Search

International audience; The Climate Graduate School of the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (CGS-IPSL) iscurrently developing a series of seven courses online for Master students. On these sevencourses of 3 ECTS each, three have a strong focus on the ocean: Dynamics of the Ocean andAtmosphere; Contemporary Biogeochemical Cycles; Study of Paleo-climates. Each course is ledby a pair of university teachers specialists in their field accompanied by a pedagogical andgraphic team in order to design all resources specifically adapted to graduate students andonline education. Indeed, our first goal is to open these courses as self-paced learning underthe IPSL Learning Management System (Moodle) to students who will be joining CGS-IPSLmasters without having all the prerequisites so that they can update their academicbackground. These courses could also be open to second year CGS IPSL Master students whoaimed at acquiring credits on a secondary theme not necessarily developed in their master (e.g.on biogeochemistry for students registered in an ocean – climate master). Finally all the e-resources developed will be made available at least to the educational community of the CGS-IPSL that include several Universities in and around Paris (Sorbonne Universite, Paris Saclay,Universite Versailles Saint Quentin, Université Paris Est Créteil...) in order to reuse theseresources for higher education either on-line or face-to-face courses. The courses will beavailable in both French and English so that international students can have access to these e-resources.

Organic aerosol (OA) still remains one of the most difficult components of the atmospheric aerosols to simulate, given the multitude of its precursors, the uncertainty of its formation pathways and the lack of measurements of its detailed composition. The LANDEX project (The LANDes Experiment), during its intensive field campaign in summer 2017, gives us not only the opportunity to compare biogenic secondary OA (BSOA), but also its precursors and oxidants obtained within and above the Landes forest canopy, to simulations performed with CHIMERE, a state of the art regional Chemistry-Transport Model. The Landes forest is situated in the south-western part of France, and is one of the largest anthropized forests in Europe (1 million ha), composed by a majority of maritime pine trees, strong terpenoid emitters, providing a large potential for biogenic SOA formation. In order to simulate OA build-up in this area, a specific model configuration set-up, adapted to the local peculiarities was necessary. As the forest is inhomogeneous, with interstitial agricultural fields, high-resolution 1 km simulations over the forest area were performed. BVOC emissions were predicted by MEGAN, but specific land cover information needed to be used, chosen from the comparison of several high-resolution land cover databases. Moreover, the tree species distribution needed to be updated for the specific conditions of the Landes forest. In order to understand the canopy effect in the forest, canopy effects on vertical diffusivity, winds and radiation were implemented in the model in a simplified way. The refined simulations show a redistribution of BVOCs with a decrease in isoprene and an increase in terpenoid emissions with respect to the standard case, in line with observations. Corresponding changes on simulated BSOA sources are tracked. Very low night-time ozone, sometimes near zero, remains overestimated in all simulations. This has implications to the night-time oxidant budget, including NO3. Despite careful treatment of physical conditions, simulated BSOA is overestimated in the most refined simulation. Simulations are also compared to air quality sites surrounding the Landes forest, reporting a more realistic simulation in these stations in the most refined test case. Finally the importance of the see breeze system which also impacts species concentrations inside the forest is made evident.

This global study, which has been coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization Global Atmospheric Watch (WMO/GAW) programme, aims to understand the behaviour of key air pollutant species during the COVID-19 pandemic period of exceptionally low emissions across the globe. We investigated the effects of the differences in both emissions and regional and local meteorology in 2020 compared with the period 2015–2019. By adopting a globally consistent approach, this comprehensive observational analysis focuses on changes in air quality in and around cities across the globe for the following air pollutants PM2.5, PM10, PMC (coarse fraction of PM), NO2, SO2, NOx, CO, O3 and the total gaseous oxidant (OX = NO2 + O3) during the pre-lockdown, partial lockdown, full lockdown and two relaxation periods spanning from January to September 2020. The analysis is based on in situ ground-based air quality observations at over 540 traffic, background and rural stations, from 63 cities and covering 25 countries over seven geographical regions of the world. Anomalies in the air pollutant concentrations (increases or decreases during 2020 periods compared to equivalent 2015–2019 periods) were calculated and the possible effects of meteorological conditions were analysed by computing anomalies from ERA5 reanalyses and local observations for these periods. We observed a positive correlation between the reductions in NO2 and NOx concentrations and peoples’ mobility for most cities. A correlation between PMC and mobility changes was also seen for some Asian and South American cities. A clear signal was not observed for other pollutants, suggesting that sources besides vehicular emissions also substantially contributed to the change in air quality. As a global and regional overview of the changes in ambient concentrations of key air quality species, we observed decreases of up to