4.7 Article

A parent-school initiative to assess and predict air quality around a heavily trafficked school

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 861, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160587

关键词

Air pollution; School gate; COVID-19 lockdown; Citizen science; De-weathering

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was conducted to monitor air pollution around primary schools in the UK for one year, focusing on particulate matter, gaseous pollutants, and meteorological parameters. The study found that despite the lockdown and the school reopening, pollution levels, particularly PM2.5 and NO2, exceeded the threshold limits on several days. Interestingly, weekends showed comparable or higher concentrations of pollutants than weekdays.
Many primary schools in the UK are situated in close proximity to heavily-trafficked roads, yet long-term air pollution monitoring around such schools to establish factors affecting the variability of exposure is limited. We co-designed a study to monitor particulate matter in different size fractions (PM1, PM2.5, PM10), gaseous pollutants (NO2, O3 and CO) and meteorological parameters (ambient temperature, relative humidity) over a period of one year. The period included phases of national COVID-19 lockdown and its subsequent easing and removal. Statistical analysis was used to assess the diurnal patterns, pollution hotspots and underlying factors driving changes. A pollution episode was observed early in January 2021, owing to new year celebration fireworks, when the daily average PM2.5 was around three-times the World Health Organisation limit. PM2.5 and NO2 exceeded the threshold limits on 15 and 10 days, respectively, as the lockdown eased and the school reopened, despite the predominant wind direction often being away from the school towards the roads. The peak concentration levels for all pollutants occurred during morn-ing drop-off hours; however, some weekends showed higher or comparable concentrations to those during weekdays.

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