5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      How do pollutants change post-pandemic? Evidence from changes in five key pollutants in nine Chinese cities most affected by the COVID-19

      research-article
      a , b , , a , b
      Environmental Research
      Elsevier Inc.
      Air pollution, Lockdown, Post pandemic period, Hysteresis, Rebound

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Under the COVID-19 global pandemic, China has weakened the large-scale spread of the epidemic through lockdown and other measures. At the same time, with the recovery of social production activities, China has become the only country which achieves positive growth in 2020 in the major economies. It entered the post pandemic period. These measures improved the local environmental quality. However, whether this improvement can be sustained is also a problem that needs to be solved. So, this study investigated the changes of five air pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, N O 2 , S O 2 , and CO) in the nine cities most severely affected by the pandemic in China during the lockdown and post pandemic period. We emphasized that when analyzing the changes of environmental quality during the epidemic, we must consider not only the impact of the day and short-term changesbut also the cumulative lag effect and sustainable development. Through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, it is found that the concentration of pollutants decreased significantly during the lockdown compared to the situation before the epidemic. PM10 and N O 2 are falling most, which downs 39% and 46% respectively. During the lockdown period, the pollutant concentrations response to the pandemic has a lag of 3–7 days. More specifically, in the cities related to single pollutants, the impact on the pollutant shows a significant correlation when the measures are delayed for seven days. In the cities that are related to multiple pollutants, the correlation is usually highest in 3–5 days. This means that the impact of policy measures on the environment lasted for 3–5 days. Besides, Wuhan, Jingmen and Jingzhou have seen the most obvious improvement. However, this improvement did not last. In the post pandemic period, the pollutants rebounded, the growth rates of PM10 and N O 2 reached 44% and 87% in September. When compared with the changes of pollutants concentration in the same period from 2017 to 2019, the decline rate has also been significantly slower, even higher than the average concentration of previous years. The research not only contributes to China's economic “green recovery” plan during the post epidemic period, but also provides references for environmental governance during economic recovery in other countries.

          Graphical abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe

          Following the detection of the new coronavirus1 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its spread outside of China, Europe has experienced large epidemics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response, many European countries have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as the closure of schools and national lockdowns. Here we study the effect of major interventions across 11 European countries for the period from the start of the COVID-19 epidemics in February 2020 until 4 May 2020, when lockdowns started to be lifted. Our model calculates backwards from observed deaths to estimate transmission that occurred several weeks previously, allowing for the time lag between infection and death. We use partial pooling of information between countries, with both individual and shared effects on the time-varying reproduction number (Rt). Pooling allows for more information to be used, helps to overcome idiosyncrasies in the data and enables more-timely estimates. Our model relies on fixed estimates of some epidemiological parameters (such as the infection fatality rate), does not include importation or subnational variation and assumes that changes in Rt are an immediate response to interventions rather than gradual changes in behaviour. Amidst the ongoing pandemic, we rely on death data that are incomplete, show systematic biases in reporting and are subject to future consolidation. We estimate that-for all of the countries we consider here-current interventions have been sufficient to drive Rt below 1 (probability Rt < 1.0 is greater than 99%) and achieve control of the epidemic. We estimate that across all 11 countries combined, between 12 and 15 million individuals were infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 4 May 2020, representing between 3.2% and 4.0% of the population. Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions-and lockdowns in particular-have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of lockdown amid COVID-19 pandemic on air quality of the megacity Delhi, India

            Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, a nationwide lockdown is imposed in India initially for three weeks from 24th March to 14th April 2020 and extended up to 3rd May 2020. Due to the forced restrictions, pollution level in cities across the country drastically slowed down just within few days which magnetize discussions regarding lockdown to be the effectual alternative measures to be implemented for controlling air pollution. The present article eventually worked on this direction to look upon the air quality scenario amidst the lockdown period scientifically with special reference to the megacity Delhi. With the aid of air quality data of seven pollutant parameters (PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, CO, O3 and NH3) for 34 monitoring stations spread over the megacity we have employed National Air Quality Index (NAQI) to show the spatial pattern of air quality in pre and during-lockdown phases. The results demonstrated that during lockdown air quality is significantly improved. Among the selected pollutants, concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 have witnessed maximum reduction (>50%) in compare to the pre-lockdown phase. In compare to the last year (i.e. 2019) during the said time period the reduction of PM10 and PM2.5 is as high as about 60% and 39% respectively. Among other pollutants, NO2 (−52.68%) and CO (−30.35%) level have also reduced during-lockdown phase. About 40% to 50% improvement in air quality is identified just after four days of commencing lockdown. About 54%, 49%, 43%, 37% and 31% reduction in NAQI have been observed in Central, Eastern, Southern, Western and Northern parts of the megacity. Overall, the study is thought to be a useful supplement to the regulatory bodies since it showed the pollution source control can attenuate the air quality. Temporary such source control in a suitable time interval may heal the environment.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19 control in China during mass population movements at New Year

