4.6 Article

Impact of Biomass Burning on Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide in Northern Thailand

Journal

FRONTIERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2021.641877

Keywords

biomass burning; ozone; carbon monoxide; nitrogen dioxide; Southeast Asia

Funding

  1. University of Phayao, Thailand [FF64-UoE015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The problem of smoke haze pollution in Northern Thailand caused by wildfires and open burning during the dry season releases pollutants such as surface ozone, impacting health and causing an air pollution crisis. Biomass burning was found to increase ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide levels by 9%, 51%, and 96% respectively.
The problem of smoke haze pollution in Northern Thailand affects both the environment and residents. The main sources of smoke are wildfires and open burning during the dry season, which release many pollutants, especially surface O-3, impacting health and causing an air pollution crisis. The aim of this research was to study the impact of biomass burning on the surface O-3, CO, and NO2 levels in Northern Thailand using the Weather Research and Forecasting Model with Chemistry (WRF-Chem). The simulation domain was configured with two domains with a grid spacing of 50 and 10 km in March 2014. To elucidate the effect of biomass burning, the model simulation was conducted for two cases: 1) a simulation with anthropogenic, biogenic, and biomass burning emissions; and 2) a simulation excluding biomass burning emissions. Owing to the model performance, the diurnal temperature and precipitation were consistent with observations, as indicated by the index of agreement (IOA) ranges of 0.74-0.76, while those of O-3, CO, and NO2 were in the ranges of 0.12-0.71. The results show that biomass burning increased O-3, CO, and NO2 levels by 9, 51, and 96%, respectively.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available