| Literature DB >> 33182196 |
Qingru Wu1, Yi Tang2, Long Wang3, Shuxiao Wang4, Deming Han2, Daiwei Ouyang2, Yueqi Jiang2, Peng Xu5, Zhigang Xue5, Jingnan Hu5.
Abstract
Controlling anthropogenic mercury emissions is an ongoing effort and the effect of atmospheric mercury mitigation is expected to be impacted by accelerating climate change. The lockdown measures to restrict the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the following unfavorable meteorology in Beijing provided a natural experiment to examine how air mercury responds to strict control measures when the climate becomes humid and warm. Based on a high-time resolution emission inventory and generalized additive model, we found that air mercury concentration responded almost linearly to the changes in mercury emissions when excluding the impact of other factors. Existing pollution control and additional lockdown measures reduced mercury emissions by 16.7 and 12.5 kg/d during lockdown, respectively, which correspondingly reduced the concentrations of atmospheric mercury by 0.10 and 0.07 ng/m3. Emission reductions from cement clinker production contributed to the largest decrease in atmospheric mercury, implying potential mitigation effects in this sector since it is currently the number one emitter in China. However, changes in meteorology raised atmospheric mercury by 0.41 ng/m3. The increases in relative humidity (9.5%) and temperature (1.2 °C) significantly offset the effect of emission reduction by 0.17 and 0.09 ng/m3, respectively, which highlights the challenge of air mercury control in humid and warm weather and the significance of understanding mercury behavior in the atmosphere and at atmospheric interfaces, especially the impact from relative humidity.Entities:
Keywords: Atmospheric mercury; COVID-19; Emission reduction; Meteorology change
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33182196 PMCID: PMC7483037 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142323
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Total Environ ISSN: 0048-9697 Impact factor: 7.963
Fig. 1Hg emissions. (a) Daily trend in the studied period; (b) hourly distribution in different sub-periods; (c) emission trend comparison (note: we used the timeline in 2020 as the x axis. The same period in 2019 was from Jan 12 to Mar 23.)
Fig. 2Observed TM during the studied period and the comparison with that in 2019. (a) TM trend with time in 2020; (b) comparison of TM concentrations in different years.
Fig. 3The impact of variables on TM variation during LOCK sub-period.
Fig. 4Spline of TM to individual parameters (a) emission, (b) temperature, (c) relative humidity. The grey background around the line are 95% confidence bounds for the response. The short lines on x axes show the distribution of data points. The number in the bracket of ordinate title is the estimated degree of freedom. The dots in the figure are the residuals.
The impact of dominant variables on TM variation.
| Variables | TM variation (ng/m3) |
|---|---|
| Anthropogenic control | −0.17 |
| CEM | −0.11 |
| RCC | 0.02 |
| CFPP | −0.05 |
| ISP | −0.01 |
| Surface meteorology | 0.27 |
| Temperature | 0.09 |
| Relative humidity | 0.17 |
| High altitude meteorology | −0.03 |
| Boundary layer height | −0.02 |
| Air transmission | 0.17 |
| Latitude of 48 h trajectory | 0.21 |