the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Frequent haze events associated with transport and stagnation over the corridor between North China Plain and Yangtze River Delta
Abstract. PM2.5 pollution is a major air quality issue deteriorating human health, and numerous studies focus on PM2.5 pollution in major regions such as North China Plain (NCP) and Yangtze River Delta (YRD). However, the characteristics of PM2.5 concentrations and the associated formation mechanism in the transport corridor (referred to as SWLY) between NCP and YRD are largely ignored. Based on observational data, we find the number of PM2.5 pollution events in SWLY is comparable to that in NCP, far exceeding those in YRD, indicative of the severity of air pollution over this area. Utilizing a regional climate and air quality model, we isolate the effect of seesaw transport events, e.g., transport between NCP and YRD, as well as the atmospheric stagnation on the accumulation of PM2.5 over SWLY. Specifically, seesaw events and stagnation, comparable to each other, collectively account for an average of 67 % pollution days with PM2.5 exceeding 75 µg/m3, and this fraction (85 %) is even larger for severe haze events with PM2.5 exceeding 150 µg/m3. Furthermore, the connection between seesaw transport and large-scale circulation is examined. The trans-regional transport of pollutants from NCP to YRD (YRD to NCP) is likely stimulated by positive (negative) to negative (positive) geopotential height anomaly at 500 hPa located in northern China. The health effect due to short-term PM2.5 exposure induced by the trans-regional transport and stagnation is investigated, yielding a total of 8,634 (95 % CI: 6,023–11,223) and 9,496 (95 % CI: 6,552–12,413) premature deaths respectively in SWLY during winter 2014–2019, as high as 9 % of the total premature deaths in China although the area coverage of SWLY is within 1 %. While atmospheric stagnation is in general projected to occur more frequently under a warming climate, this study indicates the importance of regional emission control to alleviate PM2.5 pollution from seesaw transport and stagnation.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1670 KB)
-
Supplement
(754 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1670 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(754 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1871', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2023
The authors addressed all my concerns and I have no further comment.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1871-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yang Gao, 05 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1871/egusphere-2023-1871-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yang Gao, 05 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1871', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Nov 2023
This is a nice study that analyzes the effect of seesaw transport and stagnation days on local PM2.5 pollution in several regions of China and the health impact of PM2.5 pollution. The authors should have spent great efforts on presenting comprehensive results. This paper is well-written, and I recommend it for publication after consideration of the points below.
Comments
L149-150 The authors should clarify if they are simulating only DJF or all 2014-2019 period. Related to WRF, would be a nice addition to know if they are using nudging or daily initialization of meteorology and what’s the length of the spinup period.
Throughout the manuscript, please make clear that you are referring to the DJF period. Sometimes, in the manuscript it is written “2014-2019” and Figure’s caption refers to winter 2014-2019
At times difficult to read, i.e. L270-287. Please explain if “day 1” represents the mean of all days considered as the first day of all 24 events or if the authors are referring to a specific event. If the authors are talking about the mean, have they verified the dominant wind direction for each event?
L363 Fig 6a doesn’t show a clear positive trend for PM2.5 and HSR
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1871-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yang Gao, 05 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1871/egusphere-2023-1871-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yang Gao, 05 Dec 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1871', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2023
The authors addressed all my concerns and I have no further comment.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1871-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yang Gao, 05 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1871/egusphere-2023-1871-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yang Gao, 05 Dec 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1871', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Nov 2023
This is a nice study that analyzes the effect of seesaw transport and stagnation days on local PM2.5 pollution in several regions of China and the health impact of PM2.5 pollution. The authors should have spent great efforts on presenting comprehensive results. This paper is well-written, and I recommend it for publication after consideration of the points below.
Comments
L149-150 The authors should clarify if they are simulating only DJF or all 2014-2019 period. Related to WRF, would be a nice addition to know if they are using nudging or daily initialization of meteorology and what’s the length of the spinup period.
Throughout the manuscript, please make clear that you are referring to the DJF period. Sometimes, in the manuscript it is written “2014-2019” and Figure’s caption refers to winter 2014-2019
At times difficult to read, i.e. L270-287. Please explain if “day 1” represents the mean of all days considered as the first day of all 24 events or if the authors are referring to a specific event. If the authors are talking about the mean, have they verified the dominant wind direction for each event?
L363 Fig 6a doesn’t show a clear positive trend for PM2.5 and HSR
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1871-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yang Gao, 05 Dec 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1871/egusphere-2023-1871-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yang Gao, 05 Dec 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
281 | 101 | 23 | 405 | 30 | 10 | 10 |
- HTML: 281
- PDF: 101
- XML: 23
- Total: 405
- Supplement: 30
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Feifan Yan
Yafang Cheng
Rujin Huang
Hong Liao
Ting Yang
Yuanyuan Zhu
Shaoqing Zhang
Lifang Sheng
Wenbin Kou
Xinran Zeng
Shengnan Xiang
Xiaohong Yao
Huiwang Gao
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1670 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(754 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper