4.8 Article

Characterizing Elevated Urban Air Pollutant Spatial Patterns with Mobile Monitoring in Houston, Texas

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 4, Pages 2133-2142

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b05523

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diverse urban air pollution sources contribute to spatially variable atmospheric concentrations, with important public health implications. Mobile monitoring shows promise for understanding spatial pollutant patterns, yet it is unclear whether uncertainties associated with temporally sparse sampling and instrument performance limit our ability to identify locations of elevated pollution. To address this question, we analyze 9 months of repeated weekday daytime on-road mobile measurements of black carbon (BC), particle number (PN), and nitrogen oxide (NO, NO2) concentrations within 24 census tracts across Houston, Texas. We quantify persistently elevated, intermittent, and extreme concentration behaviors at 50 m road segments on surface streets and 90 m segments on highways relative to median statistics across the entire sampling domain. We find elevated concentrations above uncertainty levels (+/- 40%) within portions of every census tract, with median concentration increases ranging from 2 to 3x for NO2, and >9x for NO. In contrast, PN exhibits elevated concentrations of 1.5-2x the domain-wide median and distinct spatial patterns relative to other pollutants. Co-located elevated concentrations of primary combustion tracers (BC and NOx) near 30% of metal recycling and concrete batch plant facilities within our sampled census tracts are comparable to those measured within 200 m of highways. Our results demonstrate how extensive mobile monitoring across multiple census tracts can quantitatively characterize urban air pollution source patterns and are applicable to developing effective source mitigation policies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available