affect the relationship between PM2.5 and 1st-6th models run by the hour. The positive β values
245 suggest a positive relationship between AOD and VRA. In contrast, negative β values (T, RH, WS, HPBL, and NDVI)
-p
246 indicate a negative association with PM2.5 concentrations. β values indicate the change in the parameters that would
247 increase the PM2.5 concentration.
248
re
3.3.1 Seasonal analysis
249 The best subset of LMEM was established for each season to understand the differences between the three seasons.
250 Tables 4-6 show the results of all subset LMEM for summer, rainy season, and winter, respectively, and the best
lP
251 possible models are the 6th model, included in our model (T, RH, WS, NDVI, VRA, and HPBL). This optimal model
252 presents significant improvements over the LMEM, especially for the summer. The R2 rises from 0.48 to 0.78, and
253 the RMSEs decrease by 37.50% (8 to 5 μg/m3). The seasonal, optimal models also include all factors. However, some
na
254 elements fall under the test of significance. A possible explanation might be that high PM2.5 concentrations were
255 observed with slight variation throughout this season, resulting in less wet deposition.
256 On the other hand, some β-values gave an opposite result, such as T provides a positive for summer and rainy
ur
257 seasons, and RH also offers a positive in the rainy season. This result is consistent with that of Chen et al. (2020), who
258 found increasing temperature increase PM2.5 concentrations. The negative β-values were observed for RH, WS, NDVI,
259 and HPBL at all seasons. In addition, a tiny change in β-values of HPBL and VRA suggests a slightly antagonistic
Jo
260 relationship with PM concentrations (Tables 6). A positive association was found between PM2.5 and AOD and VRA
261 in all seasons. NDVI has been one of the most used vegetation indices in remote sensing since the 1970s. This
262 parameter may instinctively consider the PM concentrations in the atmosphere to increase the ability of remote sensing
263 technology.
264 Interestingly, negative associations were demonstrated for WS. This finding may be explained by the fact that the
265 WS reduces the most pollutants in Bangkok (Cheng and Hsu, 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). The HPBL regularly
266 influences the AOD-PM2.5 relation causing high HPBL to connect to low PM2.5 levels in vertical mixing. However,
267 the HPBL variable slightly contributes less importance to the model.
268 3.4 Validation of Model
269 Figure 3 and Table 7 show the ten-fold CV method results using linear regression for the predicted. The slope and
270 intercept were retrieved versus the evaluated in the ten held-out cross-validation samples, which reconstructed the full
271 dataset. This model was achieved in different periods with the CV R2 values of 0.51 for all data, 0.32 for winter, 0.01
272 for rainy, and 0.21 for summer. The MAEs are 14, 9, and 6 µg/m3 in the winter, summer, and rainy seasons and the
273 RMSEs range from 4 to 10 µg/m3. Scatterplots between the LMEM of the 6th model for all simple, CV, and ground
274 PM2.5: (a) the LMEM of the 6th model and (b) the CV is presented in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2, the LMEM and
275 ground PM2.5 give a strong correlation R2 of 0.87. The RMSE, MBE, and slope are 6 μg/m3, 4 μg/m3, and 0.79,
276 respectively. For all simple using LMEM, the R2 raised by 61.11%, while the MAE and RMSE declined. As shown
277 in Table 2, season LMEM can improve R2 in all seasons, and the LMEM gives the highest performance in the summer
278 season and the worst in rainy. Figure 2 shows that the high values of the PM2.5 concentrations (>60 µg/m3) were
279 underestimated, which may be associated with the more significant uncertainty in AOD during the hazy season. A
280 previous study demonstrated substantial errors in AOD retrieval appear when incredibly high AOD levels are detected.
6
281 3.5 PM2.5 predictions

