Submitted:
11 March 2025
Posted:
13 March 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
This review explores advanced sensing technologies and Deep Learning (DL) methodologies for monitoring airborne particulate matter (PM), critical for environmental health assessment. It begins with discussing the significance of PM monitoring and introduces surface plasmon resonance (SPR) as a promising technique in environmental applications, alongside the role of DL neural networks in enhancing these technologies. This review analyzes advancements in airborne PM sensing technologies and the integration of DL methodologies for environmental monitoring. The review emphasizes the importance of PM monitoring for public health, environmental policy, and scientific research. Traditional PM sensing methods, including their principles, advantages, and limitations, are discussed, covering gravimetric techniques, continuous monitoring, optical and electrical methods, and microscopy. The integration of DL with PM sensing offers potential for enhancing monitoring accuracy, efficiency, and data interpretation. DL techniques such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs), autoencoders, recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and their variants, are examined for applications like PM estimation from satellite data, air quality prediction, and sensor calibration. The review highlights data acquisition and quality challenges in developing effective DL models for air quality monitoring. Techniques for handling large and noisy datasets are explored, emphasizing the importance of data quality for model performance, generalizability, and interpretability. The emergence of low-cost sensor technologies and hybrid systems for PM monitoring is discussed, acknowledging their promise while recognizing the need for addressing data quality, standardization, and integration issues. The review identifies areas for future research, including the development of robust DL models, advanced data fusion techniques, applications of deep reinforcement learning, and considerations of ethical implications.
Keywords:
1. Introduction:
2. Airborne Particulate Mater Sensing:
2.1 Traditional methods of measuring airborne PM, and their limitations and challenges
2.1.1. Gravimetric Methods
2.1.2. Continuous monitoring methods
2.1.3. Optical methods
2.1.4. Electrical Methods:
2.1.5. Microscopy methods
2.1.6. Chemical Analysis Methods
2.1.7. Remote Sensing Methods
2.1.8. Emerging Low-Cost Sensor Technologies
2.1.9. Hybrid and Multi-sensor Systems
2.2. Significance of Accurate PM sensing for Air Quality Assessment
3. Deep Learning in Environmental Sensing:
3.1. Data Processing and Feature Extraction
| Technique | Application | Key Parameters | Results | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBN | Estimating regional ground-level PM2.5 directly from satellite TOA reflectance | Satellite top-of-atmosphere (TOA) reflectance | The TOA-reflectance-derived PM2.5 has a finer resolution and a larger spatial coverage than the AOD-derived PM2.5. The deep learning-based model achieved state-of-the-art performance in estimating ground PM2.5 over the Wuhan Urban Agglomeration. | [103] |
| GC-LSTM, LSTM | Hourly PM2.5 concentration forecasting | Historical air quality variables, meteorological factors, spatial terms, and temporal attributes | The R2 value for 72-hour predictions using GC-LSTM was 0.72, compared to 0.13 using MLR. The GC-LSTM model outperformed other models, highlighting the importance of considering spatial and temporal dependency in forecasting PM2.5 concentrations. It also performed well in predicting over-standard PM2.5 concentrations. | [104] |
| CNN | Multi-hour and multi-site air quality index forecasting in Beijing | Hourly measurements of six air pollutants (SO2, NO2, CO, O3, PM10, and PM2.5) and seven meteorological parameters (temperature, pressure, dew point, wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, and relative humidity) from 12 monitoring stations in Beijing. | For overall forecasting, the CNN-LSTM model obtained an RMSE of 35.57 and an IA of 0.95, ranking as the best model. For spatial clustering-based forecasting, the CNN generally performed better than the other three models in terms of RMSE. | [105] |
| Convolutional Denoising Autoencoder | Imputation of missing values in air quality data | Hourly measurements of different pollutants from multiple monitoring stations. The study considered 8 hours of data as input (temporal characteristic) from the target station and three neighboring stations (spatial characteristic), resulting in an input size of 8 x 4. | The model achieved satisfying imputation results with R2 ≥ 0.6, even when data in the target station was entirely missing. Imputation performance decreased when correlations among stations were weak. The proposed model improved the average rate of improvement on RMSE (RIR) up to 65% compared to univariate imputation techniques and between 20% and 40% compared to multivariate techniques. | [106] |
| Deep Recurrent Neural Network (DRNN) | Predicting PM2.5 concentration levels in Japan | Hourly measurements of PM2.5 concentrations, wind speed, wind direction, temperature, illuminance, humidity, and rain. The model used data from the target city and the three closest capital cities, considering 48 hours of past values as input. | The DRNN model with dynamic pre-training (DynPT) outperformed a canonical autoencoder (CanAE) and a denoising autoencoder (DenAE) in terms of RMSE. It also achieved better performance than the existing PM2.5 prediction system VENUS, with an F-measure of 0.615 compared to 0.567 for VENUS. Using elastic net for sensor selection, the model could filter out unnecessary sensors (on average 2.1 sensors per city) without compromising prediction accuracy. | [107] |
| CNNs with transfer learning, data augmentation, and CGANs. | Air pollution prediction based on images from stationary cameras | Images from a stationary camera, weather data (weather description, precipitation, humidity, visibility). The study considered images labeled based on PM2.5 sensor data according to six AQI categories and a binary classification (polluted vs. non-polluted). | The custom pre-trained inception model, with CGAN data augmentation, obtained the best performance, achieving an accuracy of 0.896 on the training set and 0.763 on the testing set for binary classification. | [108] |
| Conditional U-Net | Emulating CMAQ simulations for PM2.5 concentration prediction and health impact assessment in South Korea | Precursor emission activities (NO2, SO2, NH3, VOC, PM2.5) from 17 regions in South Korea and boundary conditions. | The model achieved high accuracy in emulating CMAQ results, with a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.221 µg/m3, a normalized MAE (NMAE) of 1.762%, and a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.996. It also showed a significant reduction in computational time, requiring only 1 ms per scenario on a GPU compared to approximately 24 hours for a single CMAQ simulation. | [109] |
| LSTM | Air pollutant concentration prediction | Hourly data of SO2, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, CO, O3, and AQI, along with nine meteorological factors, from 10 cities across China. | For the prediction of PM2.5 concentration in the next hour, the LSTM model achieved an RMSE of 1.11 and an MAE of 0.66. | [110] |
3.2. Temporal and Sequential Analysis
| Technique | Application | Key Parameters | Results | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-tuning Spatio-temporal Neural Network (ST2NN) | Air Quality Index (AQI) prediction | Hourly concentration data of six major air pollutants and meteorological data collected at 12 monitoring stations in Beijing, China from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2017. | Across all four evaluation indexes, ST2NN outperformed the comparative models, improving prediction accuracy by 0.51%-10.18% (measured using R2). ST2NN achieved an R2 of 0.985, MSE of 2.357, RMSE of 1.467, and MAE of 1.132. | [115] |
| Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) | Hourly PM2.5 concentration prediction in Shenyang, China. | Hourly data of PM2.5, CO, NO, NO2, NOx, SO2, O3, PM10, factory emissions (particles, SO2, NOx, benchmark gas flow), meteorological data (atmospheric pressure, temperature, humidity, wind direction, wind speed), and temporal dummy variables (monthly, daily, hourly) from 11 monitoring sites and 187 plants in Shenyang, China. Data covers the winter seasons from 2015 to 2017. The model incorporated spatial information through convolutional processing of nearby pollutant measurements and factory emissions. | The GRU-based model with convolutional processing achieved the best performance compared to baseline models (MLR, RF, SVM, ANN, traditional RNN, LSTM), with an MAE of 4.6147, MSE of 15.7878, and MAPE of 6.29%. The inclusion of both air quality and emission convolutional variables significantly improved the model's accuracy. Optimal performance was observed when using a dynamic time panel length (T) of 3, indicating the importance of considering historical data from the previous three hours for prediction. | [116] |
| Graph Long Short-Term Memory with Multi-Head Attention (GLSTMMA) | Hourly air pollutant concentration prediction. | Hourly data of PM2.5, PM10, NO2, O3, SO2, CO, and AQI, along with seven meteorological factors and 12 categories of Point of Interest (POI) data, from 8 state-controlled stations in Qinghai Province, China from 2019 to 2021. | The GLSTMMA model outperformed baseline models (Static, HA, VAR, LSTM, GRU, CNN-LSTM) across various prediction horizons (3, 6, 12, and 24 hours). For instance, for PM2.5 prediction at a 3-hour horizon, GLSTMMA achieved an MAE of 4.48, RMSE of 7.51, and MAPE of 34.44%. The model effectively leveraged spatial correlations between monitoring stations and temporal dependencies within the time series data, leading to improved prediction accuracy. | [117] |
| Hybrid CNN-LSTM | Daily PM2.5 concentration prediction in Beijing, China. | Hourly data of PM2.5 concentration, dew point, temperature, atmospheric pressure, combined wind direction, cumulated wind speed, and cumulated hours of snow and rain from the US Embassy in Beijing and the Beijing Capital International Airport. The data covers a period with a total of 43800 records. The model uses the previous 7 days of data to predict the PM2.5 concentration of the next day. | The multivariate CNN-LSTM model achieved the best performance compared to univariate LSTM, multivariate LSTM, and univariate CNN-LSTM models. It had an MAE of 13.9697 and RMSE of 17.9306. The model also had a shorter training time of 50-60 seconds per epoch, compared to 90-100 seconds for the other models. | [118] |
| LSTM-Attention, n-step Attention-based Air Quality Predictor (n-step AAQP) | Hourly PM2.5 concentration prediction in Beijing, China. | Hourly data of SO2, CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5, PM10, precipitation, humidity, temperature, wind force, and wind direction. Data from April 2017 to February 2018 was used for training, and data from March 1 to March 7, 2018 was used for testing. The model uses the previous 24 hours of air quality and weather data to predict the PM2.5 concentration for the subsequent 24 hours. | The 12-step AAQP (LSTM) achieved the best performance at the Olympic Center station with an MAE of 14.96 and R2 of 0.85. The 12-step AAQP (GRU) performed best at the Dongsi station with an MAE of 26.49 and R2 of 0.63. The n-step AAQP outperformed other models, including ANN, SVM, GRU, LSTM, seq2seq, seq2seq-mean, and seq2seq-attention. The study also found that using a fully connected encoder with position embedding significantly reduced training time while maintaining accuracy. | [119] |
| VMD–GAT–BiLSTM | Hourly PM2.5 concentration prediction in Beijing, China | Hourly air quality data from 30 monitoring stations in Beijing, China, from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2020. The data included PM2.5, PM10, CO, O3, and NO2, as well as meteorological factors (temperature, dew point, air pressure, precipitation, wind speed) and timestamps. The VMD module decomposed the data into 6 sub-sequences, and the GAT module used 2 graph attention layers. | The VMD-GAT-BiLSTM model outperformed baseline models, including GRU, BiLSTM, CNN-LSTM, Transformer, (Graph Convolutional Networks) GCN-LSTM, and STGCN, on both short-term (1 to 24 hours) and long-term (up to 48 hours) predictions. The study also found that the VMD module significantly improved performance compared to using EMD or no decomposition. | [120] |
3.3. Advanced Learning Paradigms
3.4. Spatial and Relational Analysis
3.5. Ensemble and Multi-Source Integration
| Technique | Application | Architecture | Key Parameters | Performance Metrics | Reference |
| Hybrid | PM2.5 forecasting | CNN-LSTM | 3 CNN layers, 2 LSTM layers | RMSE: 7.5 μg/m³, R²: 0.92 | [147] |
| Hybrid | PM2.5 prediction | OR-ELM-AR model | Online recurrent extreme learning machine, autoregressive model | R²: 0.85, RMSE: 12.3 μg/m³ | [148] |
| DL | PM2.5 prediction | CNN-LSTM-MLP hybrid model | Weighted LSTM extended model (WLSTME) | RMSE: 8.216 μg/m³, R²: 0.91 | [149] |
| Hybrid | PM2.5 prediction | Graph Convolutional Network with LSTM | 3 graph conv layers, 1 LSTM layer, 64 hidden units | MAE: 8.7 μg/m³, R²: 0.86 | [104] |
| Hybrid Ensemble | PM2.5 and PM10 forecasting | CNN with spatial-temporal attention and residual learning | Multi-step ahead forecasting system | R² > 0.90 for both PM2.5 and PM10 | [150] |
| Deep Fusion | Air quality prediction | Deep distributed fusion network | Spatial transformation component, neural distributed architecture | Improved accuracy over 10 baseline methods | [145] |
| Hybrid | Air pollution prediction | Spatiotemporal convolutional LSTM | 2 LSTM layers, 128 hidden units, spatiotemporal conv layers | MAPE: 11.93%, R²: 0.86 | [124] |
| Siamese Network | Land cover change detection | Siamese CNN | Shared weights across twin networks | Overall Accuracy: 92% | [146] |
4. Integration of DL with Airborne PM Sensing
5. Data Acquisition and use of synthetic data for Air Quality Monitoring
5.1. Challenges in acquiring and pre-processing data from airborne PM sensors
5.2. Techniques for handling noisy and large datasets
5.2.1. Noise Reduction Algorithms
5.2.2. Dimensionality Reduction
5.2.3. Data Augmentation:
5.2.4. Transfer Learning:
5.2.5. Ensemble Methods
5.2.6. Adaptive Sampling Techniques:
5.2.7. Distributed Computing:
5.3. Importance of data quality for effective DL models
5.3.1. Model Performance
5.3.2. Generalizability
5.3.3. Interpretability
5.3.4. Robustness to Outliers:
5.3.5. Temporal Consistency
5.3.6. Spatial Representativeness and Multi-source Data Integration
6. Conclusion:
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Organization, W.H. ; Air quality guidelines: global update 2005: particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. 2006: World Health Organization.
- Read, R.; Briefs, C.B.; Cases, C.C.C. 2023) Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 88 Fed. Reg. 5558 (Jan. 27, 2023) Copy Cite. Federal Register.
- Di, Q.; Wang, Y.; Zanobetti, A.; Wang, Y.; Koutrakis, P.; Choirat, C.; Schwartz, J.D. Air pollution and mortality in the Medicare population. New Engl. J. Med. 2017, 376, 2513–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Power, M.C.; Adar, S.D.; Yanosky, J.D.; Weuve, J. Exposure to air pollution as a potential contributor to cognitive function, cognitive decline, brain imaging, and dementia: a systematic review of epidemiologic research. Neurotoxicology 2016, 56, 235–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boucher, O.; Randall, D.; Artaxo, P.; Bretherton, C.; Feingold, G.; Forster, P.; Lohmann, U. 2013) Clouds and aerosols, in Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press. p. 571-657.
- Das, S.; Pal, D.; Sarkar, A. Particulate matter pollution and global agricultural productivity. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 50: Emerging Contaminants in Agriculture 2021, p. 79-107.
- Sridharan, S.; Kumar, M.; Singh, L.; Bolan, N.S.; Saha, M. Microplastics as an emerging source of particulate air pollution: A critical review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 418, 126245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, R.J.; Jacob, D.J.; Kumar, N.; Yantosca, R.M. Regional visibility statistics in the United States: Natural and transboundary pollution influences, and implications for the Regional Haze Rule. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 5405–5423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- <i>9. </i>M. Abraczinskas, J. M. Abraczinskas, J. Meyers, and J. Sloan, Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard. .
