4.8 Article

Extreme air pollution from residential solid fuel burning

期刊

NATURE SUSTAINABILITY
卷 1, 期 9, 页码 512-517

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41893-018-0125-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Irish Environmental Protection Agency (AEROSOURCE) [529 2016-CCRP-MS-31]
  2. Irish Environmental Protection Agency (SAPPHIRE) [2013-EH-MS-15]
  3. Science Foundation Ireland [14-SP-2740]
  4. European Commission
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China 530 (NSFC) [91644219]
  6. China Scholarship Council (CSC) [201506310020]
  7. Irish Research Council [GOIPG/2015/3051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Atmospheric aerosol particles (also known as particulate matter) are central to the cause of the two greatest threats to human security: air pollution (similar to 5 million premature deaths per year) and climate change (similar to 0.5 million per year). Addressing these threats requires an understanding of particulate matter sources responsible for both extreme air pollution immediately affecting human health and less extreme levels affecting climate over longer timescales. Here, extraordinary levels of air pollution, with submicrometre aerosol (PM1) mass concentration surpassing 300 mu g m(-3), were observed in a moderately sized European city and are attributed to emissions from residential solid fuel-specifically peat and wood, often promoted as 'slow-renewable', 'low-carbon' or 'carbon-neutral' biomass. Using sophisticated fingerprinting techniques, we find that consumption of peat and wood in up to 12% and 1% of households, respectively, contributed up to 70% of PM1. The results from this approach can better inform emissions reduction policies and help to ensure the most appropriate air pollution sources are targeted. Given the far greater abundance of solid fuels and concomitant emissions required to match the calorific benefit of liquid fuels, even modest increases in the consumption of 'green'-marketed solid fuels will disproportionally increase the frequency of extreme pollution events.

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

4.8
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