282 Thailand has faced an air quality crisis in the past ten years, especially in Bangkok. It was found that air quality is
283 lower than the WHO standard (the annual standard of PM2.5 > 25 µg/m3). However, VRA data are available from 2019
284 to 2022. Therefore, the monthly average PM2.5 levels observed and predicted from 2019 to 2022 are shown in Figure
285 4. The monthly average is computed from the daily average. In 2022 give high PM2.5 values compared with 2019.
286 PM2.5 patterns between observed and predicted show a similar representative. PM2.5 values obtained from both sources
287 are a slight increase in Bangkok from 2019 to 2022. Figure 5 shows PM2.5 anomalies from 2019 to 2022. The
288 differences are varied from −21 to 23 µg/m3 (mean= -0.43 µg/m3, SD = 7 µg/m3). High difference values are found
289 when PM2.5 has a value of over 50 µg/m3, while low difference values are found at low PM2.5. However, a low PM2.5
290 were detected high difference in 2019. Bangkok's highly populated areas show high values at the end of winter to
291 summer, where differences in PM are also observed. A possible explanation for this might be that weather conditions
292 such as low temperature, light wind, and non/less rain) impact on PM2.5 concentrations.
293 4. Discussion
294 All factors are important in this study's PM2.5 model for Bangkok stations. Bangkok city has the most unpleasant air
295 quality in Thailand. In previous studies on PM2.5, some factors might contribute to PM2.5 model performance overall
296 (Kleine Deters et al., 2017; Xiao et al., 2018). For example, reducing PM concentrations may explain a negative
297
of
association between wind speed and PM2.5 concentrations, particularly during high wind speeds, which can affect the
298 speedy dispersion of particles and reduce concentrations (Liu et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). T and WS in the winter
299 and summer are negative with PM2.5 due to the formation of secondary aerosols (Liu et al., 2015). However, T is also
ro
300 one parameter influencing PM2.5 concentrations positively in the rainy season, which is apparent in increasing
301 temperatures due to more significant turbulence, atmospheric instability, and increased vertical and horizontal
-p
302 movement of particles. In addition, high RH in the rainy season lead to high PM2.5 concentrations (Zalakeviciute et
303 al., 2018). The tiny negative β-values of RH suggest a slightly antagonistic connection with PM concentrations, which
304
re
significantly different from season to season. In all seasons, VRA is positive with PM2.5 (Kim et al., 2020). HPBL and
305 NDVI also influence PM2.5 concentrations because adding those parameters togethers with other can improve hourly
306 PM2.5 concentrations predicted. Finally, AOD is the optical properties of fine aerosol particles in the atmosphere
lP
307 having a significant positive relation with PM2.5 concentrations. However, AOD can vary spatially and over time,
308 contributing to differences in β-values and models. Relationships between PM2.5 and other parameters are also in our
309 finding.
na
310 As revealed previously, high PM2.5 concentrations were detected in the winter months. This is likely due to the
311 temperature inversion this season, and PM2.5 comes from neighboring countries. Typically, the climate during the
312 winter months is arid. In addition, high temperature and low humidity come with winds, creating a better condition
ur
313 for combustion. Moreover, high speeds also provide a driving force for aerosol particle formation. Therefore,
314 Bangkok's occurrence may be related to increased PM2.5 levels in winter, causing biomass burning seasons (Kayee et
315
Jo
al., 2020; Pongpiachan et al., 2017), and climate conditions keep those particles suspended in the atmosphere for a
316 longer time.
317 To our knowledge, our work is to improve MODIS data for estimating hourly PM2.5 concentrations in Bangkok,
318 offering knowledge of the worst pollutant area for potential health risks due to enhanced pollutant experiences.
319 Notably, Non-retrieve AOD data were due to cloud cover or other surface albedo problems. Those data were fulfilled
320 by MODIS Deep blue (DB) AOD Terra and Aqua daily level 2 and monthly level 3. Our objective was to investigate
321 MODIS AOD to improve estimating hourly ground PM2.5 over previous work in Bangkok.
382 5. Conclusions
383 Estimating hourly PM2.5 concentrations based on MODIS AODs in Bangkok were investigated in 2020. Recently,
384 human health effect on aerosol particles studies has been inadequate due to the insufficient PM2.5 monitoring.
385 Moreover, the application of satellite data to predict PM2.5 is the poor ability and the high frequency of non-retrieval
386 days. A combination of MODIS AOD products can approach hourly PM2.5 predictions for non-retrieval days. This
387 study confirms that predicted PM2.5 obtained from various MODIS AOD has a high performance for expanding current
388 ground based PM2.5 monitoring networks. In addition, hourly PM2.5 predicted can be covered in a large area. Finally,
389 future satellite data will be more reasonable in spatial and temporal resolutions to achieve data precisely. Aerosol
390 particle types obtained from satellite technologies will be supporting more information to examine aerosol health
391 effects. Since AOD satellite data are easily to access, hourly PM2.5 concentrations can be predicted cost-effectively.
392 Furthermore, regarding the ground-level PM2.5 monitoring networks, this method will help provide essential data to
393 explore the connection of exposures to PM2.5 and their effect on public health protection.
394 Acknowledgments.
395 The Thailand Science Research and Innovation funded this study. In addition, we thank the pollution control
396 department for providing PM2.5 data and the Thai Meteorological Department for providing climate variables data.
7
397 References
398 Bai, X. et al., Ultrafine particle libraries for exploring mechanisms of PM2.5-induced toxicity in human cells,
399 Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 157(2018), pp. 380-387.
400 Chen, Z. et al., Influence of meteorological conditions on PM2.5 concentrations across China: A review of
401 methodology and mechanism, Environment International 139(2020), p. 105558.
402 Cheng, F.-Y. et al., Evaluation of real-time PM2.5 forecasts with the WRF-CMAQ modeling system and weather-
403 pattern-dependent bias-adjusted PM2.5 forecasts in Taiwan, Atmospheric Environment 244(2021), p.
404 117909.
405 Cheng, F.-Y., Hsu, C.-H., Long-term variations in PM2.5 concentrations under changing meteorological conditions
406 in Taiwan, Scientific reports 9(2019), p. 6635.
407 Dejchanchaiwong, R. et al., Impact of transport of fine and ultrafine particles from open biomass burning on air
408 quality during 2019 Bangkok haze episode, Journal of Environmental Sciences 97(2020), pp. 149-161.
409 Fold, N.R. et al., An Assessment of Annual Mortality Attributable to Ambient PM2.5 in Bangkok, Thailand,
410 International journal of environmental research and public health 17(2020), p. 7298.
411 Guo, J. et al., Impact of diurnal variability and meteorological factors on the PM2.5 - AOD relationship:
412 Implications for PM2.5 remote sensing, Environmental Pollution 221(2017), pp. 94-104.
413
of
Guo, W. et al., Estimating ground-level PM2.5 concentrations using two-stage model in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei,
414 China, Atmospheric Pollution Research 12(2021), p. 101154.
415 Hua, Z., Sun, W., Yang, G., Du, Q., A Full-Coverage Daily Average PM2.5 Retrieval Method with Two-Stage IVW
ro
416 Fused MODIS C6 AOD and Two-Stage GAM Model, Remote Sensing 11(2019), p. 1558.
417 Huang, Y. et al., Satellite-based spatiotemporal trends of ambient PM2.5 concentrations and influential factors in
-p
418 Hubei, Central China, Atmospheric Research 241(2020), p. 104929.
419 Kanabkaew, T., Prediction of Hourly Particulate Matter Concentrations in Chiangmai, Thailand Using MODIS
420
re
Aerosol Optical Depth and Ground-Based Meteorological Data, EnvironmentAsia 6(2013), pp. 65-70.
421 Kayee, J. et al., Metal Concentrations and Source Apportionment of PM2.5 in Chiang Rai and Bangkok, Thailand
422 during a Biomass Burning Season, ACS Earth and Space Chemistry 4(2020), pp. 1213-1226.
lP
423 Kim, J.-H., Kim, H.-G., Yeo, M.-S., Ventilation and Filtration Control Strategy Considering PM2.5, IAQ, and
424 System Energy, Atmosphere 11(2020), p. 1140.
425 Kleine Deters, J., Zalakeviciute, R., Gonzalez, M., Rybarczyk, Y., Modeling PM<sub>2.5</sub> Urban Pollution
na
426 Using Machine Learning and Selected Meteorological Parameters, Journal of Electrical and Computer
427 Engineering 2017(2017), p. 5106045.
428 Kong, L., Xin, J., Zhang, W., Wang, Y., The empirical correlations between PM2.5, PM10 and AOD in the Beijing
ur
429 metropolitan region and the PM2.5, PM10 distributions retrieved by MODIS, Environmental Pollution
430 216(2016), pp. 350-360.
431
Jo
Kumharn, W., Hanprasert, K., Aerosol optical properties in ultraviolet ranges and respiratory diseases in Thailand,
432 Atmospheric Environment 142(2016), pp. 221-228.