              The outbreak of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to spread rapidly in China. 1 The Chinese Lunar New Year holiday, the start of which coincided with the emergence of COVID-19, is the most celebratory time of the year in China, during which a massive human migration takes place as individuals travel back to their hometowns. People in China are estimated to make close to 3 billion trips over the 40-day travel period, or Chunyun, of the Lunar New Year holiday. 2 About 5 million people left Wuhan, 3 the capital city of Hubei province and epicentre of the COVID-19 epidemic, before the start of the travel ban on Jan 23, 2020. About a third of those individuals travelled to locations outside of Hubei province. 4 Limiting the social contacts of these individuals was crucial for COVID-19 control, because patients with no or mild symptoms can spread the virus. 5 Government policies enacted during the Chinese Lunar New Year holiday are likely to have helped reduce the spread of the virus by decreasing contact and increasing physical distance between those who have COVID-19 and those who do not. As part of these social distancing policies, the Chinese Government encouraged people to stay at home; discouraged mass gatherings; cancelled or postponed large public events; and closed schools, universities, government offices, libraries, museums, and factories.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Only limited segments of urban public transport systems remained operational and all cross-province bus routes were taken out of service. As a result of these policies and public information and education campaigns, Chinese citizens started to take measures to protect themselves against COVID-19, such as staying at home as far as possible, limiting social contacts, and wearing protective masks when they needed to move in public. Social distancing has been effective in past disease epidemics, curbing human-to-human transmission and reducing morbidity and mortality.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 A single social distancing policy can cut epidemic spread, but usually multiple such policies—including more restrictive measures such as isolation and quarantine—are implemented in combination to boost effectiveness. For example, during the 1918–19 influenza pandemic, the New York City Department of Health enforced several social distancing policies at the same time, including staggered business hours, compulsory isolation, and quarantine, which likely led to New York City suffering the lowest death rate from influenza on the eastern seaboard of the USA. 17 During the current outbreak of COVID-19, government officials and researchers were concerned that the mass movement of people at the end of the Lunar New Year holiday on Jan 31, 2020, would exacerbate the spread of COVID-19 across China. Moreover, individuals typically return from their Lunar New Year holiday after only 1 week, which is shorter than the longest suspected incubation period of the disease. 18 Many of the 5 million people who left Wuhan before the travel ban was put into place 3 could still have been latently infected when their holiday ended. This situation, together with the resumed travel activities, would make it difficult to contain the outbreak. Facing these concerns, the Chinese Government extended the Lunar New Year holiday. The holiday end date was changed to March 10 for Hubei province 19 and Feb 9 for many other provinces, so that the duration of the holiday would be sufficiently long to fully cover the suspected incubation period of COVID-19.20, 21, 22 In addition, people diagnosed with COVID-19 were isolated in hospitals. In Wuhan, where the largest number of infected people live, those with mild and asymptomatic infection were also quarantined in so-called shelter or “Fang Cang” hospitals, which are public spaces such as stadiums and conference centres that have been repurposed for medical care. Finally, the Chinese Government encouraged and supported grassroots activities for routine screening, contact tracing, and early detection and medical care of COVID-19 patients, and it promoted hand washing, surface disinfection, and the use of protective masks through social marketing and media. As a result of the extended holiday and the additional measures, many people with asymptomatic infection from Hubei province who had travelled to other provinces remained in their homes until they developed symptoms, at which point they received treatment. It is this home-based quarantine of people who had been to the epicentre of the epidemic and travelled to other locations in China that is likely to have been especially helpful in curbing the spread of the virus to the wider community. © 2020 Kevin Frayer/Stringer/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. There are several lessons that can be drawn from China's extension of the Lunar New Year holiday. First, countries facing potential spread of COVID-19, or a similar outbreak in the future, should consider outbreak-control “holidays” or closure periods—ie, periods of recommended or mandatory closure of non-essential workplaces and public institutions—as a first-line social distancing measure to slow the rate of transmission. Second, governments should tailor the design of such outbreak-control closure periods to the specific epidemic characteristics of the novel disease, such as the incubation period and transmission routes. Third, a central goal of an outbreak-control closure period is to prevent people with asymptomatic infections from spreading the disease. As such, governments should use the closure period for information and education campaigns, community screening, active contact tracing, and isolation and quarantine to maximise impact. Such a combination approach is also supported by studies of responses to previous outbreaks, which showed that reductions in the cumulative attack rate were more pronounced when social distancing policies were combined with other epidemic control measures to block transmission. 23 As for COVID-19 in China, this combination of an outbreak-control closure period for social distancing and a range of accompanying epidemic control measures seems to have prevented new infections, especially in provinces other than Hubei, where new infections have been declining for more than 2 weeks. 1 As fearsome and consequential as the COVID-19 outbreak has been, China's vigorous, multifaceted response is likely to have prevented a far worse situation. Future empirical research will establish the full impact of the social distancing and epidemic control policies during the extended Chinese Lunar New Year holiday. As travel and work slowly resume in China, the country should consider at least partial continuation of these policies to ensure that the COVID-19 outbreak is sustainably controlled.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Res
                Environ Res
                Environmental Research
                Elsevier Inc.
                0013-9351
                1096-0953
                2 April 2021
                June 2021
                2 April 2021
                : 197
                : 111108
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, Shandong, 266580, People's Republic of China
                [b ]Institute for Energy Economics and Policy, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, Shandong, 266580, People's Republic of China
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, Shandong, 266580, People's Republic of China.
                Article
                S0013-9351(21)00402-3 111108
                10.1016/j.envres.2021.111108
                8545702
                33812870
                51c41ebe-8486-47a0-834c-162c4a40430f
                © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 14 January 2021
                : 18 March 2021
                : 27 March 2021
                Categories
                Article

                General environmental science
                air pollution,lockdown,post pandemic period,hysteresis,rebound
                General environmental science
                air pollution, lockdown, post pandemic period, hysteresis, rebound

                Comments

                Comment on this article