- Liang, L.; Daniels, J.; Bailey, C.; Hu, L.; Phillips, R.; South, J. Integrating low-cost sensor monitoring, satellite mapping, and geospatial artificial intelligence for intra-urban air pollution predictions. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 331, 121832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capelli, D.; Scognamiglio, V.; Montanari, R. Surface plasmon resonance technology: Recent advances, applications and experimental cases. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 2023, 163, 117079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Liu, C.; Wang, J.; Lv, J.; Lv, Y.; Yang, L.; Hu, C. Surface plasmon resonance sensor composed of microstructured optical fibers for monitoring of external and internal environments in biological and environmental sensing. Results Phys. 2023, 47, 106365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aloisi, A.; Della Torre, A.; De Benedetto, A.; Rinaldi, R. Bio-recognition in spectroscopy-based biosensors for* heavy metals-water and waterborne contamination analysis. Biosensors 2019, 9, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljbar, N.A.; Mahdi, B.R.; Khalid, A.H.; Attallah, A.H.; Abdulwahid, F.S.; Haider, A.J. Enhanced surface plasmon resonance (SPR) fiber optic sensor for environmental monitoring: a coreless fiber–based design. Plasmonics 2024, p. 1-10.
- Tan, J.; Dai, Z.; Zhou, K.; Zhang, L.; He, M.; Tan, Y.; Zhou, X. An ultrasensitive and universal surface plasmonic biosensor for detection of micropollutants in aquatic environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 57, 8313–8322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geng, Z.; Zhang, X.; Fan, Z.; Lv, X.; Su, Y.; Chen, H. Recent progress in optical biosensors based on smartphone platforms. Sensors 2017, 17, 2449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Lowenthal, D.H.; Chen, L.-W.A.; Magliano, K.L. Particulate carbon measurements in California’s San Joaquin valley. Chemosphere 2006, 62, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Solomon, P.A.; Crumpler, D.; Flanagan, J.B.; Jayanty, R.; Rickman, E.E.; McDade, C.E. US national PM2. 5 chemical speciation monitoring networks—CSN and IMPROVE: description of networks. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2014, 64, 1410–1438. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Brouwer, D.; van Duuren-Stuurman, B.; Berges, M.; Jankowska, E.; Bard, D.; Mark, D. From workplace air measurement results toward estimates of exposure? Development of a strategy to assess exposure to manufactured nano-objects. J. Nanoparticle Res. 2009, 11, 1867–1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marple, V.A.; Rubow, K.L.; Behm, S.M. A microorifice uniform deposit impactor (MOUDI): Description, calibration, and use. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 1991, 14, 434–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sioutas, C.; Koutrakis, P.; Burton, R. Development of a low cutpoint slit virtual impactor for sampling ambient fine particles. J. Aerosol Sci. 1994, 25, 1321–1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cass, G.R.; Hughes, L.A.; Bhave, P.; Kleeman, M.J.; Allen, J.O.; Salmon, L.G. The chemical composition of atmospheric ultrafine particles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Ser. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2000, 358, 2581–2592. [Google Scholar]
- Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Park, K.; Robinson, N.F.; Lowenthal, D.H.; Park, K.; Magliano, K.A. Comparison of particle light scattering and fine particulate matter mass in central California. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2006, 56, 398–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecchi, R.; Valli, G.; Fermo, P.; A. D'Alessandro; Piazzalunga, A.; Bernardoni, V. Organic and inorganic sampling artefacts assessment. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 1713–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, W.; Chow, J.C.; Claiborn, C.; Fusheng, W.; Engelbrecht, J.; Watson, J.G. Monitoring of particulate matter outdoors. Chemosphere 2002, 49, 1009–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amaral, S.S.; de Carvalho Jr, J.A.; Costa, M.A.M.; Pinheiro, C. An overview of particulate matter measurement instruments. Atmosphere 2015, 6, 1327–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Li, C.; Zhang, C.; Liu, X.; Qu, Y.; An, J.; Tan, Q. Chemical characteristics, source apportionment, and regional contribution of PM2. 5 in Zhangjiakou, Northern China: A multiple sampling sites observation and modeling perspective. Environ. Adv. 2021, 3, 100034. [Google Scholar]
- Su, Y.; Sofowote, U.; Debosz, J.; White, L.; Munoz, A. Multi-year continuous PM2. 5 measurements with the Federal Equivalent Method SHARP 5030 and comparisons to filter-based and TEOM measurements in Ontario, Canada. Atmosphere 2018, 9, 191. [Google Scholar]
- Tariq, H.; Touati, F.; Crescini, D.; Mnaouer, A.B. 2023) A Review of State-of-the-Art Low-Cost Sensors for Detection of Indoor Air Pollutants that Correlate with Health.
- Jayaratne, R.; Kuhn, T.; Christensen, B.; Liu, X.; Zing, I.; Lamont, R.; Morawska, L. Using a network of low-cost particle sensors to assess the impact of ship emissions on a residential community. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020, 20, 2754–2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, R.; Nagori, A.; Madan, K.; Lodha, R.; Kabra, S. Short-term exposure to air pollution and emergency room visits for acute respiratory symptoms among adults. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2023, 27, 761–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schweizer, D.; Cisneros, R.; Shaw, G. A comparative analysis of temporary and permanent beta attenuation monitors: The importance of understanding data and equipment limitations when creating PM2. 5 air quality health advisories. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2016, 7, 865–875. [Google Scholar]
- Grover, B.D.; Kleinman, M.; Eatough, N.L.; Eatough, D.J.; Hopke, P.K.; Long, R.W.; Ambs, J.L. Measurement of total PM2. 5 mass (nonvolatile plus semivolatile) with the Filter Dynamic Measurement System tapered element oscillating microbalance monitor. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 2005, 110.
- Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Jing, H.; Zhang, Q.; Jiang, J.; Biswas, P. Laboratory evaluation and calibration of three low-cost particle sensors for particulate matter measurement. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 1063–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuula, J.; Mäkelä, T.; Aurela, M.; Teinilä, K.; Varjonen, S.; González, Ó.; Timonen, H. Laboratory evaluation of particle-size selectivity of optical low-cost particulate matter sensors. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2020, 13, 2413–2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magi, B.I.; Cupini, C.; Francis, J.; Green, M.; Hauser, C. Evaluation of PM2. 5 measured in an urban setting using a low-cost optical particle counter and a Federal Equivalent Method Beta Attenuation Monitor. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malings, C.; Tanzer, R.; Hauryliuk, A.; Saha, P.K.; Robinson, A.L.; Presto, A.A.; Subramanian, R. Fine particle mass monitoring with low-cost sensors: Corrections and long-term performance evaluation. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 160–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drinovec, L.; Močnik, G.; Zotter, P.; Prévôt, A.; Ruckstuhl, C.; Coz, E.; Wiedensohler, A. The" dual-spot" Aethalometer: an improved measurement of aerosol black carbon with real-time loading compensation. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2015, 8, 1965–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crilley, L.R.; Shaw, M.; Pound, R.; Kramer, L.J.; Price, R.; Young, S.; Pope, F.D. Evaluation of a low-cost optical particle counter (Alphasense OPC-N2) for ambient air monitoring. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2018, 11, 709–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, T.; Bergin, M.H.; Johnson, K.K.; Tripathi, S.N.; Shirodkar, S.; Landis, M.S.; Carlson, D.E. Field evaluation of low-cost particulate matter sensors in high-and low-concentration environments. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2018, 11, 4823–4846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfano, B.; Barretta, L.; Del Giudice, A.; De Vito, S.; Di Francia, G.; Esposito, E.; Polichetti, T. A review of low-cost particulate matter sensors from the developers’ perspectives. Sensors 2020, 20, 6819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.; Kim, D.; Cho, Y.; Kim, E.; Liu, P.; Kwak, D.-B.; Kim, T. Application of an Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI) for Residual Particle Measurement in an Epitaxial Growth Reactor. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rissler, J.; Nordin, E.Z.; Eriksson, A.C.; Nilsson, P.T.; Frosch, M.; Sporre, M.K.; Messing, M.E. Effective density and mixing state of aerosol particles in a near-traffic urban environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 6300–6308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sowlat, M.H.; Hasheminassab, S.; Sioutas, C. Source apportionment of ambient particle number concentrations in central Los Angeles using positive matrix factorization (PMF). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016, 16, 4849–4866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, E.; Prenni, A.; Palm, B.; Day, D.; Campuzano-Jost, P.; Winkler, P.; Smith, J. Size-resolved aerosol composition and its link to hygroscopicity at a forested site in Colorado. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 2657–2667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmerman, N.; Pollitt, K.J.G.; Jeong, C.