433 Kumharn, W., Janjai, S., Irie, H., Pilahome, O., Aerosol size distribution using Thailand ground-based instruments
434 and climate variables, Theoretical and Applied Climatology 142(2020), pp. 599-611.
435 Li, L.-j. et al., Spatial distribution of aerosol pollution based on MODIS data over Beijing, China, Journal of
436 Environmental Sciences 19(2007), pp. 955-960.
437 Liu, F., Tan, Q., Jiang, X., Yang, F., Jiang, W., Effects of relative humidity and PM2.5 chemical compositions on
438 visibility impairment in Chengdu, China, Journal of Environmental Sciences 86(2019), pp. 15-23.
439 Liu, X., Yu, X., Zhang, Z., PM2.5 Concentration Differences between Various Forest Types and Its Correlation with
440 Forest Structure, Atmosphere 6(2015), pp. 1801-1815.
441 Luo, F.L., Jing, J.L., Wang, A.N., Liang, L.S., RESEARCH ON PM2.5 MASS CONCENTRATION RETRIEVAL
442 METHOD BASED ON HIMAWARI-8 IN BEIJING, Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf.
443 Sci. XLII-3/W10(2020a), pp. 903-910.
444 Luo, Z., Huang, F., Liu, H., PM2.5 concentration estimation using convolutional neural network and gradient
445 boosting machine, Journal of Environmental Sciences 98(2020b), pp. 85-93.
446 Luong, N.D., Hieu, B.T., Hiep, N.H., Contrasting seasonal pattern between ground-based PM2.5 and MODIS
447 satellite-based aerosol optical depth (AOD) at an urban site in Hanoi, Vietnam, Environmental Science and
448 Pollution Research(2021).
449 Ma, X., Wang, J., Yu, F., Jia, H., Hu, Y., Can MODIS AOD be employed to derive PM2.5 in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei
450 over China?, Atmospheric Research 181(2016), pp. 250-256.
451 Mao, L., Qiu, Y., Kusano, C., Xu, X., Predicting regional space–time variation of PM2.5 with land-use regression
452 model and MODIS data, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 19(2012), pp. 128-138.
8
453 Mhawish, A. et al., Estimation of High-Resolution PM2.5 over the Indo-Gangetic Plain by Fusion of Satellite Data,
454 Meteorology, and Land Use Variables, Environmental Science & Technology 54(2020), pp. 7891-7900.
455 Miao, Y. et al., Unraveling the relationships between boundary layer height and PM2.5 pollution in China based on
456 four-year radiosonde measurements, Environmental Pollution 243(2018), pp. 1186-1195.
457 Mirzaei, M., Bertazzon, S., Couloigner, I., Farjad, B., Ngom, R., Estimation of local daily PM2.5 concentration
458 during wildfire episodes: integrating MODIS AOD with multivariate linear mixed effect (LME) models,
459 Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 13(2020), pp. 173-185.
460 Pilahome, O., Ninsawan, W., Jankondee, Y., Janjai, S., Kumharn, W., Long-term variations and comparison of
461 aerosol optical properties based on MODIS and ground-based data in Thailand, Atmospheric
462 Environment(2022), p. 119218.
463 Pongpiachan, S., Hattayanone, M., Cao, J., Effect of agricultural waste burning season on PM2.5-bound polycyclic
464 aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) levels in Northern Thailand, Atmospheric Pollution Research 8(2017), pp.
465 1069-1080.
466 Shi, Y. et al., PM2.5-induced alteration of DNA methylation and RNA-transcription are associated with
467 inflammatory response and lung injury, Science of The Total Environment 650(2019), pp. 908-921.
468 Song, Z. et al., MODIS AOD sampling rate and its effect on PM2.5 estimation in North China, Atmospheric
469
of
Environment 209(2019), pp. 14-22.
470 Sotoudeheian, S., Arhami, M., Estimating ground-level PM(2.5) concentrations by developing and optimizing
471 machine learning and statistical models using 3 km MODIS AODs: case study of Tehran, Iran, Journal of
ro
472 environmental health science & engineering 19(2021), pp. 1-21.
473 Spandana, B., Srinivasa Rao, S., Upadhya, A.R., Kulkarni, P., Sreekanth, V., PM2.5/PM10 ratio characteristics over
-p
474 urban sites of India, Advances in Space Research 67(2021), pp. 3134-3146.
475 Stamp, S. et al., Seasonal variations and the influence of ventilation rates on IAQ: A case study of five low-energy
476
re
London apartments, Indoor and Built Environment 31(2022), pp. 607-623.
477 Tsai, F. et al., Indoor/outdoor PM10 and PM2.5 in Bangkok, Thailand, Journal of exposure analysis and
478 environmental epidemiology 10(2000), pp. 15-26.
lP
479 Unnithan, S.L.K., Gnanappazham, L., Spatiotemporal mixed effects modeling for the estimation of PM2.5 from
480 MODIS AOD over the Indian subcontinent, GIScience & Remote Sensing 57(2020), pp. 159-173.
481 Wang, W. et al., Deriving Hourly PM2.5 Concentrations from Himawari-8 AODs over Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei in
na
482 China, Remote Sensing 9(2017), p. 858.

