4.8 Article

Sensitivity of projected PM2.5- and O3-related health impacts to model inputs: A case study in mainland China

期刊

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 256-264

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.12.002

关键词

PM2.5; Ozone; Mortality; Emissions; Sensitivity analysis; China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In China, fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ground- level ozone (O-3) are anticipated to continuously affect large populations in the coming decades. Simulations of the levels of these pollutants largely depend on emissions inputs, which are highly uncertain both in magnitude and spatial distribution. Our goal was to explore sensitivities of projected changes in PM2.5- and O-3-related short-term health impacts in mainland China to emissions and other model inputs. We simulated winter PM2.5 and summer O-3 concentrations using the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with Chemistry (WRF-Chem) for both 2008 and 2050. We used three emission inventories in 2008 and four emissions scenarios in 2050. The resulting air pollutant concentrations were combined with eight population projections and three concentration-response functions (CRFs) to estimate future PM2.5- and O-3-related health impacts including total, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortalities in mainland China. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to apportion the uncertainty due to different model parameters. Combinations of different parameters produced a wide range of national PM2.5- and O-3-related mortalities. CRFs and present emissions each contribute 38%-56% and 20%-28% of the total sum of squares for PM2.5-related mortalities. Future emissions are the largest source of uncertainty in O-3-related mortality estimates, contributing 24%-48% of total sum of squares. Our results suggest that conducting more epidemiological studies and constraining the present day emissions are essential for projecting future air pollutant-related health impacts in mainland China.

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

4.8
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