4.3 Article

Meteorological Normalisation Using Boosted Regression Trees to Estimate the Impact of COVID-19 Restrictions on Air Quality Levels

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182413347

关键词

air pollution; COVID-19; lockdown; deweather; meteorological normalisation; boosted regression trees

资金

  1. Extraordinary BBVA Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The global COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns provided a unique opportunity to study the impacts of restricted anthropogenic emissions on air quality. Analysis of data from Cantabria, Spain showed reductions in key pollutants during the lockdown period.
The global COVID-19 pandemic that began in late December 2019 led to unprecedented lockdowns worldwide, providing a unique opportunity to investigate in detail the impacts of restricted anthropogenic emissions on air quality. A wide range of strategies and approaches exist to achieve this. In this paper, we use the deweather R package, based on Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) models, first to remove the influences of meteorology and emission trend patterns from NO, NO2, PM10 and O-3 data series, and then to calculate the relative changes in air pollutant levels in 2020 with respect to the previous seven years (2013-2019). Data from a northern Spanish region, Cantabria, with all types of monitoring stations (traffic, urban background, industrial and rural) were used, dividing the calendar year into eight periods according to the intensity of government restrictions. The results showed mean reductions in the lockdown period above -50% for NOx, around -10% for PM10 and below -5% for O-3. Small differences were found between the relative changes obtained from normalised data with respect to those from observations. These results highlight the importance of developing an integrated policy to reduce anthropogenic emissions and the need to move towards sustainable mobility to ensure safer air quality levels, as pre-existing concentrations in some cases exceed the safe threshold.

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