-H.; Wang, J.M.; Jung, T.; Cooper, J.M.; Evans, G.J. Comparison of three nanoparticle sizing instruments: The influence of particle morphology. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 86, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonseca, A.S.; Viana, M.; Pérez, N.; Alastuey, A.; Querol, X.; Kaminski, H.; Asbach, C. Intercomparison of a portable and two stationary mobility particle sizers for nanoscale aerosol measurements. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 653–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levin, M.; Gudmundsson, A.; Pagels, J.; Fierz, M.; Mølhave, K.; Löndahl, J.; Koponen, I.K. Limitations in the use of unipolar charging for electrical mobility sizing instruments: A study of the fast mobility particle sizer. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 556–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmid, O.; Trueblood, M.; Gregg, N.; Hagen, D.; Whitefield, P. Sizing of aerosol in gases other than air using a differential mobility analyzer. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Z.; Poulain, L.; Henning, S.; Dieckmann, K.; Birmili, W.; Merkel, M.; Stratmann, F. Relating particle hygroscopicity and CCN activity to chemical composition during the HCCT-2010 field campaign. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, 7983–7996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Y.; Ji, Y.; Sun, H.; Hui, F.; Hu, J.; Wu, Y.; Duan, H. Nanoscale characterization of PM2. 5 airborne pollutants reveals high adhesiveness and aggregation capability of soot particles. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11232. [Google Scholar]
- Shao, L.; Liu, P.; Jones, T.; Yang, S.; Wang, W.; Zhang, D.; Hou, C. A review of atmospheric individual particle analyses: Methodologies and applications in environmental research. Gondwana Res. 2022, 110, 347–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sielicki, P.; Janik, H.; Guzman, A.; Namieśnik, J. The progress in electron microscopy studies of particulate matters to be used as a standard monitoring method for air dust pollution. Crit. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2011, 41, 314–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laskin, A.; Gilles, M.K.; Knopf, D.A.; Wang, B.; China, S. Progress in the analysis of complex atmospheric particles. Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2016, 9, 117–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ault, A.P.; Axson, J.L. Atmospheric aerosol chemistry: Spectroscopic and microscopic advances. Anal. Chem. 2017, 89, 430–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Variola, F. Atomic force microscopy in biomaterials surface science. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2015, 17, 2950–2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laskin, J.; Laskin, A.; Nizkorodov, S.A. Mass spectrometry analysis in atmospheric chemistry. Anal. Chem. 2018, 90, 166–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yatkin, S.; Gerboles, M.; Borowiak, A. Evaluation of standardless EDXRF analysis for the determination of elements on PM10 loaded filters. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 54, 568–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Correa, M.A.; Franco, S.A.; Gómez, L.M.; Aguiar, D.; Colorado, H.A. Characterization methods of ions and metals in particulate matter pollutants on PM2. 5 and PM10 samples from several emission sources. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, N.R.; Lee, J.Y.; Ahn, Y.G.; Kim, Y.P. Determination of atmospheric amines at Seoul, South Korea via gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Chemosphere 2020, 258, 127367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feng, H.; Ye, X.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Gao, T.; Cheng, A.; Chen, J. Simultaneous determination of nine atmospheric amines and six inorganic ions by non-suppressed ion chromatography using acetonitrile and 18-crown-6 as eluent additive. J. Chromatogr. A 2020, 1624, 461234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, R.J.; Edwards, P.R. Measurement of anions in ambient particulate matter by ion chromatography: a novel sample preparation technique and development of a generic uncertainty budget. Talanta 2009, 80, 1020–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canepari, S.; Astolfi, M.L.; Farao, C.; Maretto, M.; Frasca, D.; Marcoccia, M.; Perrino, C. Seasonal variations in the chemical composition of particulate matter: a case study in the Po Valley. Part II: concentration and solubility of micro-and trace-elements. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 4010–4022. [Google Scholar]
- Hallquist, M.; Wenger, J.C.; Baltensperger, U.; Rudich, Y.; Simpson, D.; Claeys, M.; Goldstein, A. The formation, properties and impact of secondary organic aerosol: current and emerging issues. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009, 9, 5155–5236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majestic, B.J.; Anbar, A.D.; Herckes, P. Elemental and iron isotopic composition of aerosols collected in a parking structure. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 5104–5109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuzzi, S.; Baltensperger, U.; Carslaw, K.; Decesari, S., H. Denier van der Gon, M.C. Facchini, U. Lohmann, ( Particulate matter, air quality and climate: lessons learned and future needs. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2015, 15, 8217–8299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soupiona, O.; Papayannis, A.; Kokkalis, P.; Foskinis, R.; Hernández, G.S.; Ortiz-Amezcua, P.; Samaras, S. EARLINET observations of Saharan dust intrusions over the northern Mediterranean region (2014–2017): properties and impact on radiative forcing. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 20, 15147–15166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browell, E.; Ismail, S.; Grant, W. Differential absorption lidar (DIAL) measurements from air and space. Appl. Phys. B 1998, 67, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyapustin, A.; Wang, Y.; Korkin, S.; Huang, D. MODIS collection 6 MAIAC algorithm. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2018, 11, 5741–5765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, J.; Li, Z.; Lyapustin, A.; Sun, L.; Peng, Y.; Xue, W.; Cribb, M. Reconstructing 1-km-resolution high-quality PM2. 5 data records from 2000 to 2018 in China: spatiotemporal variations and policy implications. Remote Sens. Environ. 2021, 252, 112136. [Google Scholar]
- Giles, D.M.; Sinyuk, A.; Sorokin, M.G.; Schafer, J.S.; Smirnov, A.; Slutsker, I.; Campbell, J.R. Advancements in the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) Version 3 database–automated near-real-time quality control algorithm with improved cloud screening for Sun photometer aerosol optical depth (AOD) measurements. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2019, 12, 169–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benavent-Oltra, J.A.; Casquero-Vera, J.A.; Román, R.; Lyamani, H.; Pérez-Ramírez, D.; Granados-Muñoz, M.J.; Ortiz-Amezcua, P. Overview of SLOPE I and II campaigns: Aerosol properties retrieved with lidar and sun-sky photometer measurements. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 2021, 2021, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siomos, N.; Fountoulakis, I.; Natsis, A.; Drosoglou, T.; Bais, A. Automated aerosol classification from spectral UV measurements using machine learning clustering. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toth, T.D.; Zhang, J.; Campbell, J.R.; Reid, J.S.; Shi, Y.; Johnson, R.S.; Winker, D.M. Investigating enhanced Aqua MODIS aerosol optical depth retrievals over the mid-to-high latitude Southern Oceans through intercomparison with co-located CALIOP, MAN, and AERONET data sets. J. Geophys. Res. : Atmos. 2013, 118, 4700–4714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, J.; Li, B.; Hong, J.; Liu, D.; Li, L. Remote sensing of atmospheric particulate mass of dry PM2. 5 near the ground: Method validation using ground-based measurements. Remote Sens. Environ. 2016, 173, 59–68. [Google Scholar]
- Wagner, P.; Schäfer, K. Influence of mixing layer height on air pollutant concentrations in an urban street canyon. Urban Clim. 2017, 22, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulot, F.M.; Johnston, S.J.; Basford, P.J.; Easton, N.H.; Apetroaie-Cristea, M.; Foster, G.L.; Loxham, M. Long-term field comparison of multiple low-cost particulate matter sensors in an outdoor urban environment. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castell, N.; Dauge, F.R.; Schneider, P.; Vogt, M.; Lerner, U.; Fishbain, B.; Bartonova, A. Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates? Environ. Int. 2017, 99, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karagulian, F.; Barbiere, M.; Kotsev, A.; Spinelle, L.; Gerboles, M.; Lagler, F.; Borowiak, A. Review of the performance of low-cost sensors for air quality monitoring. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morawska, L.; Thai, P.K.; Liu, X.; Asumadu-Sakyi, A.; Ayoko, G.; Bartonova, A.; Dunbabin, M. Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone? Environ. Int. 2018, 116, 286–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rai, A.C.; Kumar, P.; Pilla, F.; Skouloudis, A.N.; Di Sabatino, S.; Ratti, C.; Rickerby, D. End-user perspective of low-cost sensors for outdoor air pollution monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 607, 691–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Badura, M.; Batog, P.; Drzeniecka-Osiadacz, A.; Modzel, P. Evaluation of low-cost sensors for ambient PM2. 5 monitoring. J. Sens. 2018, 2018, 5096540. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, P.; Bartonova, A.; Castell, N.; Dauge, F.R.; Gerboles, M.; Hagler, G.S.; Lewis, A.C. , Toward a unified terminology of processing levels for low-cost air-quality sensors 2019, ACS Publications.
