4.7 Article

Effects of meteorological conditions and anthropogenic precursors on ground-level ozone concentrations in Chinese cities

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 262, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114366

Keywords

Air pollution; Tropospheric ozone; Interactive effects; GeoDetector model; China

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China, China [41401107, 41871316]
  2. Science and Technology Department of Henan Province, China [162300410132]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ground-level ozone pollution has negative impacts on human health and vegetation and has increased rapidly across China. Various factors are implicated in the formation of ozone (e.g., meteorological factors, anthropogenic emissions), but their relative individual impact and the impact of interactions between these factors remains unclear. This study quantified the influence of specific meteorological conditions and anthropogenic precursor emissions and their interactions on ozone concentrations in Chinese cities using the geographic detector model (GeoDetector). Results revealed that the impacts of meteorological and anthropogenic factors and their interactions on ozone concentrations varied significantly at different spatial and temporal scales. Temperature was the dominant driver at the annual time scale, explaining 40% (q = 0.4) of the ground-level ozone concentration. Anthropogenic precursors and meteorological conditions had comparable effects on ozone concentrations in summer and winter in northern China. Interactions between all the factors can enhance effects. The interaction between meteorological factors and anthropogenic precursors had the strongest impact in summer. The results can be used to enhance our understanding of ozone pollution, to improve ozone prediction models, and to formulate pollution control measures. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available