4.5 Article

The severe Delhi SMOG of 2016: A case of delayed crop residue burning, coincident firecracker emissions, and atypical meteorology

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 868-879

出版社

TURKISH NATL COMMITTEE AIR POLLUTION RES & CONTROL-TUNCAP
DOI: 10.1016/j.apr.2018.12.015

关键词

Air-quality; Delhi-SMOG-2016; PM2.5; Nitrogen isotopes; Sulphur isotopes

资金

  1. DST Inspire fellowship [IF-140084]
  2. CSIR project [PSC0012]
  3. RIHN feasibility study (2017)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rising levels of air-borne suspended particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter <= 2.5 mu m (PM2.5) in the Asian mega cities is a serious cause of concern. A severe SMOG (smoke + fog) episode with air-visibility of about 5 km or shorter and average PM2.5 concentration of 793 mu g M-3 occurred in Delhi and the National Capital Territory (NCT) just after the Diwali-festival and spanned between 30 October (Oct) and 07 November (Nov.) 2016. Using daily variations in chemical and isotopic signatures of PM2.5 in tandem with meteorological parameters, we deduce here primary contributing factors responsible for development of Delhi-SMOG-2016 event and dominant transformation pathways of carbon, sulphur, and nitrogen compounds. Our multi-tracer analyses revealed there could be three major factors contributing to the SMOG event (i) transport of carbonaceous material from North-Western India (mainly Punjab-Haryana) due to open-field agricultural-waste burning that rose from 26 Oct through 11 Nov. 2016, (ii) weaker northerly winds, shallower boundary layer, cooler air temperatures, and enhanced humidity enforcing 'atypical' air-stagnation, and (iii) direct emissions from fire-cracker bursting on 30 Oct 2016 (Diwali night). Investigating timing of agricultural waste burning in northwester states of Delhi, there appears to be a delay in the timing of agricultural-waste burning in the Punjab area since 2010; that could possibly causing a gradual increase in severity of SMOG events in the recent years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据