| Literature DB >> 32829258 |
Min Jae Ju1, Jaehyun Oh2, Yoon-Hyeong Choi3.
Abstract
In order to control the spread of COVID-19, social distancing measures were implemented in many countries. This study investigated changes in air pollution during the social distancing after the COVID-19 outbreak in Korea. Ambient PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and CO that are particularly related to industrial activities and traffic were reduced during the social distancing in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. In March 2020, immediately after social distancing, mean levels of PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and CO decreased nationwide from last year's mean levels by 16.98 μg/m3, 21.61 μg/m3, 4.16 ppb, and 0.09 ppm, respectively (p-value for the year-to-year difference <0.001, =0.001, =0.008, <0.001), a decrease by 45.45%, 35.56%, 20.41%, and 17.33%, respectively. Changes in ambient O3 or SO2 were not observed to be attributable to social distancing. Our findings, that such effort for a short period of time resulted in a significant reduction in air pollution, may point toward reducing air pollution as a public health problem in a more sustainable post-COVID-19 world.Entities:
Keywords: Air pollution; COVID-19; Particulate matter; Social distancing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32829258 PMCID: PMC7402377 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141521
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Total Environ ISSN: 0048-9697 Impact factor: 7.963
Fig. 1Daily changes in total confirmed COVID-19 in Korea through April 30, 2020.
Highlighted shadow presents social distancing period.
Social distancing to prevent COVID-19 in Korea.
| Social distancing levels | Social distancing | “Stronger” social distancing | Extending stronger social distancing | “Relaxed way” of social distancing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period | 2020.02.29–2020.03.21 | 2020.03.22–2020.04.05 | 2020.04.06–2020.04.19 | 2020.04.20–2020.05.05 | |
| Government action | General | -Importance of personal hygiene practice and social distancing | -Prevention of further spreading to communities | -Prevention of further spreading to communities | -Maintain social tension in relaxed way of social distancing |
| Public facilities | n.a. | -Stop the operation | -Stop the operation | -Outdoor and dispersed facilities: gradually “reopen” under quarantine rules | |
| Facilities susceptible to cluster infection | n.a. | -Halt the operation | -Halt the operation | -Religious, indoor sports, and entertainment facilities were adjusted from halting operation to “refraining” | |
| Public transportation | n.a. | -Separately assign seats between passengers to keep a certain distance | -Separately assign seats between passengers to keep a certain distance | n.a. | |
| Guideline for public | Personal hygiene | -Wash your hands thoroughly with soap under running water | -Wash your hands thoroughly with soap under running water | -Wash your hands thoroughly with soap under running water | -Wash your hands thoroughly with soap under running water |
| Crowded place | -Avoid visiting | -“Delay or cancel” nonessential gathering, travel, etc. | -“Delay or cancel” nonessential gathering, travel, etc. | -“Delay or cancel” nonessential gathering, travel, etc. | |
Public facilities including libraries, swimming pools, museums, national park, etc.
Facilities susceptible to cluster infection including religious, indoor sports, entertainment facilities, etc.
Fig. 2Daily mean concentrations of air pollutants in Korea, between December 1 and April 30 of recent four years.
(A) PM2.5 (B) PM10 (C) NO2 (D) CO.
Highlighted shadow presents social distancing period.
⁎ Korean daily air quality standard.
Fig. 3Monthly mean ± SD concentrations of air pollutants in Korea, between December and April of the most recent four years.
All values present mean ± SD of all daily concentrations per each month.
Paired t-test was used for comparison of (A) PM2.5, (B) PM10, (C) NO2, and (D) CO levels on the same day in the current year versus each prior year.
⁎p < 0.05 vs. 1 prior year; †p < 0.05 vs. 2 prior year; §p < 0.05 vs. 3 prior year.
The year-on-year comparison of monthly mean ± SD of air pollution in March.
| Year | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
| PM2.5 (μg/m3) | 34.23±9.72 | 28.65±15.54 | 37.37±23.95 | 20.39±6.31 |
| (ref) | 0.093 | 0.521 | <0.001 | |
| (ref) | 0.140 | 0.006 | ||
| (ref) | <0.001 | |||
| PM10 (μg/m3) | 54.67±11.87 | 46.73±21.71 | 60.77±31.05 | 39.16±7.23 |
| (ref) | 0.083 | 0.346 | <0.001 | |
| (ref) | 0.072 | 0.085 | ||
| (ref) | 0.001 | |||
| NO2 (ppb) | 23.61±6.16 | 20.31±5.26 | 20.38±6.63 | 16.22±4.95 |
| (ref) | 0.041 | 0.060 | <0.001 | |
| (ref) | 0.970 | 0.002 | ||
| (ref) | 0.008 | |||
| CO (ppm) | 0.536±0.074 | 0.495±0.093 | 0.513±0.134 | 0.387±0.040 |
| (ref) | 0.060 | 0.353 | <0.001 | |
| (ref) | 0.578 | <0.001 | ||
| (ref) | <0.001 | |||
All values present mean ± SD of all daily concentrations per each month.
Paired t-test was used for comparison of PM2.5, PM10, NO2, and CO levels on the same day in the current year versus each prior year.
Fig. 4Regional air pollution map: the year-on-year change in monthly mean of March.
All values present monthly mean of daily (A) PM2.5, (B) PM10, (C) NO2, and (D) CO concentrations in March per each 17 region.