MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902198421 · doi:10.5194/acp-19-7719-2019

Impacts of household sources on air pollution at village and regional scales in India

2019· article· en· W2902198421 on OpenAlexaff
Brigitte Rooney, Ran Zhao, Yuan Wang, Kelvin H. Bates, Ajay Pillarisetti, Sumit Sharma, Seema Kundu, Tami C. Bond, Nicholas L. Lam, Bora Ozaltun, Li Xu, Varun Goel, Lauren T. Fleming, Robert Weltman, Simone Meinardi, D. R. Blake, Sergey A. Nizkorodov, Rufus Edwards, Ankit Yadav, Narendra K. Arora, Kirk R. Smith, John H. Seinfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersJet Propulsion LaboratoryUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAir quality indexEnvironmental scienceAir pollutionParticulatesCMAQPollutionEmission inventoryWeather Research and Forecasting ModelEnvironmental protectionPopulationPollutantEnvironmental engineeringMeteorologyGeographyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approximately 3 billion people worldwide cook with solid fuels, such as wood, charcoal, and agricultural residues. These fuels, also used for residential heating, are often combusted in inefficient devices, producing carbonaceous emissions. Between 2.6 and 3.8 million premature deaths occur as a result of exposure to fine particulate matter from the resulting household air pollution (Health Effects Institute, 2018a; World Health Organization, 2018). Household air pollution also contributes to ambient air pollution; the magnitude of this contribution is uncertain. Here, we simulate the distribution of the two major health-damaging outdoor air pollutants (PM 2.5 and O 3 ) using state-of-the-science emissions databases and atmospheric chemical transport models to estimate the impact of household combustion on ambient air quality in India. The present study focuses on New Delhi and the SOMAARTH Demographic, Development, and Environmental Surveillance Site (DDESS) in the Palwal District of Haryana, located about 80 km south of New Delhi. The DDESS covers an approximate population of 200 000 within 52 villages. The emissions inventory used in the present study was prepared based on a national inventory in India (Sharma et al., 2015, 2016), an updated residential sector inventory prepared at the University of Illinois, updated cookstove emissions factors from Fleming et al. (2018b), and PM 2.5 speciation from cooking fires from Jayarathne et al. (2018). Simulation of regional air quality was carried out using the US Environmental Protection Agency Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling system (CMAQ) in conjunction with the Weather Research and Forecasting modeling system (WRF) to simulate the meteorological inputs for CMAQ, and the global chemical transport model GEOS-Chem to generate concentrations on the boundary of the computational domain. Comparisons between observed and simulated O 3 and PM 2.5 levels are carried out to assess overall airborne levels and to estimate the contribution of household cooking emissions. Observed and predicted ozone levels over New Delhi during September 2015, December 2015, and September 2016 routinely exceeded the 8 h Indian standard of 100 µg m −3 , and, on occasion, exceeded 180 µg m −3 . PM 2.5 levels are predicted over the SOMAARTH headquarters (September 2015 and September 2016), Bajada Pahari (a village in the surveillance site; September 2015, December 2015, and September 2016), and New Delhi (September 2015, December 2015, and September 2016). The predicted fractional impact of residential emissions on anthropogenic PM 2.5 levels varies from about 0.27 in SOMAARTH HQ and Bajada Pahari to about 0.10 in New Delhi. The predicted secondary organic portion of PM 2.5 produced by household emissions ranges from 16 % to 80 %. Predicted levels of secondary organic PM 2.5 during the periods studied at the four locations averaged about 30 µg m −3 , representing approximately 30 % and 20 % of total PM 2.5 levels in the rural and urban stations, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207