4.8 Article

US particulate matter air quality improves except in wildfire-prone areas

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1804353115

Keywords

PM2.5; wildfires; particulate matter; Kriging; Quantile Regression

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [1447832]
  2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NA17OAR431001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using data from rural monitoring sites across the contiguous United States, we evaluated fine particulate matter (PM2.5) trends for 1988-2016. We calculate trends in the policy-relevant 98th quantile of PM2.5 using Quantile Regression. We use Kriging and Gaussian Geostatistical Simulations to interpolate trends between observed data points. Overall, we found positive trends in 98th quantile PM2.5 at sites within the Northwest United States (average 0.21 +/- 0.12 mu g.m(-3).y(-1); +/- 95% confidence interval). This was in contrast with sites throughout the rest of country, which showed a negative trend in 98th quantile PM2.5, likely due to reductions in anthropogenic emissions (average -0.66 +/- 0.10 mu g.m(-3).y(-1)). The positive trend in 98th quantile PM2.(5) is due to wildfire activity and was supported by positive trends in total carbon and no trend in sulfate across the Northwest. We also evaluated daily moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) aerosol optical depth (AOD) for 2002-2017 throughout the United States to compare with ground-based trends. For both Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) PM2.5 and MODIS AOD datasets, we found positive 98th quantile trends in the Northwest (1.77 +/- 0.68% and 2.12 +/- 0.81% per year, respectively) through 2016. The trend in Northwest AOD is even greater if data for the high-fire year of 2017 are included. These results indicate a decrease in PM2.5 over most of the country but a positive trend in the 98th quantile PM2.5 across the Northwest due to wildfires.

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