2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2018.06.030
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation of ultrahigh resolution PM2.5 concentrations in urban areas using 160 m Gaofen-1 AOD retrievals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

2
32
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 72 publications
2
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It was also found that the average AOD levels always rose after interpolation, irrespective of the interpolating method used. This is consistent with the phenomenon that missing more frequently occurs at high MODIS-AOD levels [52,53]. The aerosol hygroscopic growth during missing days results from increased humidity from cloud or humid airflows [54,55].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…It was also found that the average AOD levels always rose after interpolation, irrespective of the interpolating method used. This is consistent with the phenomenon that missing more frequently occurs at high MODIS-AOD levels [52,53]. The aerosol hygroscopic growth during missing days results from increased humidity from cloud or humid airflows [54,55].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 80%
“…Aerosol optical depth (AOD) data retrieved through satellite data inversion are highly correlated with ground PM2.5 concentration so as to achieve continuous spatial monitoring. us, it has been extensively applied in estimating the ground PM2.5 concentration and further reveals the spatiotemporal variation of PM2.5 concentration in urban landscape [11][12][13][14]. Although airborne remote sensing can provide AOD data with higher spatial resolution and continuous spatial coverage, PM2.5 monitoring at ground platforms can provide results with greater accuracy [15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although in situ PM2.5 concentration data have played critical roles in improving our understanding of regional air quality variations and relevant influential factors (Yang D. et al, 2018;Yang Q. et al, 2019;Zheng et al, 2017), little concern was raised to the quality of such dataset itself (Bai et al, 2019a(Bai et al, , 2019cHe and Huang, 2018;Zhang et al, 2019Zhang et al, , 2018Zou et al, 2016). Meanwhile, few studies provided a detailed description of the accuracy or bias level (uncertainty) of the observed PM2.5 data in recent years (You et al, 2016;Guo et al, 2017;Shen et al, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%