- Kosmopoulos, G.; Salamalikis, V.; Pandis, S.; Yannopoulos, P.; Bloutsos, A.; Kazantzidis, A. Low-cost sensors for measuring airborne particulate matter: Field evaluation and calibration at a South-Eastern European site. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 748, 141396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Concas, F.; Mineraud, J.; Lagerspetz, E.; Varjonen, S.; Liu, X.; Puolamäki, K.; Tarkoma, S. Low-cost outdoor air quality monitoring and sensor calibration: A survey and critical analysis. ACM Trans. Sens. Netw. (TOSN) 2021, 17, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousan, S.; Koehler, K.; Hallett, L.; Peters, T.M. Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter. J. Aerosol Sci. 2017, 107, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jayaratne, R.; Liu, X.; Thai, P.; Dunbabin, M.; Morawska, L. The influence of humidity on the performance of a low-cost air particle mass sensor and the effect of atmospheric fog. Atmospheric Meas. Tech. 2018, 11, 4883–4890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rybarczyk, Y.; Zalakeviciute, R. Machine learning approaches for outdoor air quality modelling: A systematic review. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- C. A. Pope III; Dockery, D.W. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2006, 56, 709–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Hoek, G. Long-term exposure to PM and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 2020, 143, 105974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brauer, M.; Amann, M.; Burnett, R.T.; Cohen, A.; Dentener, F.; Ezzati, M.; Van Dingenen, R. Exposure assessment for estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to outdoor air pollution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 652–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bachmann, J. Will the circle be unbroken: a history of the US National Ambient Air Quality Standards. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2007, 57, 652–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pinder, R.W.; Klopp, J.M.; Kleiman, G.; Hagler, G.S.; Awe, Y.; Terry, S. Opportunities and challenges for filling the air quality data gap in low-and middle-income countries. Atmos. Environ. 2019, 215, 116794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belis, C.; Karagulian, F.; Larsen, B.R.; Hopke, P. Critical review and meta-analysis of ambient particulate matter source apportionment using receptor models in Europe. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 69, 94–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, J.C. Measurement methods to determine compliance with ambient air quality standards for suspended particles. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 1995, 45, 320–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyder, E.G.; Watkins, T.H.; Solomon, P.A.; Thoma, E.D.; Williams, R.W.; Hagler, G.S.; Preuss, P.W. The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11369–11377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Donkelaar, A.; Martin, R.V.; Brauer, M.; Hsu, N.C.; Kahn, R.A.; Levy, R.C.; Winker, D.M. Global estimates of fine particulate matter using a combined geophysical-statistical method with information from satellites, models, and monitors. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 3762–3772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Carlson, B.E.; Lacis, A.A. Using single-scattering albedo spectral curvature to characterize East Asian aerosol mixtures. J. Geophys. Res. : Atmos. 2015, 120, 2037–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulmala, M.; Dada, L.; Daellenbach, K.R.; Yan, C.; Stolzenburg, D.; Kontkanen, J.; Kokkonen, T.V. Is reducing new particle formation a plausible solution to mitigate particulate air pollution in Beijing and other Chinese megacities? Faraday Discuss. 2021, 226, 334–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di, Q.; Amini, H.; Shi, L.; Kloog, I.; Silvern, R.; Kelly, J.; Lyapustin, A. An ensemble-based model of PM2. 5 concentration across the contiguous United States with high spatiotemporal resolution. Environ. Int. 2019, 130, 104909. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- LeCun, Y.; Bengio, Y.; Hinton, G. Deep learning. nature 2015, 521, 436–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reichstein, M.; Camps-Valls, G.; Stevens, B.; Jung, M.; Denzler, J.; Carvalhais, N.; Prabhat, F. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature 2019, 566, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shen, H.; Li, T.; Yuan, Q.; Zhang, L. Estimating regional ground-level PM2. 5 directly from satellite top-of-atmosphere reflectance using deep belief networks. J. Geophys. Res. : Atmos. 2018, 123, 13–875. [Google Scholar]
- Qi, Y.; Li, Q.; Karimian, H.; Liu, D. A hybrid model for spatiotemporal forecasting of PM2. 5 based on graph convolutional neural network and long short-term memory. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 664, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, R.; Liao, J.; Yang, J.; Sun, W.; Nong, M.; Li, F. Multi-hour and multi-site air quality index forecasting in Beijing using CNN, LSTM, CNN-LSTM, and spatiotemporal clustering. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 169, 114513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wardana, I.N.K.; Gardner, J.W.; Fahmy, S.A. Estimation of missing air pollutant data using a spatiotemporal convolutional autoencoder. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 34, 16129–16154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ong, B.T.; Sugiura, K.; Zettsu, K. Dynamically pre-trained deep recurrent neural networks using environmental monitoring data for predicting PM 2.5. Neural Comput. Appl. 2016, 27, 1553–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalajdjieski, J.; Zdravevski, E.; Corizzo, R.; Lameski, P.; Kalajdziski, S.; Pires, I.M.; Trajkovik, V. Air pollution prediction with multi-modal data and deep neural networks. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 4142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.; Park, J.; Kim, J.; Woo, J.-H.; Lee, J.-H. Rapid PM2. 5-Induced Health Impact Assessment: A Novel Approach Using Conditional U-Net CMAQ Surrogate Model. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 1186. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, B.; Rong, Y.; Yong, R.; Qin, D.; Li, M.; Zou, G.; Pan, J. Deep learning for air pollutant concentration prediction: A review. Atmos. Environ. 2022, 290, 119347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Sargent, I.; Pan, X.; Li, H.; Gardiner, A.; Hare, J.; Atkinson, P.M. Joint Deep Learning for land cover and land use classification. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 221, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riese, F.M.; Keller, S. Supervised, semi-supervised, and unsupervised learning for hyperspectral regression. Hyperspectral image analysis: Advances in machine learning and signal processing 2020, p. 187-232.
- Wieland, M.; Li, Y.; Martinis, S. Multi-sensor cloud and cloud shadow segmentation with a convolutional neural network. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 230, 111203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, S.; Ji, S.; Lu, M. Toward automatic building footprint delineation from aerial images using CNN and regularization. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 2019, 58, 2178–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Qi, Z.; Gao, L. Enhanced Air Quality Prediction through Spatio-temporal Feature Sxtraction and Fusion: A Self-tuning Hybrid Approach with GCN and GRU. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2024, 235, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, X.; Xu, W.; Jiang, H. Spatial-temporal prediction of air quality based on recurrent neural networks. 2019.
