4.7 Article

PM2.5 source allocation in European cities: A SHERPA modelling study

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 187, 期 -, 页码 93-106

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.05.062

关键词

Urban air pollution; PM2.5; Source allocation; Source apportionment; Urban increment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many European cities suffer from poor air quality and still exceed the European standards prescribed by the Air Quality Directive, and the guidelines recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). This is especially the case for PM2.5, focus of this work. While international, national and local level actions to reduce air pollution have undoubtedly resulted in an overall improvement of the air quality over the years, there are still problems, which are localised in specific regions and many cities. A key issue is to determine at which scale to act in order to abate these remaining air pollution problems most effectively. Central to this, for cities, is a quantitative assessment of the different origins of air pollution (urban, regional, national and transboundary) to support the design of efficient, effective air quality plans, which are a legal obligation for countries and regions whenever exceedances occur. The Screening for High Emission Reduction Potentials for Air quality tool (SHERPA) is used in this work to quantify the origins of air pollution in cities and regions, both from a spatial (urban, country...) and sectoral (transport, residential, agriculture...) perspectives. For PM2.5 we conclude that (1) for many cities, local actions at the city scale are an effective means of improving air quality in that city; (2) the target sectors and scales to abate air pollution are city specific, even for cities that are located in the same country. Consequently, it is important to take into account these city-specific circumstances when designing air quality plans and (3) for many cities, sectoral measures addressing agriculture at country or EU scale would have a clear benefit on urban air quality.

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