Table 4.
PM10 health risk assessment results comparison in Beijing in March 2009.
| Function Zone | District/County | PM10 Health Risk Assessment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Results 1 (TRa) CI (95%) | Results 2 (TRb) CI (95%) | Variance Ratio (%) | ||
| Core functional zone | Dongcheng | 1.2876 (1.1052, 1.5196) | 1.3012 (1.1094, 1.5482) | 1.0593 |
| Xicheng | 1.3157 (1.1139, 1.5789) | 1.3025 (1.1098, 1.5509) | 1.0025 | |
| Expanding urban functional zone | Chaoyang | 1.2355 (1.0883, 1.4138) | 1.2351 (1.0882, 1.4131) | 0.0291 |
| Fengtai | 1.2351 (1.0882, 1.4130) | 1.2333 (1.0876, 1.4094) | 0.1451 | |
| Shijingshan | 1.2254 (1.0850, 1.3940) | 1.2185 (1.0827, 1.3803) | 0.5707 | |
| Haidian | 1.1962 (1.0751, 1.3374) | 1.1937 (1.0742, 1.3326) | 0.2104 | |
| New urban development zone | Fangshan | 1.1754 (1.0679, 1.2982) | 1.1781 (1.0599, 1.2568) | 0.2273 |
| Tongzhou | 1.1469 (1.0577, 1.2457) | 1.1530 (1.0609, 1.2617) | 0.5301 | |
| Shunyi | 1.1514 (1.0594, 1.2539) | 1.1557 (1.0631, 1.2731) | 0.3682 | |
| Changping | 1.1694 (1.0658, 1.2870) | 1.1619 (1.0656, 1.2860) | 0.6436 | |
| Daxing | 1.1657 (1.0644,1.2870) | 1.1689 (1.0616, 1.2653) | 0.2727 | |
| Ecological conservation development zone | Mentougou | 1.1583 (1.0618, 1.2666) | 1.1576 (1.0688, 1.3032) | 0.0588 |
| Huairou | 1.1192 (1.0476, 1.1962) | 1.1205 (1.0481, 1.1986) | 0.1192 | |
| Pinggu | 1.1248 (1.0496, 1.2061) | 1.1299 (1.0515, 1.2153) | 0.4590 | |
| Miyun | 1.1429 (1.0563, 1.2385) | 1.1452 (1.0571, 1.2427) | 0.2026 | |
| Yanqing | 1.1509 (1.0592, 1.2530) | 1.1481 (1.0581, 1.2478) | 0.2499 | |
| Average value | 1.1875 | 1.1877 | 0.3843 | |
Notes: “Results 1” means the health risk results calculated based on the PM10 inversion of remote sensing, “Results 2” represents the health risk assessment results based on thermal environment. Variance ratio (%) = |TRa − TRb|/TRa × 100.