- Wang, Y.; Liu, K.; He, Y.; Wang, P.; Chen, Y.; Xue, H.; Li, L. Enhancing air quality forecasting: a novel spatio-temporal model integrating graph convolution and multi-head attention mechanism. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Hua, M.; Wu, X. A hybrid CNN-LSTM model for forecasting particulate matter (PM2. 5). Ieee Access 2020, 8, 26933–26940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, B.; Yan, S.; Li, J.; Qu, G.; Li, Y.; Lang, J.; Gu, R. A sequence-to-sequence air quality predictor based on the n-step recurrent prediction. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 43331–43345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Chen, Y.; He, L.; Ren, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, S. Air quality forecasting using a spatiotemporal hybrid deep learning model based on VMD–GAT–BiLSTM. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 17841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bianchi, F.M.; Maiorino, E.; Kampffmeyer, M.C.; Rizzi, A.; Jenssen, R. An overview and comparative analysis of recurrent neural networks for short term load forecasting. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1705.04378. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, J.; Deng, F.; Cai, Y.; Chen, J. Long short-term memory-Fully connected (LSTM-FC) neural network for PM2. 5 concentration prediction. Chemosphere 2019, 220, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Sønderby, C.K.; Espeholt, L.; Heek, J.; Dehghani, M.; Oliver, A.; Salimans, T.; Kalchbrenner, N. Metnet: A neural weather model for precipitation forecasting. arXiv arXiv:2003.12140, 2020.
- Wen, C.; Liu, S.; Yao, X.; Peng, L.; Li, X.; Hu, Y.; Chi, T. A novel spatiotemporal convolutional long short-term neural network for air pollution prediction. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 654, 1091–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peng, D.; Zhang, Y.; Guan, H. End-to-end change detection for high resolution satellite images using improved UNet++. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, Q.; Liu, F.; Li, Y.; Sidorov, D. Air pollution forecasting using a deep learning model based on 1D convnets and bidirectional GRU. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 76690–76698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant-Jacob, J.A.; Mills, B. Deep learning in airborne particulate matter sensing: A review. J. Phys. Commun. 2022, 6, 122001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohammed, A.F.; Sultan, S.M.; Cho, S.; Pyun, J.-Y. Powering UAV with deep Q-network for air quality tracking. Sensors 2022, 22, 6118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, K.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J.; Ren, F.; Xiao, L. A feature-supervised generative adversarial network for environmental monitoring during hazy days. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 748, 141445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, M.; Jean, N.; Burke, M.; Lobell, D. , and S. Ermon. Ermon. Transfer learning from deep features for remote sensing and poverty mapping. in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. 2016.
- Luis, S.Y.; Reina, D.G.; Marín, S.L.T. A deep reinforcement learning approach for the patrolling problem of water resources through autonomous surface vehicles: The ypacarai lake case. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 204076–204093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansfield, D.; Montazeri, A. A survey on autonomous environmental monitoring approaches: towards unifying active sensing and reinforcement learning. Front. Robot. AI 2024, 11, 1336612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Q.; Ma, X.; Cheng, B.; Zhou, E.; Pang, W. Gans-based data augmentation for citrus disease severity detection using deep learning. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 172882–172891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Njaime, M.; Abdallah, F.; Snoussi, H.; Akl, J.; Chaaban, K.; Omrani, H. Transfer learning based solution for air quality prediction in smart cities using multimodal data. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2024, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, T.; Wang, Y. , and Q. Zhu. Zhu. Deep reinforcement learning for building HVAC control. in Proceedings of the 54th annual design automation conference 2017. 2017.
- Sonawani, S.; Patil, K. Air quality measurement, prediction and warning using transfer learning based IOT system for ambient assisted living. Int. J. Pervasive Comput. Commun. 2024, 20, 38–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, W.; Shen, Y.; Zhu, Y. , and L. Huang. A neural attention model for urban air quality inference: Learning the weights of monitoring stations. in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, M.; Li, W.; Du, Q. Diverse region-based CNN for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2018, 27, 2623–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, S.; Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Meng, Q.; Meng, L. , and F. Gao. 5 forecasting. in Proceedings of the 28th international conference on advances in geographic information systems. 2020.
- Pan, R.; Liu, T.; Ma, L. A Graph Attention Recurrent Neural Network Model for PM2. 5 Prediction: A Case Study in China from 2015 to 2022. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, H.; Wu, M.; Yuan, L.; Hu, Y.; Gong, H. PM2. 5 prediction based on dynamic spatiotemporal graph neural network. Appl. Intell. 2024, 54, 11933–11948. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Z.; Wu, J.; Cai, F.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y.-G. A hybrid deep learning framework for air quality prediction with spatial autocorrelation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, V.-D. Spatiotemporal graph convolutional recurrent neural network model for citywide air pollution forecasting. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2304.12630. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Chen, L.; Tang, X.; Shi, H. DSGNN: A Dual-View Supergrid-Aware Graph Neural Network for Regional Air Quality Estimation. arXiv 2024, arXiv:2404.01975. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Z.; Li, T. , and Y. Zheng. Deep distributed fusion network for air quality prediction. in Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Hughes, L.H.; Schmitt, M.; Mou, L.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, X.X. Identifying corresponding patches in SAR and optical images with a pseudo-siamese CNN. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2018, 15, 784–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.-J.; Kuo, P.-H. A deep CNN-LSTM model for particulate matter (PM2. 5) forecasting in smart cities. Sensors 2018, 18, 2220. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, G.; Yu, E.; Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Cheng, D.; Huang, L.; Li, L. A novel hybrid machine learning method (OR-ELM-AR) used in forecast of PM2. 5 concentrations and its forecast performance evaluation. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 78. [Google Scholar]
- Xiao, F.; Yang, M.; Fan, H.; Fan, G.; Al-Qaness, M.A. An improved deep learning model for predicting daily PM2. 5 concentration. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, K.; Yang, X.; Cao, H.; Thé, J.; Tan, Z.; Yu, H. Multi-step forecast of PM2. 5 and PM10 concentrations using convolutional neural network integrated with spatial–temporal attention and residual learning. Environ. Int. 2023, 171, 107691. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, X.; Zang, Z.; Luo, N.; Jiang, Y.; Li, Z. New interpretable deep learning model to monitor real-time PM2. 5 concentrations from satellite data. Environ. Int. 2020, 144, 106060. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, P.; Ye, T.; Zhang, Y.; Xu, R.; Guo, Y. Applying traffic camera and deep learning-based image analysis to predict PM2. 5 concentrations. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, M.; Li, S.; Xing, J.; Fan, C.; Yang, J.; Wang, S.; Wang, S. 72-hour real-time forecasting of ambient PM2. 5 by hybrid graph deep neural network with aggregated neighborhood spatiotemporal information. Environ. Int. 2023, 176, 107971. [Google Scholar]