about 70% in mean NO2 and between 30% and 40% in mean PM2.5 concentrations over 2020 full lockdown compared to the same period in 2015–2019. However, PM2.5 exhibited complex signals, even within the same region, with increases in some Spanish cities, attributed mainly to the long-range transport of African dust and/or biomass burning (corroborated with the analysis of NO2/CO ratio). Some Chinese cities showed similar increases in PM2.5 during the lockdown periods, but in this case, it was likely due to secondary PM formation. Changes in O3 concentrations were highly heterogeneous, with no overall change or small increases (as in the case of Europe), and positive anomalies of 25% and 30% in East Asia and South America, respectively, with Colombia showing the largest positive anomaly of ~70%. The SO2 anomalies were negative for 2020 compared to 2015–2019 (between ~25 to 60%) for all regions. For CO, negative anomalies were observed for all regions with the largest decrease for South America of up to ~40%. The NO2/CO ratio indicated that specific sites (such as those in Spanish cities) were affected by biomass burning plumes, which outweighed the NO2 decrease due to the general reduction in mobility (ratio of ~60%). Analysis of the total oxidant (OX = NO2 + O3) showed that primary NO2 emissions at urban locations were greater than the O3 production, whereas at background sites, OX was mostly driven by the regional contributions rather than local NO2 and O3 concentrations. The present study clearly highlights the importance of meteorology and episodic contributions (e.g., from dust, domestic, agricultural biomass burning and crop fertilizing) when analysing air quality in and around cities even during large emissions reductions. There is still the need to better understand how the chemical responses of secondary pollutants to emission change under complex meteorological conditions, along with climate change and socio-economic drivers may affect future air quality. The implications for regional and global policies are also significant, as our study clearly indicates that PM2.5 concentrations would not likely meet the World Health Organization guidelines in many parts of the world, despite the drastic reductions in mobility. Consequently, revisions of air quality regulation (e.g., the Gothenburg Protocol) with more ambitious targets that are specific to the different regions of the world may well be required., World Meteorological Organization Global Atmospheric Watch programme is gratefully acknowledged for initiating and coordinating this study and for supporting this publication. We acknowledge the following projects for supporting the analysis contained in this article: Air Pollution and Human Health for an Indian Megacity project PROMOTE funded by UK NERC and the Indian MOES, Grant reference number NE/P016391/1; Regarding project funding from the European Commission, the sole responsibility of this publication lies with the authors. The European Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. This project has received funding from the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 874990 (EMERGE project). European Regional Development Fund (project MOBTT42) under the Mobilitas Pluss programme; Estonian Research Council (project PRG714); Estonian Research Infrastructures Roadmap project Estonian Environmental Observatory (KKOBS, project 2014-2020.4.01.20-0281). European network for observing our changing planet project (ERA-PLANET, grant agreement no. 689443) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, Estonian Ministry of Sciences projects (grant nos. P180021, P180274), and the Estonian Research Infrastructures Roadmap project Estonian Environmental Observatory (3.2.0304.11-0395). Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East—Climate and Atmosphere Research (EMME-CARE) project, which has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant agreement no. 856612) and the Government of Cyprus. INAR acknowledges support by the Russian government (grant number 14.W03.31.0002), the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (agreement 14.W0331.0006), and the Russian Ministry of Education and Science (14.W03.31.0008). We are grateful to to the following agencies for providing access to data used in our analysis: A.M. Obukhov Institute of Atmospheric Physics Russian Academy of Sciences; Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente della Campania (ARPAC); Air Quality and Climate Change, Parks and Environment (MetroVancouver, Government of British Columbia); Air Quality Monitoring & Reporting, Nova Scotia Environment (Government of Nova Scotia); Air Quality Monitoring Network (SIMAT) and Emission Inventory, Mexico City Environment Secretariat (SEDEMA); Airparif (owner & provider of the Paris air pollution data); ARPA Lazio, Italy; ARPA Lombardia, Italy; Association Agréée de Surveillance de la Qualité de l’Air en Île-de-France AIRPARIF / Atmo-France; Bavarian Environment Agency, Germany; Berlin Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz, Germany; California Air Resources Board; Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), India; CETESB: Companhia Ambiental do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil. China National Environmental Monitoring Centre; Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee (CPCC), India. DCMR Rijnmond Environmental Service, the Netherlands. Department of Labour Inspection, Cyprus; Department of Natural Resources Management and Environmental Protection of Moscow. Environment and Climate Change Canada; Environmental Monitoring and Science Division Alberta Environment and Parks (Government of Alberta); Environmental Protection Authority Victoria (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia); Estonian Environmental Research Centre (EERC); Estonian University of Life Sciences, SMEAR Estonia; European