483 Wang, X., Zhang, R., Yu, W., The Effects of PM2.5 Concentrations and Relative Humidity on Atmospheric
484 Visibility in Beijing, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 124(2019), pp. 2235-2259.
ur
485 Xia, T., Bian, Y., Shi, S., Zhang, L., Chen, C., Influence of nanofiber window screens on indoor PM2.5 of outdoor
486 origin and ventilation rate: An experimental and modeling study, Building Simulation 13(2020), pp. 873-
487
Jo
886.
488 Xiao, Q., Chang, H.H., Geng, G., Liu, Y., An Ensemble Machine-Learning Model To Predict Historical PM2.5
489 Concentrations in China from Satellite Data, Environmental Science & Technology 52(2018), pp. 13260-
490 13269.
491 Xin, J. et al., The observation-based relationships between PM2.5 and AOD over China, Journal of Geophysical
492 Research: Atmospheres 121(2016), pp. 10,701-710,716.
493 Yang, L., Xu, H., Jin, Z., Estimating ground-level PM2.5 over a coastal region of China using satellite AOD and a
494 combined model, Journal of Cleaner Production 227(2019), pp. 472-482.
495 Yang, Z., Zdanski, C., Farkas, D., Bang, J., Harris, W., Evaluation of Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) and PM2.5
496 associations for air quality assessment, Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 20(2020),
497 p. 100396.
498 Zalakeviciute, R., López-Villada, J., Rybarczyk, Y., Contrasted Effects of Relative Humidity and Precipitation on
499 Urban PM2.5 Pollution in High Elevation Urban Areas, Sustainability 10(2018), p. 2064.
500 Zang, Z. et al., Effects of Boundary Layer Height on the Model of Ground-Level PM2.5 Concentrations from AOD:
501 Comparison of Stable and Convective Boundary Layer Heights from Different Methods, Atmosphere
502 8(2017), p. 104.
503 Zeydan, Ö., Wang, Y., Using MODIS derived aerosol optical depth to estimate ground-level PM2.5 concentrations
504 over Turkey, Atmospheric Pollution Research 10(2019), pp. 1565-1576.
505 Zhang, T., Zang, L., Wan, Y., Wang, W., Zhang, Y., Ground-level PM2.5 estimation over urban agglomerations in
506 China with high spatiotemporal resolution based on Himawari-8, Science of The Total Environment
507 676(2019), pp. 535-544.
9
508 Zhang, X., Shi, M., Li, Y., Pang, R., Xiang, N., Correlating PM2.5 concentrations with air pollutant emissions: A
509 longitudinal study of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region, Journal of Cleaner Production 179(2018), pp. 103-
510 113.
511 Zhang, Y. et al., Improvement in hourly PM2.5 estimations for the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region by introducing an
512 aerosol modeling product from MASINGAR, Environmental Pollution 264(2020), p. 114691.
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
of
524
525
ro
526
527
528
529
530
-p
re
531
532
lP
533
534
535
na
536
537
538
ur
539
540
541
Jo
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
10
563 List of Figure Captions:

564 Figure 1. Scatterplots and statistical parameters of AOD. The dashed line and the black solid line represent the 1:1
565 line, representing the fitted linear regression line.
566 Figure 2. VRA variation during the day and monthly mean in Bangkok from 2018 to 2022
567 Figure 3. LMEM model performance was assessed by 8745 measured and predicted hourly PM2.5 concentrations
568 (µg/m3) from (A) Mixed-effects model and (B) CV mixed-effects model. The solid line represents the regression line,
569 and the dashed line displays the 1:1 line.
570 Figure 4. The monthly average PM2.5 levels between observed and predicted from 2019-20222.
571 Figure 5. PM2.5 anomalies from 2019-2022.
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
of
580
581
ro
582
583
-p
584
585
586
re
587
588
lP
589
590
591
na
592
593
594
ur
595
596
597
Jo
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
11
619 List of Table Captions:

620 Table 1 Information on the surface and NCEP reanalysis datasets used to predict PM2.5.
621 Table 2. Mean PM2.5 concentrations (µg/m3) were observed and climate conditions at Bangkok sites in 2021.
622 Table 3. The results of the seasonal ten-fold cross-validation and LMEM.
623 Table 4. The fixed effect of the LMEM model was used to predict the ground-level PM2.5 concentrations collected in
624 2020.
626 winter in 2021.
628 the summer of 2021.
630 the rainy season in 2021.
631
632
633
634
635
of
636
637
ro
638
639
-p
640
641
642
re
643
644
lP
645
646
647
na
648
649
650
ur
651
652
653
Jo
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
12
675 List of Figures:

676
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
677
678 Figure 1. Scatterplots and statistical parameters of AOD. The dashed line and the black solid line represent the 1:1
Jo
679 line, representing the fitted linear regression line.

680
681
682
683
684
13
of
ro
-p
685 re
lP
na
ur
Jo
686
687
688 Figure 2. VRA variation during the day and monthly mean in Bangkok from 2018 to 2022
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
14
of
ro
696
697 Figure 3 . LMEM performance was assessed by 8745 measured and predicted hourly PM2.5 concentrations (µg/m3)
698 from (A) Mixed-effects model and (B) CV mixed-effects model. The solid line represents the regression line, and the
699
700
dashed line displays the 1:1 line.
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
701
702
703 Figure 4. The monthly average PM2.5 levels between observed and predicted from 2019-2022.
704
705
15
of
ro
706 -p
re
707
708 Figure 5. PM2.5 anomalies from 2019-2022.
lP
709
710
711
na
712
713
714
ur
715
716
717
Jo
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
16
739 List of Tables:

740 Table 1 Information on the surface and NCEP reanalysis datasets used to predict PM2.5.
741 Parameter Unit Temporal Resolution Sources
742 PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hourly Air quality monitoring station
743 VRA (m2/s) Hourly Thai meteorology department
744 AOD (unitless) Instantaneous AERONET monitoring station
745 T (◦C) Every 4 h RCEP/NCAR global reanalysis
746 RH (%) Every 4 h RCEP/NCAR global reanalysis
747 WS (m/s) Every 4 h RCEP/NCAR global reanalysis
748 HPBL (m) Every 4 h RCEP/NCAR global reanalysis
749 NDVI (unitless) Every 16-day RCEP/NCAR global reanalysis
750
751 Table 2. Mean PM2.5 concentrations (µg/m3) were observed and climate conditions at Bangkok sites in 2021.
752 Season PM2.5 AOD T RH WS HPBL NDVI VRA
753 (µg/m3) (unitless) (◦C) (%) (m/s) (m) (unitless) (m2/s)
754 Summer 18 0.58 28 72 6.60 642 0.39 4377
of
755 Winter 29 0.35 26 69 10.00 705 0.36 2796
756 Rainy 9 0.30 26 92 8.82 752 0.47 3996
ro
757 Annual 19 0.42 27 78 8.14 698 0.41 3793
758
-p
760 2021.
Model 0(Intercept) 1(AOD) 2(T) 3(RH) 6(WS) 5(HPBL) 6(NDVI) 7(VRA)
re
761 RMSE (µg/m3) MBE R2
762 Model 1 25.63*** 2.26 10 7 0.64
763 Model 2 29.61*** 2.81 -0.16 10 7 0.65
lP
764 Model 3 120.12*** 0.60 -2.14*** -0.54*** 9 6 0.66

765 Model 4 121.85*** 0.18 -2.16*** -0.55*** -0.07*** 9 6 0.67
766 Model 5 50.06 *** 0.94 -0.53*** -0.12*** -0.14*** 0.00 6 4 0.84
na
767 Model 6 91.22** 4.59 -0.19* -0.19*** -0.30*** -0.00 -159.38** 6 4 0.86
768 Model 7 101.93 ***
4.64 -0.58 ***
-0.08 ***
-0.19 ***
-0.00 -153.38** 0.01*** 6 4 0.87
769 ***independent parameter is significant at the α = 0.001 level
770 **independent parameter is significant at the α = 0.01 level
ur
771 *Independent parameter is significant at the α = 0.05 level

772
Jo
774 winter in 2021.
775 Model 0(Intercept) 1(AOD) 2(T) 3(RH) 6(WS) 5(HPBL) 6(NDVI) 7(VRA) RMSE (µg/m3) MBE R2
776 Model 1 26.31 *** 23.52 ** 14 11 0.43
777 Model 2 42.61*** 28.29** -0.69*** 14 11 0.44
778 Model 3 122.97*** 13.59* -2.28** -0.55*** 11 8 0.56
779 Model 4 125.41*** 12.92* -2.30*** -0.56*** -0.09 11 8 0.57
780 Model 5 91.42*** 21.36** -1.47*** -0.28*** -0.18 -0.00 8 6 0.71
781 Model 6 200.24*** 13.20* -1.44** -0.20*** -0.28* -0.00 -343.94*** 8 6 0.73
782 Model 7 197.75*** 14.83* -1.86*** -0.24*** -0.27*** -0.00 -304.65***0.00*** 8 6 0.74
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
17
796 the summer of 2021.
798 Model 1 12.02*** 7.11* 8 6 0.48
799 Model 2 6.27 6.94* 0.20** 8 6 0.48
800 Model 3 46.99*** 5.86* -0.73*** -0.19*** 7 5 0.48
801 Model 4 48.40*** 5.63* -0.72*** -0.20*** -0.22*** 7 5 0.49
802 Model 5 16.70* 5.63 0.24 -0.05 -0.01 0.01* 5 3 0.76
803 Model 6 47.57 * 3.86 0.27 * -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -86.19 5 3 0.77
804 Model 7 50.58* 3.87 0.18 -0.05 -0.01 -0.01 -86.75 0.00 5 4 0.78
808
810 the rainy season in 2021.
of
812 Model 1 7.85*** 11.92 6 4 0.42
813 Model 2 -14.00*** 11.06 0.85*** 6 4 0.46
814
ro
Model 3 -19.53*** 11.03 0.94*** -0.04 6 4 0.47
815 Model 4 -18.87 ** 10.19 0.95*** 0.03 -0.07* 6 4 0.49
816 Model 5 -30.37 *** 9.33 * 1.08 *** 0.14 *** -0.16** -0.00 4 3 0.57
-p
817 Model 6 117.28 6.89 1.09*** 0.14*** -0.14** -0.00 -312.24* 4 3 0.64
818 Model 7 117.53 6.91 1.09 *** 0.14 *** -0.14 ** -0.01 -312.13* 0.00 4 3 0.65
re
lP
822
823 Table 7. The results of the seasonal ten-fold cross-validation and the LMEM model 6th.
824 R2 RMSE (µg/m3) MAE (µg/m3) Intercept P-value
na
825 CV LMEM CV LMEM CV LMEM CV LMEM CV LMEM

