Field measurements of indoor and community air quality in rural Beijing before, during, and after the COVID ‐19 lockdown

Abstract

The coronavirus (COVID‐19) lockdown in China is thought to have reduced air pollution emissions due to reduced human mobility and economic activities. Few studies have assessed the impacts of COVID‐19 on community and indoor air quality in environments with diverse socioeconomic and household energy use patterns. The main goal of this study was to evaluate whether indoor and community air pollution differed before, during, and after the COVID‐19 lockdown in homes with different energy use patterns. Using calibrated real‐time PM2.5 sensors, we measured indoor and community air quality in 147 homes from 30 villages in Beijing over 4 months including periods before, during, and after the COVID‐19 lockdown. Community pollution was higher during the lockdown (61 ± 47 μg/m3) compared with before (45 ± 35 μg/m3, p < 0.001) and after (47 ± 37 μg/m3, p < 0.001) the lockdown. However, we did not observe significantly increased indoor PM2.5 during the COVID‐19 lockdown. Indoor‐generated PM2.5 in homes using clean energy for heating without smokers was the lowest compared with those using solid fuel with/without smokers, implying air pollutant emissions are reduced in homes using clean energy. Indoor air quality may not have been impacted by the COVID‐19 lockdown in rural settings in China and appeared to be more impacted by the household energy choice and indoor smoking than the COVID‐19 lockdown. As clean energy transitions occurred in rural households in northern China, our work highlights the importance of understanding multiple possible indoor sources to interpret the impacts of interventions, intended or otherwise.

PM2.5 exposures increased for the majority of Indians and a third of the global population during COVID-19 lockdowns: a residential biomass burning and environmental justice perspective

“…Emphasizing the global health burden associated with exposures to these emissions, McDuffie et al [37] found that 20% of the global mortality burden from ambient PM 2.5 exposures is attributed to solid-fuel consumption for residential cooking and heating. There have been a number of interventions, both from public and private entities, to address clean cooking (and heating) around the world, but the findings presented here (and in other regional COVID-19 PM 2.5 exposure assessments [38][39][40][41][42]) that PM 2.5 exposures increased despite historically clean ambient air quality during COVID-19 lockdowns, underscores the urgent need to further address clean cooking (and heating) interventions to achieve improved air quality and subsequent human health benefits.…”

COVID-19 Lockdown Air Pollution Reduction: Did It Impact the Number of COPD Hospitalizations?

“…Although in nearly all regions where the lockdown was implemented, the population's exposure to ambient air pollution decreased, little is known about the effects of exposure to air pollution within the indoor environments where individuals reside. Even though there are assumptions that measures implemented to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection did not contribute to the reduction in indoor air pollution [26], one Chinese study that monitored PM 2.5 concentrations in 147 homes from 30 villages using special analyzers found that during the lockdown there was no statistically significant increase in the concentration of these particles compared to the period before the pandemic [47], whereas another Chinese study demonstrated that during the lockdown in China there was a significant increase in the PM 2.5 indoor concentrations [48]. Notwithstanding, considering the recommendation to stay indoors, it is plausible that the populace may have been subjected to prolonged exposure to certain levels of indoor air contaminants, rendering them vulnerable to the adverse consequences of air pollution.…”

Multi-Source Data and Machine Learning-Based Refined Governance for Responding to Public Health Emergencies in Beijing: A Case Study of COVID-19

“…Additionally, environmental factors have been used as a focus of research. Micro aspects, such as the effect of indoor air quality [32] and indoor ventilation [33], as well as macro aspects, such as the spatial heterogeneity of COVID-19 cases and their environmental influences, have been studied in various districts of Beijing [9]. Different environments have been shown to have different effects on people's psychology during the COVID-19 epidemic [34,35].…”