Journals / Atmospheric Pollution Research / 2020 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 5

Exposure to particulate matter and gaseous pollutants during cabcommuting in Nur-Sultan city of Kazakhstan

Pages
880–885
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Those cities that are developing themselves as tourist attractions should create maps ofPM exposures along major urban routes, and route traffic to exclude tourist areas from being hotspots.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Exposure to particulate matter, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide inside a car during commuting weredetermined during the period October–November 2017 in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We choose to followfive busroutes (#10, 18, 19, 37 and 53) that cover the majority of the city's area.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Those cities that are developing themselves as tourist attractions should create maps ofPM exposures along major urban routes, and route traffic to exclude tourist areas from being hotspots.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Exposure to particulate matter, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide inside a car during commuting weredetermined during the period October–November 2017 in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. We choose to followfive busroutes (#10, 18, 19, 37 and 53) that cover the majority of the city's area. CO (ppm), CO2(ppm) and PM1,PM2.5,PM4, and PM10mass concentration (μg/m3) were measured in this study. PM1was found to be the largestfraction of all sizes of PM. The mean PM1concentrations along the forward (backward) paths for each of thefivebus routes were measured as 11 ± 14 (11 ± 7), 14 ± 8 (16 ± 6), 25 ± 11 (21 ± 14), 23 ± 8 (15 ± 6)and 76 ± 26 (99 ± 55)μg/m3, respectively. Average CO concentrations amongfive bus routes (#10, 18, 19,37 and 53) along the forward (backward) paths were 0.67 ± 0.16 (0.78 ± 0.17), 0.7 ± 0.16 (0.53 ± 0.32),1.04 ± 0.01 (2.3 ± 0.95), 2.67 ± 1.3 (2.03 ± 0.41), 3.54 ± 3.57 (2.17 ± 0.37) ppm. The mean PM1/PM2.5and PM2.5/PM10ratios were 0.96 and 0.91, respectively. Nur-Sultan could be an example for those citiesthat are under major developments and candidates to be green cities by showing the exposures to atmosphericpollutants across the city. Those cities that are developing themselves as tourist attractions should create maps ofPM exposures along major urban routes, and route traffic to exclude tourist areas from being hotspots.

🔖

Cite This Article

TORKMAHALLEH, M. A., NASERİ, M., ABDRAKHMANOV, T., ISHANOV, A., SHAH, D., HOPKE, P. K., BROOMANDİ, P., KİM, J. H., RAI, P. K. (2020). Exposure to particulate matter and gaseous pollutants during cabcommuting in Nur-Sultan city of Kazakhstan. Atmospheric Pollution Research, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 5, 880–885. https://ajindex.com/articles/142852

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Adams, H.S., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., Colvile, R.N., McMullen, M.A.S., Khandelwal, P.,2001. Fine particle (PM2.5) personal exposure levels in transport microenvironments,London, UK. Sci. Total Environ. 279, 29–44. Agency of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan (ASRK), 2005. Main demographicindicators. Available at:, Stat.gov.kz. Amato, F., Pandolfi, M., Escrig, A., Querol, X., Alastuey, A., Pey, J., Perez, N., Hopke, P.K.,2009. Quantifying road dust resuspension in urban environment by multilinear en-gine: a comparison with PMF2. Atmos. Environ. 43, 2770–2780.
  2. Bahreini, R., Middlebrook, a.M., De Gouw, J.a., Warneke, C., Trainer, M., Brock, C.a.,Stark, H., Brown, S.S., Dube, W.P., Gilman, J.B., Hall, K., Holloway, J.S., Kuster,W.C., Perring, a.E., Prevot, a.S.H., Schwarz, J.P., Spackman, J.R., Szidat, S., Wagner,N.L., Weber, R.J., Zotter, P., Parrish, D.D., 2012. Gasoline emissions dominate overdiesel in formation of secondary organic aerosol mass. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, 2e7. Barbulescu, Alina, Barbes, Lucica, 2017. Modeling the carbon monoxide dissipation inTimisoara, Romania. J. Environ. Manag. 204, 831–838.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.047.
  3. Briggs, D.J., de Hoogh, K., Morris, C., Gulliver, J., 2008. Effects of travel mode on ex-posures to particulate air pollution. Environ. Int. 34 (1), 12–22.
  4. Campagnolo, D., Cattaneo, A., Corbella, L., Borghi, F., Del Buono, L., Rovelli, S., Spinazzé,A., Domenico, M., 2019. In-vehicle airbornefine and ultra-fine particulate matterexposure: the impact of leading vehicle emissions. Environ. Int. 123, 407–416.
  5. Chan, L.Y., Lau, W.L., Zou, S.C., Cao, Z.X., Lai, S.C., 2002. Exposure level of carbonmonoxide and respirable suspended particulate in public transportation modes whilecommuting in urban area of Guangzhou, China. Atmos. Environ. 36, 5831–5840.
  6. Darynova, Z., Maksot, A., Kulmukanova, L., Malekipirbazari, M., Sharifi, H., AmoueiTorkmahalleh, M., Holloway, T., 2018. Evaluation of NO2 column variations over theatmosphere of Kazakhstan using satellite data. J. Appl. Remote Sens. 14 (2). De Nazelle, A., Fruin, S., Westerdhal, D., Martinez, D., Ripoll, A., Kubesch, N.,Nieuwenhuijsen, M., 2012. A travel mode comparison of commuters' exposures to airpollutants in Barcelona. Atmos. Environ. 59, 151–159.
  7. Fernandez-Bremauntz, A.A., Ashmore, M.R., 1995. Exposure of commuters to carbon-monoxide in Mexico City-I. Measurement of in-vehicle concentrations. Atmos.Environ. 29, 525–532.
  8. Goel, A., Kumar, P., 2015. Zone of in