Cargando…
Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK
Many studies investigated the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality, but their adopted approaches have varied and there is no consensus as to which approach should be used. In this paper we compare three of the main approaches and assess their performance using both estimated and measured...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Published by Elsevier B.V.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9756911/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36540719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105730 |
_version_ | 1784851718011355136 |
---|---|
author | Munir, Said Luo, Zhiwen Dixon, Tim |
author_facet | Munir, Said Luo, Zhiwen Dixon, Tim |
author_sort | Munir, Said |
collection | PubMed |
description | Many studies investigated the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality, but their adopted approaches have varied and there is no consensus as to which approach should be used. In this paper we compare three of the main approaches and assess their performance using both estimated and measured data from several air quality monitoring stations (AQMS) in Reading, Berkshire UK. The approaches are: (1) Sequential approach – comparing pre-lockdown and lockdown periods 2020; (2) Parallel approach – comparing 2019 and 2020 for the equivalent time of the lockdown period; and (3) Machine learning modelling approach – predicting pollution levels for the lockdown period using business as usual (BAU) scenario and comparing with the observations. The parallel and machine learning approaches resulted in relative higher reductions and both showed strong correlation (0.97) and less error with each other. The sequential approach showed less reduction in NO and NOx, showed positive gain in PM(10) and NO(2) at most of the sites and demonstrated weak correlation with the other two approaches, and is not recommended for such analysis. Overall, the sequential approach showed −14, +4, −32, and + 56% change, the parallel approach showed −46, −43, −43 and + 7% change, and the machine learning approach showed −47, −44, −38 and + 5% change in NOx, NO(2), NO and PM(10) concentrations, respectively. The pollution roses demonstrated that the UK received easterly polluted winds from the central and eastern Europe, promoting secondary particulates and O(3) formation during the lockdown. Changes in pollutant concentrations vary both in space and time according to the approach used, environment type of the monitoring site and the data type (e.g., deweathered vs. raw data). Therefore, the reported results (here or elsewhere) should be viewed in light of these factors before making any conclusion. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9756911 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Published by Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97569112022-12-16 Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK Munir, Said Luo, Zhiwen Dixon, Tim Atmos Res Article Many studies investigated the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality, but their adopted approaches have varied and there is no consensus as to which approach should be used. In this paper we compare three of the main approaches and assess their performance using both estimated and measured data from several air quality monitoring stations (AQMS) in Reading, Berkshire UK. The approaches are: (1) Sequential approach – comparing pre-lockdown and lockdown periods 2020; (2) Parallel approach – comparing 2019 and 2020 for the equivalent time of the lockdown period; and (3) Machine learning modelling approach – predicting pollution levels for the lockdown period using business as usual (BAU) scenario and comparing with the observations. The parallel and machine learning approaches resulted in relative higher reductions and both showed strong correlation (0.97) and less error with each other. The sequential approach showed less reduction in NO and NOx, showed positive gain in PM(10) and NO(2) at most of the sites and demonstrated weak correlation with the other two approaches, and is not recommended for such analysis. Overall, the sequential approach showed −14, +4, −32, and + 56% change, the parallel approach showed −46, −43, −43 and + 7% change, and the machine learning approach showed −47, −44, −38 and + 5% change in NOx, NO(2), NO and PM(10) concentrations, respectively. The pollution roses demonstrated that the UK received easterly polluted winds from the central and eastern Europe, promoting secondary particulates and O(3) formation during the lockdown. Changes in pollutant concentrations vary both in space and time according to the approach used, environment type of the monitoring site and the data type (e.g., deweathered vs. raw data). Therefore, the reported results (here or elsewhere) should be viewed in light of these factors before making any conclusion. Published by Elsevier B.V. 2021-10-15 2021-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9756911/ /pubmed/36540719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105730 Text en Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Munir, Said Luo, Zhiwen Dixon, Tim Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK |
title | Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK |
title_full | Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK |
title_fullStr | Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK |
title_short | Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK |
title_sort | comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of covid-19 lockdown on urban air quality in reading, uk |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9756911/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36540719 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105730 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT munirsaid comparingdifferentapproachesforassessingtheimpactofcovid19lockdownonurbanairqualityinreadinguk AT luozhiwen comparingdifferentapproachesforassessingtheimpactofcovid19lockdownonurbanairqualityinreadinguk AT dixontim comparingdifferentapproachesforassessingtheimpactofcovid19lockdownonurbanairqualityinreadinguk |