Characterization of model error in a simulation of fine particulate matter exposure distributions of the working age population in Helsinki, Finland.

Exposure models are needed for comparison of scenarios resulting from alternative policy options. The reliability of models used for such purposes should be quantified by comparing model outputs in a real situation with the corresponding observed exposures. Measurement errors affect the observations, but if the distribution of these errors for single observations is known, the bias caused for the population statistics can be corrected. The current paper does this and calculates model errors for a probabilistic simulation of 48-hr fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposures. Direct and nested microenvironment-based models are compared. The direct model requires knowledge on the distribution of the indoor concentrations, whereas the nested model calculates indoor concentrations from ambient levels, using infiltration factors and indoor sources. The model error in the mean exposure level was <0.5 microg m(-3) for both models. Relative errors in the estimated population mean were +1% and -5% for the direct and nested models, respectively. Relative errors in the estimated SD were -9% and -23%, respectively. The magnitude of these errors and the errors calculated for population percentiles indicate that the model errors would not drive general conclusions derived from these models, supporting the use of the models as a tool for evaluation of potential exposure reductions in alternative policy scenarios.