4.8 Article

Public Health Costs of Primary PM2.5 and Inorganic PM2.5 Precursor Emissions in the United States

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 50, 期 11, 页码 6061-6070

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06125

关键词

-

资金

  1. center for Climate and Energy Decision Making [SES-0949710]
  2. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  3. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [0949710] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  5. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [1463492] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current methods of estimating the public health effects of emissions are computationally too expensive or do not fully address complex atmospheric processes, frequently limiting their applications to policy research. Using a reduced-form model derived from tagged chemical transport model (CTM) simulations, we present PM2.5 mortality costs per tonne of inorganic air pollutants with the 36 km x 36 km spatial resolution of source location in the United States, providing the most comprehensive set of such estimates comparable to CTM-based estimates. Our estimates vary by 2 orders of magnitude. Emission-weighted seasonal averages were estimated at $88,000-130,000/t PM2.5 (inert primary), $14,000-24,000/t SO2, $3,800-14,000/t NOx, and $23,000-66,000/t NH3. The aggregate social costs for year 2005 emissions were estimated at $1.0 trillion dollars. Compared to other studies, our estimates have similar magnitudes and spatial distributions for primary PM2.5 but substantially different spatial patterns for precursor species where secondary chemistry is important. For example, differences of more than a factor of 10 were found in many areas of Texas, New Mexico, and New England states for NOx and of California, Texas, and Maine for NH3. Our method allows for updates as emissions inventories and CTMs improve, enhancing the potential to link policy research to up-to-date atmospheric science.

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