- Elbaz, K.; Shaban, W.M.; Zhou, A.; Shen, S.-L. Real time image-based air quality forecasts using a 3D-CNN approach with an attention mechanism. Chemosphere 2023, 333, 138867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, H.S.; Park, I.; Song, C.H.; Lee, K.; Yun, J.W.; Kim, H.K.; Han, K.M. Development of a daily PM 10 and PM 2. 5 prediction system using a deep long short-term memory neural network model. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 2019, 19, 12935–12951. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.-B.; Lee, J.-B.; Koo, Y.-S.; Kwon, H.-Y.; Choi, M.-H.; Park, H.-J.; Lee, D.-G. Development of a deep neural network for predicting 6 h average PM 2.5 concentrations up to 2 subsequent days using various training data. Geosci. Model Dev. 2022, 15, 3797–3813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qin, D.; Yu, J.; Zou, G.; Yong, R.; Zhao, Q.; Zhang, B. A novel combined prediction scheme based on CNN and LSTM for urban PM 2.5 concentration. Ieee Access 2019, 7, 20050–20059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, B.; Liu, M.; Li, S.; Jin, Z.; Zeng, Y.; Lin, X. Deep learning methods for atmospheric PM2. 5 prediction: A comparative study of transformer and CNN-LSTM-attention. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2023, 14, 101833. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, S.-S.; Song, W.-Y.; Kim, Y.-J. Intelligent PM 2.5 mass concentration analyzer using deep learning algorithm and improved density measurement chip for high-accuracy airborne particle sensor network. J. Aerosol Sci. 2023, 167, 106097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Go, T.; Lee, S.J. Volumetric monitoring of airborne particulate matter concentration using smartphone-based digital holographic microscopy and deep learning. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 418, 126351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Fu, F.; Tian, R. A deep learning and image-based model for air quality estimation. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 724, 138178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Shen, H.; Yuan, Q. , and L. Zhang. Deep learning for ground-level PM 2.5 prediction from satellite remote sensing data. In Proceedings of the IGARSS 2018-2018 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. 2018. IEEE. [Google Scholar]
- Zimmerman, N.; Presto, A.A.; Kumar, S.P.; Gu, J.; Hauryliuk, A.; Robinson, E.S.; Subramanian, R. A machine learning calibration model using random forests to improve sensor performance for lower-cost air quality monitoring. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2018, 11, 291–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Peng, L.; Yao, X.; Cui, S.; Hu, Y.; You, C.; Chi, T. Long short-term memory neural network for air pollutant concentration predictions: Method development and evaluation. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 997–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Shen, H.; Yuan, Q.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, L. Estimating ground-level PM2. 5 by fusing satellite and station observations: a geo-intelligent deep learning approach. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 11–985. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, J.E. Crowd-sourced air quality studies: A review of the literature & portable sensors. Trends Environ. Anal. Chem. 2016, 11, 23–34. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, X.; Li, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Hou, J.; Jin, L.; Wang, J. Artificial neural networks forecasting of PM2. 5 pollution using air mass trajectory based geographic model and wavelet transformation. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 107, 118–128. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Yin, J.; Zang, L.; Zhang, T.; Zhao, M. Stacking machine learning model for estimating hourly PM2. 5 in China based on Himawari 8 aerosol optical depth data. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 697, 134021. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, K.-Y.; Hsia, I.-W.; Kow, P.-Y.; Chang, L.-C.; Chang, F.-J. High-spatiotemporal-resolution PM2. 5 forecasting by hybrid deep learning models with ensembled massive heterogeneous monitoring data. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 433, 139825. [Google Scholar]
- Ni, J.; Chen, Y.; Gu, Y.; Fang, X.; Shi, P. An improved hybrid transfer learning-based deep learning model for PM2. 5 concentration prediction. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3597. [Google Scholar]
- Zhai, B.; Chen, J. Development of a stacked ensemble model for forecasting and analyzing daily average PM2. 5 concentrations in Beijing, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 644–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rachuri, K.K. , Smartphones based social sensing: Adaptive sampling, sensing and computation offloading 2013, University of Cambridge.
- Haut, J.M.; Paoletti, M.E.; Moreno-Álvarez, S.; Plaza, J.; Rico-Gallego, J.-A.; Plaza, A. Distributed deep learning for remote sensing data interpretation. Proc. IEEE 2021, 109, 1320–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Hu, B.; Huang, B.; Ma, Z.; Biswas, A.; Jiang, Y.; Shi, Z. Predicting annual PM2. 5 in mainland China from 2014 to 2020 using multi temporal satellite product: An improved deep learning approach with spatial generalization ability. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2022, 187, 141–158. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, X.; Zang, Z.; Jiang, Y.; Shi, W.; Guo, Y.; Li, D.; Husi, L. A Spatial-Temporal Interpretable Deep Learning Model for improving interpretability and predictive accuracy of satellite-based PM2. 5. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 273, 116459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregório, J.; Gouveia-Caridade, C.; Caridade, P.J. Modeling PM2. 5 and PM10 using a robust simplified linear regression machine learning algorithm. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1334. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, P.; Tao, F.; Gao, L.; Leng, S.; Yang, K.; Zhou, T. Retrieval of fine-grained PM2. 5 spatiotemporal resolution based on multiple machine learning models. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 599. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Cao, C.; Xu, M.; Yang, X.; Wang, K.; Shi, Z. Estimation of pm2. 5 concentration across china based on multi-source remote sensing data and machine learning methods. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 467. ,.









| Technique | Application | Key Parameters | Results | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer Learning | Land cover classification from satellite imagery | ResNet50 pre-trained on ImageNet; Fine-tuned last 2 layers | Accuracy improved by 15% compared to training from scratch | [125] |
| Domain Adaptation | Cross-city air quality prediction | DANN architecture; Gradient reversal layer | Reduced prediction error by 20% in target cities | [104] |
| Deep Reinforcement Learning | Optimal placement of air quality sensors | DQN; State: pollution levels, Action: sensor locations | Improved pollution detection coverage and reduced deployment costs | [128] |
| GAN | Synthetic PM2.5 image generation | DCGAN; Generator: 4 transpose conv layers; Discriminator: 4 conv layers | Generated 10,000 diverse PM2.5 images for data augmentation | [129] |
| Transfer Learning | Land cover classification from satellite imagery | ResNet50 pre-trained on ImageNet; Fine-tuned last layers | Improved classification accuracy | [130] |
| Domain Adaptation | Cross-sensor PM detection | CycleGAN for style transfer; UNet for segmentation | Achieved 90% accuracy across different sensor types | [131] |
| Deep Reinforcement Learning | Adaptive sampling in mobile air quality sensing | DDPG; State: current AQI, location; Action: next sampling location | Reduced sensing time by 40% while maintaining accuracy | [132] |
| GAN | Anomaly detection in air quality data | WGAN-GP; 5-layer generator and critic networks | F1-score of 0.92 in detecting unusual pollution events | [133] |
| Technique | Application | Key Parameters | Results | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PM2.5-GNN: A Domain Knowledge Enhanced Graph Neural Network | Predicting PM2.5 concentrations 72 hours in advance across a wide range of areas in China (103°−122° and 28°−42°), covering several severely polluted regions. | The model uses a directed graph where nodes represent cities and edges represent potential interactions between cities, determined by factors like distance and the presence of mountains. Node attributes include meteorological data like Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) height, K index, wind speed, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, and surface pressure, as well as time of day and day of the week. Edge attributes include wind speed and direction of the source node, distance between source and sink nodes, and an advection coefficient calculated using these variables. | PM2.5-GNN outperforms baseline models like MLP, LSTM, GRU, GC-LSTM, and nodes FC-GRU on various metrics, including test loss, RMSE, MAE, CSI, and POD, across multiple datasets. The study also highlights the importance of domain knowledge, showing that removing PBL height or the export influence component in the model significantly reduces performance. | [139] |
| GARNN (Graph Attention Recurrent Neural Network) | Predicting PM2.5 concentrations 72 hours in advance for 308 cities in China. | The model uses a directed graph where nodes represent cities and edges represent potential PM2.5 transport pathways. A distance threshold of 400 km and a height threshold of 1200 m are used to determine edge connections. Node attributes include 7 pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO2, CO, O3, AQI) and 8 meteorological variables (2m temperature, total precipitation, boundary layer height, K index, relative humidity, surface pressure, wind speed, and wind direction). Edge attributes include distance between cities and the angle of the connection line. | GARNN outperforms baseline models such as MLP, LSTM, GRU, GC-LSTM, nodes FC-GRU, and PM2.5-GNN in terms of RMSE, MAE, CSI, POD, and FAR. The study highlights the importance of considering both spatial and temporal dependencies for accurate PM2.5 prediction and shows that incorporating attention mechanisms in the GNN improves performance. | [140] |