Regional Development Fund (project MOBTT42) under the Mobilitas Pluss programme; Finnish Meteorological Institute; Helsinki Region Environmental Services Authority; Haryana Pollution Control Board (HSPCB), IndiaLondon Air Quality Network (LAQN) and the Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN) supported by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government; Madrid Municipality; Met Office Integrated Data Archive System (MIDAS); Meteorological Service of Canada; Ministère de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques (Gouvernement du Québec); Ministry of Environment and Energy, Greece; Ministry of the Environment (Chile) and National Weather Service (DMC); Moscow State Budgetary Environmental Institution MOSECOMONITORING. Municipal Department of the Environment SMAC, Brazil; Municipality of Madrid public open data service; National institute of environmental research, Korea; National Meteorology and Hydrology Service (SENAMHI), Peru; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment; Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Canada; Public Health Service of Amsterdam (GGD), the Netherlands. Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB), India. Réseau de surveillance de la qualité de l'air (RSQA) (Montréal); Rosgydromet. Mosecomonitoring, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Russia; Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 20–05–00254) SAFAR-IITM-MoES, India; São Paulo State Environmental Protection Agency, CETESB; Secretaria de Ambiente, DMQ, Ecuador; Secretaría Distrital de Ambiente, Bogotá, Colombia. Secretaria Municipal de Meio Ambiente Rio de Janeiro; Mexico City Atmospheric Monitoring System (SIMAT); Mexico City Secretariat of Environment, Secretaría del Medio Ambiente (SEDEMA); SLB-analys, Sweden; SMEAR Estonia station and Estonian University of Life Sciences (EULS); SMEAR stations data and Finnish Center of Excellence; South African Weather Service and Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries through SAAQIS; Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge (MITECO); University of Helsinki, Finland; University of Tartu, Tahkuse air monitoring station; Weather Station of the Institute of Astronomy, Geophysics and Atmospheric Science of the University of São Paulo; West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB).

This review provides a community’s perspective on air quality research focusing mainly on developments over the past decade. The article provides perspectives on current and future challenges as well as research needs for selected key topics. While this paper is not an exhaustive review of all research areas in the field of air quality, we have selected key topics that we feel are important from air quality research and policy perspectives. After providing a short historical overview, this review focuses on improvements in characterizing sources and emissions of air pollution, new air quality observations and instrumentation, advances in air quality prediction and forecasting, understanding interactions of air quality with meteorology and climate, exposure and health assessment, and air quality management and policy. In conducting the review, specific objectives were (i) to address current developments that push the boundaries of air quality research forward, (ii) to highlight the emerging prominent gaps of knowledge in air quality research, and (iii) to make recommendations to guide the direction for future research within the wider community. This review also identifies areas of particular importance for air quality policy. The original concept of this review was borne at the International Conference on Air Quality 2020 (held online due to the COVID 19 restrictions during 18–26 May 2020), but the article incorporates a wider landscape of research literature within the field of air quality science. On air pollution emissions the review highlights, in particular, the need to reduce uncertainties in emissions from diffuse sources, particulate matter chemical components, shipping emissions, and the importance of considering both indoor and outdoor sources. There is a growing need to have integrated air pollution and related observations from both ground-based and remote sensing instruments, including in particular those on satellites. The research should also capitalize on the growing area of low-cost sensors, while ensuring a quality of the measurements which are regulated by guidelines. Connecting various physical scales in air quality modelling is still a continual issue, with cities being affected by air pollution gradients at local scales and by long-range transport. At the same time, one should allow for the impacts from climate change on a longer timescale. Earth system modelling offers considerable potential by providing a consistent framework for treating scales and processes, especially where there are significant feedbacks, such as those related to aerosols, chemistry, and meteorology. Assessment of exposure to air pollution should consider the impacts of both indoor and outdoor emissions, as well as application of more sophisticated, dynamic modelling approaches to predict concentrations of air pollutants in both environments. With particulate matter being one of the most important pollutants for health, research is indicating the urgent need to understand, in particular, the role of particle number and chemical components in terms of health impact, which in turn requires improved emission inventories and models for predicting high-resolution distributions of these metrics over cities. The review also examines how air pollution management needs to adapt to the abovementioned new challenges and briefly considers the implications from the COVID-19 pandemic for air quality. Finally, we provide recommendations for air quality research and support for policy.