4.3 Article

Conditions Leading to Elevated PM2.5 at Near-Road Monitoring Sites: Case Studies in Denver and Indianapolis

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16091634

关键词

near-road; PM2.5; Denver; Indianapolis

资金

  1. Near-Road Air Quality Research Pooled Fund under the U.S. FHWA Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF) Program [TPF-5(284)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined two near-road monitoring sites where the daily PM2.5 readings were among the highest of any near-road monitoring location in the U.S. during 2014-2016: Denver, Colorado, in February 2014 and Indianapolis, Indiana, in November 2016. At the Denver site, which had the highest measured U.S. near-road 24-hr PM2.5 concentrations in 2014, concentrations exceeded the daily National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on three days during one week in 2014; the Indianapolis site had the second-highest number of daily exceedances of any near-road site in 2016 and the highest 3-year average PM2.5 of any near-road site during 2014-2016. Both sites had hourly pollutant, meteorological, and traffic data available, making them ideal for case studies. For both locations, we compared air pollution observations at the near-road site to observations at other sites in the urban area to calculate the near-road PM2.5 increment and evaluated the effects of changes in meteorology and traffic. The Denver near-road site consistently had the highest PM2.5 values in the Denver area, and was typically highest when winds were near-downwind, rather than directly downwind, to the freeway. Complex Denver site conditions (near-road buildings and roadway alignment) likely contributed to higher PM2.5 concentrations. The increment at Indianapolis was also highest under near-downwind, rather than directly downwind, conditions. At both sites, while the near-road site often had higher PM2.5 concentrations than nearby sites, there was no clear correlation between traffic conditions (vehicle speed, fleet mix) and the high PM2.5 concentrations.

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

4.3
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