4.7 Article

Estimating background concentrations of PM2.5 for urban air quality modelling in a data poor environment

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 314, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2023.120107

关键词

PM2.5; ADMS; background sources; proximate sources; Nottingham

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atmospheric dispersion models play a vital role in simulating pollutant concentrations, such as PM2.5, and accurately representing the background component is crucial for providing an accurate representation of the pollution load. With limited monitoring data available for PM2.5, it is important to evaluate different approaches for representing the background. In the case of Nottingham, UK, a directional approach based on multiple urban background monitoring sites provides the most reliable estimates.
Atmospheric dispersion models are widely applied to simulate pollutant concentrations such as PM2.5 for use in long- and short-term health studies. A significant proportion of PM(2.)5 originates outside urban areas in which many people live. It is important to reflect this 'background' component in the modelling process in order to provide an accurate representation of the total pollution load experienced by human populations. To be credible, model outputs must be verified against available monitoring data, which, in the case of PM2.5, may be limited to a small number of monitoring sites across a large urban area. Here we evaluate four different approaches to representing background PM2.5 in an atmospheric dispersion model (ADMS-Urban) for Nottingham, UK. A directional approach, based on multiple urban background monitoring sites located outside the study area provides the most robust estimates. Our adopted approach allows us to model both short- and long-term air quality conditions, whilst accounting for local- and regional-scale variations in the pollution burden, and will ultimately enable us to assess short- and long-term effects of air pollution on health.

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