4.5 Article

Changes in Air Pollutants from Fireworks in Chinese Cities

期刊

ATMOSPHERE
卷 13, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/atmos13091388

关键词

Chinese New Year; spring festival; random forest model; particulate matter; Beijing; Chongqing; Guangzhou; Shenzhen; Tianjin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fireworks during Chinese New Year cause intense air pollution, especially particulate matter. This study finds that stricter regulations have led to a decrease in peak concentrations of firework pollutants in cities. Relative humidity plays a key role, potentially influencing particle growth and atmospheric mixing. Bans on fireworks are gaining acceptance, and celebrations may safely resume.
Chinese New Year has traditionally been welcomed with fireworks, but this has meant this holiday can experience intense peaks of pollutants, particularly as particulate matter. Such environmental issues add to other risks (e.g., accident, fire, and ecological and health threats) posed by firework displays, but cultural reasons encourage such celebrations. This study examines air pollution from fireworks across a time of increasingly stringent bans as a time series from 2014-2021 using a random forest (decision-tree) model to explore the effect of year-to-year weather changes on pollutant concentrations at Chinese New Year. Peak concentrations of firework pollutants have decreased in cities and hint at the importance of well-enforced regulation of these traditional celebrations, e.g., Beijing, Tianjin, and Chongqing. The model suggested relative humidity was an important controlling variable, perhaps as the presence of water vapor might also accelerate particle growth but also as a surrogate parameter related to atmospheric mixing. Bans on fireworks, resisted at first, have shown evidence of growing public acceptance. The regulations are increasingly effective, even in the outer parts of cities. Celebrations might safely return as public firework displays, including light shows and the use of lanterns.

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

4.5
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