Literature DB >> 23022875

Characterizing the PM₂.₅-related health benefits of emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission sectors across the U.S.

Neal Fann1, Kirk R Baker, Charles M Fulcher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Air pollution benefits assessments tend to be time and resource intensive. Reduced-form approaches offer computational efficiency, but may introduce uncertainty. Some reduced-form approaches apply simplified air quality models, which may not capture the complex non-linear chemistry governing the formation of certain pollutants such as PM₂.₅. Other approaches apply the results of sophisticated photochemical modeling, but characterize only a small number of source types in a limited geographic area.
METHODS: We apply CAMx source apportionment photochemical modeling, coupled with a PC-based human health benefits software program, to develop a suite of PM₂.₅ benefit per ton estimates. These per-ton estimates relate emission changes to health impacts and monetized benefits for 17 sectors across the continental U.S., including Electricity Generating Units (EGU), mobile, area and industrial point sources.
RESULTS: The benefit per ton of reducing directly emitted PM₂.₅ is about an order of magnitude larger than reducing emissions of PM₂.₅ precursor emissions. On a per-ton basis, the value of reducing directly emitted PM₂.₅ and PM₂.₅ precursors in 2005 ranges between approximately $1300 (2010$) for reducing a ton of NO(x) from Ocean-Going Vessels to about $450,000 (2010$) for reducing a ton of directly emitted PM₂.₅ from Iron and Steel facilities. The benefit per ton estimates for 2016 are generally higher than the 2005 estimates. The values estimated here are generally comparable with those generated using photochemical modeling, but larger than those calculated using simplified air quality models.
CONCLUSIONS: Our approach characterizes well the per-ton benefits of reducing emissions from a broad array of 17 industrial point, EGU and mobile sectors, while our use of photochemical air quality modeling gives us greater confidence that we have accounted for the non-linear chemistry governing PM₂.₅ formation. The resulting benefit per-ton estimates thus represent a compromise between approaches that may simplify the treatment of PM₂.₅ air quality formation and those techniques that are based in photochemical modeling but account for only a small number of emission sources. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23022875     DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.08.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Int        ISSN: 0160-4120            Impact factor:   9.621


  24 in total

1.  Health impact metrics for air pollution management strategies.

Authors:  Sheena E Martenies; Donele Wilkins; Stuart A Batterman
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 9.621

2.  Monetized health benefits attributable to mobile source emission reductions across the United States in 2025.

Authors:  Philip Wolfe; Kenneth Davidson; Charles Fulcher; Neal Fann; Margaret Zawacki; Kirk R Baker
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 7.963

3.  Evolution of the United States Energy System and Related Emissions under Varying Social and Technological Development Paradigms: Plausible Scenarios for Use in Robust Decision Making.

Authors:  Kristen E Brown; Troy A Hottle; Rubenka Bandyopadhyay; Samaneh Babaee; Rebecca S Dodder; P Ozge Kaplan; Carol S Lenox; Daniel H Loughlin
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Nonlinear relationships between air pollutant emissions and PM2.5-related health impacts in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region.

Authors:  Bin Zhao; Shuxiao Wang; Dian Ding; Wenjing Wu; Xing Chang; Jiandong Wang; Jia Xing; Carey Jang; Joshua S Fu; Yun Zhu; Mei Zheng; Yu Gu
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 7.963

5.  Estimating environmental co-benefits of U.S. low-carbon pathways using an integrated assessment model with state-level resolution.

Authors:  Yang Ou; Wenjing Shi; Steven J Smith; Catherine M Ledna; J Jason West; Christopher G Nolte; Daniel H Loughlin
Journal:  Appl Energy       Date:  2018-04-15       Impact factor: 9.746

6.  Accountability Assessment of Health Improvements in the United States Associated with Reduced Coal Emissions Between 2005 and 2012.

Authors:  Lucas R F Henneman; Christine Choirat; And Corwin M Zigler
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 4.822

7.  Human-health impacts of controlling secondary air pollution precursors.

Authors:  Havala O T Pye; K Wyat Appel; Karl M Seltzer; Cavin K Ward-Caviness; Benjamin N Murphy
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol Lett       Date:  2022-02-08

8.  Sources of ambient PM2.5 exposure in 96 global cities.

Authors:  Mei W Tessum; Susan C Anenberg; Zoe A Chafe; Daven K Henze; Gary Kleiman; Iyad Kheirbek; Julian D Marshall; Christopher W Tessum
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2022-10-01       Impact factor: 5.755

9.  A Risk and Decision Analysis Framework to Evaluate Future PM2.5 Risk: A Case Study in Los Angeles-Long Beach Metro Area.

Authors:  Bowen He; Qun Guan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-04       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Disparities in Distribution of Particulate Matter Emissions from US Coal-Fired Power Plants by Race and Poverty Status After Accounting for Reductions in Operations Between 2015 and 2017.

Authors:  Jennifer Richmond-Bryant; Ihab Mikati; Adam F Benson; Thomas J Luben; Jason D Sacks
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 9.308

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.