Table 3.
N | Study | Area | Period | Aim | Pollutant | Monitoring designa | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non- stationary | Stationary short-term | Long-termb | Short-term rotating | Short-term snapshot | |||||||
1 | Simon 2017 | Boston and Chelsea, US | 2011–2015 | Data exploration | PNC | Spatial | 40 and 6 km2 in each of 2 cities | 1 central site per city | 20 homes | ||
Temporal | 3–6 hr at 5:00–21:00 on 42–46 days, wkday/wknd, 2011–2015 | 2–11 sites for 6 wks in 2012–2014 | |||||||||
2 | Li 2019 c | Pittsburgh, US | 2016–2017 | Data exploration | PNC, PM2.5, PM1, CO, NO2 | Spatial | All public roads within 8 1 -km2 areas | 10 sites | |||
3 | Blanco 2021d | Puget Sound, US | 2019–2020 | Data exploration, model development | PNC, PM2.5,BC, CO, CO2, NO2 | Spatial | 9 fixed routes (1,069 total km) | 309 2-min locations | |||
Temporal | 4–8 hr at 5:00–23:00 on 288 days, wkday/wknd, 2019–2020 | ||||||||||
4 | Saha 2021 c | Continental US | 2016–2017 | Model development | PNC | Spatial | Every street in multiple neighborhoods in 3 cities, summarized on a 1 km2 grid | 15 rural, 19 urban, and 4 near-airport sites e | |||
Temporal | 7–20 days in summer/fall, 2017–2019 | 1–12 mths for 2009–2019 | |||||||||
5 | Kerckhoffs 2016 c | Amsterdam and Rotterdam, Netherlands | 2013 | Model development | PNC, BC | Spatial | 2,964 road segments | 161 30-min locations | 1 site in Utrecht | ||
Temporal | 9:00–16:00 on 42 days in two seasons in 2013f | ||||||||||
6 | Kerckhoffs 2017 c,g | Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Utrecht, Netherlands | 2014–2015 | Model development | PNC, BC | Spatial | 5,236 road segments in 3 cities | 240 30-min parked locations | 1 site in Utrecht | 42 homes | |
Temporal | 9:00–16:00, 84 days in two seasons in 2014–2015f | 24-hr3 seasonsin2014–2015 | |||||||||
7 | Kerckhoffs 2021 c,g | Netherlands | 2016–2017 | Model development | PNC | Spatial | 14,392 road segments in 5 major cities and multiple towns | 400 repeated 30-min parked locations | 42 homes (H)e,h,i
20 background sites (B)e,h,i |
||
Temporal | 9:15–16:00, for 14 mths in 2016–2017f | 24-hr 3 seasons in 2014–2015 (H) 2-wk 3 seasons in 2016–2017 (B) |
Additional information is presented in Table S2
- – One central site per city in Simon et al. 2017, Kerckhoffs et al. 2016, and Kerckhoffs et al. 2017 (gray cells in the table) was not considered as non-mobile long-term monitoring because the aim of this monitoring was limited to temporal adjustment.
- – Kerckhoffs et al 2021 defined 20 regional background sites as long-term sites, but we considered these as non-mobile short-term rotating or snapshot monitoring because they only collected three 2-wk samples during the study period.
- – 8 out of 10 sites in Li et al. 2019 had 2–3 month data which may not be considered as non-mobile long-term monitoring.
- – 16 out of 38 sites in Saha et al. 2021 had 1–3 month data which may not be considered as non-mobile long-term monitoring.
Li et al. 2016 and Saha et al. 2021, as well as Kerckhoffs et al. 2016, Kerckhoffs et al. 2017, and Kerckhoffs et al. 2021 used overlapping data
Although both stationary and non-stationary mobile monitoring campaign were conducted, stationary data were used for exploration and model development.
Monitoring data were not obtained by the papers but obtained from other previous studies (dark gray cells in the table)
- – 38 sites in Saha et al. 2021 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and other field campaigns
- – 42 homes in Kerckhoofs et al. 2017 from van Nunen et al. 2017
- – 20 background sites in Kerckhoffs et al. 2021 from Beek et al. 2020
Mobile non-stationary data used only for model development and all the other types of monitoring data used for model evaluation or temporal adjustment
Not clear about whether these non-mobile monitoring is rotating or snapshot campaigns based on the description in the paper
Monitoring data used for model evaluation only and not for model development