826 Summer 0.21 0.78 9 5 7 4 72.82 50.58 *** ***
827 Winter 0.32 0.74 14 8 10 6 167.40 197.75 *** ***
ur
828 Rainy 0.01 0.65 6 4 4 3 102.70 117.53 *** ***

829 Annual 0.54 0.87 10 6 7 4 101.93 137.10 *** ***
830
Jo
Highlights
1. The LMEM for hourly full-coverage PM2.5 estimations is developed.

2. A new predictor was introduced to improve PM2.5 models by adding the VRA parameter.
3. New model gave R2 up to 0.87.
4. PM2.5 in Bangkok is likely to increase from 2019-2022.
f
r oo
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Ethical Statement for the journal 'Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment' (RSASE)
Hereby, I am Wilawan Kumharn consciously assure that the manuscript Improved Hourly and long-term
PM 2.5 Prediction Modeling Based on MODIS in Bangkok is fulfilled:
1) This material is the authors' own original work, which has not been previously published elsewhere.
2) The paper is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
3) The paper reflects the authors' own research and analysis in a truthful and complete manner.
4) The paper properly credits the meaningful contributions of co-authors and co-researchers.
5) The results are appropriately placed in the context of prior and existing research.
of
6) All sources used are properly disclosed (correct citation). Literally copying of text must be indicated as
ro
such by using quotation marks and giving proper reference.
-p
7) All authors have been personally and actively involved in substantial work leading to the paper, and
will take public responsibility for its content.
re
The violation of the Ethical Statement rules may result in severe consequences.
lP
To verify originality, your article may be checked by the originality detection software iThenticate. See
also http://www.elsevier.com/editors/plagdetect.
na
I agree with the above statements and declare that this submission follows the policies of Solid State
Ionics as outlined in the Guide for Authors and in the Ethical Statement.
ur
Date: 8/12/2022
Jo
Corresponding author’s
signature:
Declaration of interests
☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests:
of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo

1 s2.0 S2352938522001720 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1 s2.0 S2352938522001720 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2352938522001720 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pre-proof

Improved Hourly and long-term PM2.5 Prediction Modeling Based on MODIS in

Wilawan Kumharn, Sumridh Sudhibrabha, Kesrin Hanprasert, Serm Janjai, Itsara

To appear in: Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment

Received Date: 12 August 2022

© 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

169 2.2. Climate variables and other data

198 3.1 Descriptive statistics

281 3.5 PM2.5 predictions

482 China, Remote Sensing 9(2017), p. 858.

563 List of Figure Captions:

619 List of Table Captions:

675 List of Figures:

679 line, representing the fitted linear regression line.

739 List of Tables:

764 Model 3 120.12*** 0.60 -2.14*** -0.54*** 9 6 0.66

771 *Independent parameter is significant at the α = 0.05 level

825 CV LMEM CV LMEM CV LMEM CV LMEM CV LMEM

828 Rainy 0.01 0.65 6 4 4 3 102.70 117.53 *** ***

1. The LMEM for hourly full-coverage PM2.5 estimations is developed.

2) The paper is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

You might also like

764 Model 3 120.12* 0.60 -2.14* -0.54*** 9 6 0.66

828 Rainy 0.01 0.65 6 4 4 3 102.70 117.53 * *