4.3 Article

Air Pollution Characteristics and Health Risks in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China during Winter

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17249172

关键词

particulate matter; health risks; major pollutant; HAQI; Yangtze River Economic Belt

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41505127]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The air pollution characteristics of six ambient criteria pollutants, including particulate matter (PM) and trace gases, in 29 typical cities across the Yangtze River Economic Belt (YREB) from December 2017 to February 2018 are analyzed. The overall average mass concentrations of PM2.5, PM10, SO2, CO, NO2, and O-3 are 73, 104, 16, 1100, 47, and 62 mu g/m(3), respectively. PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 are the dominant major pollutants to poor air quality, with nearly 83%, 86%, and 59%, exceeding the Chinese Ambient Air Quality Standard Grade I. The situation of PM pollution in the middle and lower reaches is more serious than that in the upper reaches, and the north bank is more severe than the south bank of the Yangtze River. Strong positive spatial correlations for PM concentrations between city pairs within 300 km is frequently observed. NO2 pollution is primarily concentrated in the Suzhou-Wuxi-Changzhou urban agglomeration and surrounding areas. The health risks are assessed by the comparison of the classification of air pollution levels with three approaches: air quality index (AQI), aggregate AQI (AAQI), and health risk-based AQI (HAQI). When the AQI values escalate, the air pollution classifications based on the AAQI and HAQI values become more serious. The HAQI approach can better report the comprehensive health effects from multipollutant air pollution. The population-weighted HAQI data in the winter exhibit that 50%, 70%, and 80% of the population in the upstream, midstream, and downstream of the YREB are exposed to polluted air (HAQI > 100). The current air pollution status in YREB needs more effective efforts to improve the air quality.

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