This evaluation demonstrates the superiority of random forest over other machine learning models in predicting particulate matter, indicating implications for climate change adaptation.
Air pollution, particularly particulate matter (PM1, PM2.5, and PM10), poses a significant environmental health risk globally. This study evaluates the predictive performance of three machine learning algorithms, Support Vector Machine (SVM), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Random Forest (RF), for forecasting particulate matter concentrations in four Brazilian cities (Porto Alegre, Recife, Goiânia, and Belém), which share similar demographic and urbanization characteristics but differ in geographic and climatic conditions. Using data from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, daily concentrations of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 were modeled based on meteorological variables, including air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, atmospheric pressure, and accumulated precipitation. The models were tested under two climate change scenarios (+2 °C and +4 °C temperature increases). The results indicate that RF consistently outperformed the other models, achieving low RMSE values, around 0.3 µg/m3, across all cities, regardless of their geographic and climatic differences. KNN showed stable performance under moderate temperature increases (+2 °C) but exhibited higher errors under more extreme warming, while SVM demonstrated higher sensitivity to temperature changes, leading to greater variability in bivariate contexts. However, in multivariate contexts, SVM adjusted better, improving its predictive performance by accounting for the combined influence of multiple meteorological variables. These findings underscore the importance of selecting suitable machine learning models, with RF proving to be the most robust approach for particulate matter prediction across diverse environmental contexts. This study contributes valuable insights for the development of region-specific air quality management strategies in the face of climate change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bonifácio et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: