Uncertainty in the Spatial Interpolation of PM10 Monitoring Data in Southern California

by Rudolf B. Husar , rhusar@mecf.wustl.edu and Stefan R. Falke,stefan@mecf.wustl.edu

Center for Air Pollution Impact and Trend Analysis (CAPITA)

April, 1996



Contents:



Introduction

Spatial interpolation is a commonly applied procedure used in estimating air pollutant concentrations at locations between monitoring stations. A popular interpolation scheme is distance weighted interpolation in which a location’s concentration is estimated based on a power law decrease proportional to distance from a monitoring site. This work tests the performance of distance weighted interpolation in estimating PM10 concentrations in Southern California. Two variables involved in distance weighted interpolation are the type of weighing and the number of monitored values used. In this analysis, weightings of 1/r, 1/r2, 1/r3, and 1/r4 were tested as well as site counts of 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Back to Contents


PM10 Data

The data used in this analysis were obtained from PM10 monitoring sites contained in EPA’s Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). Daily (approximately every sixth day) sampled concentrations from quarter 1 (January, February, and March) aggregated over the years 1985-1993 and used as the input data for the interpolation testing.

Back to Contents


Interpolation Methodology

Spatial interpolation was conducted using an operator called the Contourer (Gridder?). It uses a table of latitude, longitude, and concentration values to create a concentration grid for a specified region. The Contourer allows the user to set the radius of influence, the minimum number of stations to be used in the interpolation, the maximum number of sites for use in the interpolation, and the type of distance weighing. The radius of influence used was 0.1 radians (~500 km). It was chosen so large so that it did not play a factor in the interpolation. The minimum number of sites was set constant at one. The weighing type and maximum number of sites were chosen as variables in the testing. The weighing types used were 1/r (inverse distance), 1/r2 (inverse square distance), 1/r3, and 1/r4. The dependence on the maximum number of sites and not the radius setting meant that the actual radius of influence varied; locations with a high station density had a small radius while areas with a low station density had a large radius.

The Contourer allows the user to select whether the output be a full X by Y grid of contoured values or a table of contoured values for specific locations. In this analysis the output was both the grid and table formats. The pseudocode below describes the details of the contouring algorithm.

Contour
	Functionality:	transform data from table format into grid format
	Input:	Table - a set of data points
		WeightFunc - distance weight function
		Radius - distance constraint
		MinPoints - minimum required number of data points within Radius
		MaxPoints - maximum number of data points used in calculation of a grid cell
	Output:	Grid - uniformly distributed set of data points
function Contour(out Grid, in Table, in WeightFunc, in Radius, in MinPoints, in MaxPoints)
{
	for each Cell in Grid
		CalcCell
}

CalcCell
	Functionality:	calculate value of a grid cell given a table of data points around it
function CalcCell(in out Cell, in Table, in WeightFunc, in Radius, in MinPoints, in MaxPoints)
{
	PointList = an empty list of table points
	for each point in Table that is not null
		if the distance between the point and the cell is less than Radius then
			add point to the PointList, sorted by distance
	Cell value = Interpolate PointList
}

Interpolate
	Functionality:	interpolate over a sorted list of data points
function Interpolate(in PointList, in WeightFunc, in MinPoints, in MaxPoints)
{
	if number of points in PointList < MinPoints return null value

	TotalWeight = 0
	Sum = 0
	WeightExp = 0 if WeightFunc = 1
		    1 if WeightFunc = 1/r
		    2 if WeightFunc = 1/r2, etc
	
	for first MaxPoints in PointList
		Dist = point distance from cell
		Weight = 1 / (Dist^WeightExp)
		TotalWeight = TotalWeight + Weight
		Sum = Sum + Weight * point value
		
	if TotalWeight = 0 return null value
	Sum = Sum / TotalWeight
	return Sum
}

Back to Contents


Testing Methodology

The AIRS network provided an adequate station density for most parts of the United States for an interpolation process performance testing based on the monitored data. By removing approximately ten percent of the sites from the data set, the interpolation can be conducted and interpolated values checked at those ten percent locations to see how well the interpolation matches monitored values. Figure 1 illustrates the entire interpolation scheme. Both maps and tables are produced. The maps are used to spatially illustrate the interpolation results while the tables provide the statistics of the interpolation performance. The original PM10 data the region in question is submitted to the 10/90 operator which randomly selects 10% of the data and places it in a separate table from the remaining 90%. In the case of map production, the 90% table is sent to the Gridder to produce a gird based on the 90% data. The grid is subsequently passed to an operator called Map Edit which displays the grid with the Southern California map overlaid. For statistical purposes, these 10% and 90% tables are passed to the Contourer (a.k.a. Gridder) where contouring is conducted at the 10% table locations based on the 90% data. The resulting table containing the contoured concentrations is then placed in excel where a scattergram is created along with the respective correlation statistics.




Figure 1. Data flow diagram for the spatial interpolation testing producing maps (a) and tables (b).

Back to Contents

Results

Results are shown in maps and scatter plots. The maps show the spatial coverage of the contouring process while the scatter plots provide the correlation statistics for the contour performance.

Contoured maps with varying distance weightings and maximum number of sites
Max/Weight 1/r 1/r2 1/r3 1/r4
1
2
3
5

As the inverse power of the weighting and the maximum number of sites used increase, the interpolated map becomes smoother in texture. The maps for a maximum of site are all identical because only the nearest site is used in the interpolation and therefore the weighting is not a factor. The maximum of 1 maps show strong gradients and square borders. The weighting influence is seen when comparing a map using an interpolation weight of 1/r to one using 1/r4. The influences of single sites are more pronounced and the spatial transition from one value to another is more textured when using 1/r4.

Correlation plots and statistics for varying distance weightings and maximum number of sites
Max/Weight 1/r 1/r2 1/r3 1/r4
1
2
3
5

The statistical measures of performance did not show much variation during the testing of the weighting factor and maximum number of sites. The R2 ranged from 0.82 to 0.88, the slope from 0.72 to 0.76, and the offset (y-intercept) from 5.5 to 6.8. The highest R2 was produced with a setting of weight=1/r and max=2. The largest slope was seen with a setting of weight = 1/r4 and max=5, the lowest offset at weight=1/r2, max=2. The lowest R2 was found at weight = 1/r, max=5, the lowest slope at max=1/r, max=3, and the largest offset at all weights at max = 1. It is difficult to draw any conclusions as to which setting are ideal although a weight of 1/r2 and max of 2 may get the nod because of its number one ranking in both R2 and offset. No clear trends in either the weighting or max number of sites were seen. It is possible that the relatively small region used did not provide a large enough data base for distinguishing among the interpolations. Using 20% of the data rather than 10% might clarify some trends. Unquestionably, further testing is required, both with additional data and also in other regions with adequate monitoring site density.

Back to Contents



Submit your comments, feedback, questions, and ideas pertaining this page. Your input will be automatically added to the existing annotations. In order to add a new comment, you must be registered with the CAPITA People's Page.


support@capita.wustl.edu