| DST_GNN (Dynamic Spatiotemporal Graph Neural Network) | Predicting PM2.5 concentrations 48 hours in advance for 130 stations in Jinan, China, and a city group in the Yangtze River Delta. | The model utilizes a dynamic graph structure where nodes represent air quality monitoring stations. Node attributes include meteorological data (PBL height, rainfall, surface pressure, temperature, humidity, wind speed, and direction), time features (quarter, month, week, hour, and holiday), and terrain attributes (altitude). Edge attributes are dynamically constructed using the HYSPLIT model, capturing the influence of wind patterns and topography on PM2.5 transport between stations. | DST_GNN outperforms several other methods, including GC-LSTM, Hybrid Method, HB-ST, PM10-GNN, STGNN, STA-LSTM, and Informer, achieving lower MAE and RMSE values across various prediction horizons (1h, 6h, 12h, etc.). The study highlights the importance of: Dynamically capturing spatial relationships using HYSPLIT; A trend-based loss function for improved accuracy ; Integrating domain knowledge for effective PM2.5 prediction. | [141] |
| Hybrid Deep Learning Framework (LSTM, Bi-LSTM) with Spatial Autocorrelation | Predicting Air Quality Index (AQI) multiple steps ahead, specifically 7 days ahead, considering the impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns in Wuhan and Shanghai, China | Spatial Autocorrelation (SAC) variables are constructed to capture the influence of neighboring cities on the target city's AQI. Five different spatial correlation functions (exponential, Gaussian, quadratic, linear, and spherical) are investigated to model spatial relationships. The K-Nearest Neighbors Mutual Information (KNN-MI) method is used to select the most relevant SAC variable for each city. Lockdown effects are incorporated as a variable in a time series model to adjust the original AQI data. The Q-learning based bee swarm optimization (QBSO) algorithm is used for feature selection, reducing the number of input features from 14 to 4 for Wuhan and 6 for Shanghai. A time window of 30 days is used for input data. | Incorporating lockdown adjustments, SAC variables, and feature selection through QBSO significantly improved the prediction accuracy. The best-performing model for Wuhan was Bi-LSTM with a 1-day forecast RMSE reduction of 47.2%, MAE reduction of 49.6%, and MAPE reduction of 54.2%. For Shanghai, LSTM performed best, with 1-day forecast improvements of 67.7% (RMSE), 67.4% (MAE), and 70.4% (MAPE). The study emphasizes the importance of considering spatial relationships, external events (lockdowns), and intelligent feature selection for accurate AQI forecasting. | [142] |
| Spatiotemporal Graph Convolutional Recurrent Neural Network (Spatiotemporal GCRNN) | Predicting PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations 1 to 72 hours ahead for Seoul, South Korea. | Graph Structure: Nodes = monitoring stations or grid cells (32x32 grid). Edges weighted by distance (threshold 0.01). Node Features = air pollution, meteorology, traffic, and China air pollution data. Model: Combines GCNs and GRUs. Uses dual random walk diffusion convolution (K-order = 2). | Outperforms ConvLSTM in RMSE for short-term (1-12 hours) and long-term (up to 72 hours) forecasting, with a 55x smaller model size. Also better than a hybrid GCN-LSTM model. | [143] |
| DSGNN (Dual-view Supergrid-aware Graph Neural Network) | Estimating regional PM2.5 for areas lacking stations (YRD-AOD & BTH-AOD datasets). | Groups grid regions (5km x 5km) into dynamic and static supergrids using both AOD and meteorological data. Fully connected supergrid graphs model correlations. Uses a 6-hour historical window. | Outperforms baselines by 19.64% in MAE. Shows that modeling both nearby and distant spatial relationships, along with using dual-view data, is crucial for accurate estimation. | [144] |
| DL Approach | Integration Method | Key Findings | Accuracy Improvement | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customized neural network + Random Forest | Combined image analysis and machine learning for PM2.5 estimation | Improved PM2.5 prediction using traffic camera images | RMSE of 0.76 μg/m³, R² of 0.98 | [152] |
| Hybrid Graph Neural Network (GNN_LSTM) | Dynamically captured spatiotemporal correlations among neighborhood monitoring sites | Enhanced 72-hour PM2.5 forecasting over the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region; Better representation of regional pollutant transport | Overall R² increased from 0.6 to 0.79; Highest accuracy among five existing observation-based methods, especially for long-term (72-hour) prediction | [153] |
| EntityDenseNet | Developed interpretable DL model for satellite-based PM2.5 monitoring | Enhanced real-time PM2.5 estimation from satellite data; Automatically extracted PM2.5 spatio-temporal characteristics; Revealed regional pollution influences and seasonal patterns | Hourly RMSE: 26.85 μg/m³, Daily RMSE: 25.3 μg/m³, Monthly RMSE: 15.34 μg/m³; Outperformed BPNN, XGBoost, LightGBM, and RF in correlation (R²) and RMSE | [151] |
| 3D-CNN + GRU with Attention Mechanism | Integrated 3D-CNN for spatial feature extraction and GRU for temporal feature extraction, enhanced by attention mechanism | Provided superior PM2.5 forecasting accuracy; Effective multi-horizon predictions with good denoising capabilities; Outperformed state-of-the-art models in point and interval forecasts | MAPE of 15.6%, MASE of 21.57; Superior to 1D CNN, 3D CNN, and CNN-LSTM models | [154] |
| Deep LSTM | Developed a deep RNN system using LSTM for daily PM10 and PM2.5 predictions; Used ground-based observations over 2.3 years for training | LSTM-based predictions were generally superior to CMAQ-based predictions; System can be applied to daily operational PM10 and PM2.5 forecasts | IOA improved from 0.36-0.78 (CMAQ) to 0.62-0.79 (LSTM); LSTM accuracies were 1.01-1.72 times higher than CMAQ-based predictions | [155] |
| Deep Neural Network (DNN) | Developed a DNN for 3-day forecasting of 6h average PM2.5 concentrations using observation and forecast data | DNN outperformed CMAQ modeling results for PM2.5 forecasting; DNN mitigated overprediction of high PM2.5 concentrations | RMSE reduced by 4.1, 2.2, and 3.0 μg/m³ for 3 consecutive days compared to CMAQ; False-alarm rate decreased by 16.9%, 7.5%, and 7.6% for D+0, D+1, and D+2 respectively | [156] |
| CNN-LSTM | Combined CNN for feature extraction and LSTM for forecasting PM2.5 concentration | Proposed CNN-LSTM model (APNet) showed highest forecasting accuracy compared to other machine learning methods; Can forecast PM2.5 concentration for the next hour based on historical data | Lowest average MAE and RMSE compared to SVM, RD, DT, MLP, CNN, and LSTM architectures (specific values not provided in abstract/conclusion) | [147] |
| Spatial-Temporal Attention Residual CNN (STA-ResCNN) | Combined spatial-temporal attention mechanism with residual CNN for multi-step PM2.5 and PM10 forecasting | Improved multi-step forecasting of PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations; Outperformed various baseline models in accuracy and stability | Reduced RMSE by 5.595%-15.247% for PM2.5 and 6.827%-16.906% for PM10 in 1-4 hour ahead predictions compared to baseline models | [150] |
| CNN-LSTM | Combined CNN for spatial feature extraction and LSTM for temporal feature extraction in PM2.5 prediction | Improved PM2.5 concentration prediction by integrating spatial and temporal features; Outperformed BP, RNN, CNN, and LSTM models in both RMSE and correlation coefficient | Best RMSE (14.3) and correlation coefficient (0.92) among compared models; CNN-LSTM RMSE significantly better than CNN-alone, while maintaining high correlation | [157] |
| Deep Q-Network (DQN) combined with Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) | Developed DQN-based UAV Pollution Tracking (DUPT) for guiding UAV navigation in air pollution monitoring | DUPT outperformed spiral search method in finding unhealthy polluted areas; Effective in both single and multiple unhealthy area scenarios | Reduced total search time to 28% of the spiral method (approximately 3.57 times faster); Reduced flying distance and sensing time significantly | [128] |
| Transformer and CNN-LSTM-attention | Compared Transformer model with CNN-LSTM-Attention for hourly PM2.5 concentration prediction | Transformer model outperformed CNN-LSTM-Attention in capturing both short-term pollution changes and long-term trends, especially in complex pollution situations | Transformer model improved EVS by 12%, MAE by 9%, MSE by 6%, and R² by 30% compared to CNN-LSTM-Attention; Transformer achieved R² of 94.4% vs 83.6% for CNN-LSTM-Attention in forecast results | [158] |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).