4.7 Article

The impact of stay-at-home orders on air-quality and COVID-19 mortality rate in the United States

期刊

URBAN CLIMATE
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100946

关键词

Air quality; COVID-19 mortality; Criteria air-pollutants; Stay-at-home orders; CBSAs

资金

  1. University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), School of Public Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During the pandemic in the U.S., different stay-at-home orders were implemented, with findings showing that states under longer lockdown experienced improved air quality, with a decrease in PM2.5 concentration. This also had a positive impact on harmful gases like nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide.
Since the beginning of the pandemic in the U.S., most jurisdictions issued mitigation strategies, such as restricting businesses and population movements. This provided an opportunity to measure any positive implications on air quality and COVID-19 mortality rate during a time of limited social interactions. Four broad categories of stay-at-home orders (for states following the order for at least 40 days, for states with less than 40 days, for states with the advisory order, and the states with no stay-at-home order) were created to analyze change in air quality and mortality rate. Ground-based monitoring data for particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO) was collected during the initial country-wide lockdown period (15 March-15 June 2020). Data on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths were also collected to analyze the effects of the four measures on the mortality trend. Findings show air quality improvement for the states staying under lockdown longer compared to states without a stay-at-home order. All stay-at-home order categories, except states without measures were observed a decrease in PM2.5 and the core-based statistical areas (CBSAs) within the longer mitigation states had an improvement of their air quality index (AQI).

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