4.7 Article

Nexus between air pollution and NCOV-2019 in China: Application of negative binomial regression analysis

期刊

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 557-565

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2021.04.039

关键词

COVID-19; Air pollution; PM2; 5; SO2; PM10; NO2; O3; Negative binomial regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study reveals a positive correlation between air pollution, particularly nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5, and the number of NCOV-2019 cases and deaths in China. A slight rise in air pollution, as represented by PM2.5, has caused a significant increase in both cases and deaths of NCOV-2019.
On a global scale, the epidemic of the novel coronavirus (NCOV-2019) has become a major issue that is seriously harming human health and impairing the environment's quality. The current study examines the association between air pollution and NCOV-2019 in China, where cases of NCOV-2019 are correlated with deaths in public databases with data on air pollution tracked at multiple locations in different provinces of China. A negative binomial regression (NBR) model was applied to examine the difference between the number of people infected with NCOV-2019 and the number of deaths in China. The findings show that, after population density regulation, there is a positive connection between air pollutants concentration (particularly nitrogen dioxide) and the number of NCOV-2019 cases and deaths. Furthermore, PM2.5 is the key cause of NCOV-2019 cases and deaths in China. The results indicate that a 1% increase in the average of PM2.5 was correlated with an increase of 11.67 % in NCOV-2019 cases and a rise of 18 % in NCOV-2019 deaths. We concluded that a slight rise in air pollution has caused the number of NCOV-2019 cases and deaths to increase dramatically. This research provides a basis for future policies affected by this pandemic in terms of health and pollution. (c) 2021 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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