...
首页> 外文期刊>Atmospheric research >Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK
【24h】

Comparing different approaches for assessing the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air quality in Reading, UK

机译:比较不同方法来评估Covid-19锁定对英国阅读城市空气质量的影响

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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 PM10 and NO2 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, NO2, NO and PM10 concentrations, respectively. The pollution roses demonstrated that the UK received easterly polluted winds from the central and eastern Europe, promoting secondary particulates and O3 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.
机译:许多研究调查了Covid-19锁定对城市空气质量的影响,但他们采用的方法有所不同,并且没有与您使用的方法有共识。在本文中,我们比较三种主要方法,并使用来自读书,伯克希尔英国的几个空气质量监测站(AQMS)的估计和测量数据来评估其性能。该方法是:(1)顺序接近 - 比较锁定预锁定和锁定时段2020; (2)平行接近 - 2019年和2020比较锁定时期的等效时间; (3)机器学习建模方法 - 用作常规(BAU)场景的业务预测锁定时期的污染水平,与观察结果相比。平行和机器学习方法导致相对较高的减少,两者都显示出强的相关性(0.97)和彼此的误差。顺序方法表明尚不降低和NOx的降低,在大多数场所的PM10和NO2中显示出阳性增益,并与其他两种方法显示弱相关,并且不建议进行这种分析。总体而言,顺序方法显示-14,+4,-32和+ 56%的变化,并行方法显示-46,-43,-43和+ 7%的变化,并且机器学习方法显示-47,-44 NOx,NO2,NO和PM10浓度的-38和+ 5%变化。污染玫瑰表明,英国从中欧和东欧接受了越来越污染的风,在锁定期间促进二次颗粒和O3形成。污染物浓度的变化根据所使用的方法,监测网站的环境类型和数据类型(例如,Deweetered与原始数据)的方法,在空间和时间内变化。因此,据报道的结果(此处或其他地方)应根据这些因素进行任何结论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号