Next Article in Journal
Enhanced N2O Production Induced by Soil Salinity at a Specific Range
Previous Article in Journal
Working towards a Co-Ordinated Approach to Invasive Mosquito Detection, Response and Control in the UK
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph17145167
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Rethinking Air Quality and Climate Change after COVID-19

by
Joseph Ching
1,* and
Mizuo Kajino
1,2
1
Meteorological Research Institute, 1-1 Nagamine, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0052, Japan
2
Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(14), 5167; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145167
Submission received: 24 June 2020 / Revised: 10 July 2020 / Accepted: 14 July 2020 / Published: 17 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The world is currently shadowed by the pandemic of COVID-19. Confirmed cases and the death toll has reached more than 12 million and more than 550,000 respectively as of 10 July 2020. In the unsettling pandemic of COVID-19, the whole Earth has been on an unprecedented lockdown. Social distancing among people, interrupted international and domestic air traffic and suspended industrial productions and economic activities have various far-reaching and undetermined implications on air quality and the climate system. Improvement in air quality has been reported in many cities during lockdown, while the death rate of COVID-19 has been found to be higher in more polluted cities. The relationship between the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and air quality is under investigation. In addition, the battle against COVID-19 could bring short-lived and long-lasting and positive and negative impacts to the warming climate. The impacts on the climate system and the role of the climate in modulating the COVID-19 pandemic are the foci of scientific inquiry. The intertwined relationship among environment, climate change and public health is exemplified in the pandemic of COVID-19. Further investigation of the relationship is imperative in the Anthropocene, in particular, in enhancing disaster preparedness. This short article intends to give an up-to-date glimpse of the pandemic from air quality and climate perspectives and calls for a follow-up discussion.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The world has been in a panic caused by the pandemic of COVID-19 since the beginning of 2020 [1]. At the moment of composing this article, the unsettling numbers of confirmed cases and the death toll worldwide due to COVID-19 have reached over 12 million and more than 550,000 respectively, according to the global database [2]. Currently, all countries have been busy in curbing the pandemic. To adopt the strategy of “flattening the curve”, the whole Earth has been on an unprecedented lockdown along with various measures from personal to national levels. These measures have impacted on climate and air quality, whereas the environment and climate in return could affect the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus leading to COVID-19. The battle against the pandemic of COVID-19 is characterized by human intervention. The intertwined relationship among environment, climate change and public health [3,4,5] is exemplified in the pandemic of COVID-19. Further investigation of the relationship is imperative in enhancing disaster prevention and preparedness, in particular in the Anthropocene [6,7,8]. While it is not possible to give a comprehensive review at this moment due to a large volume of ongoing studies in many aspects, this brief review intends to give an up-to-date glimpse of the pandemic from air quality and climate perspectives, and by raising some critical questions to initiate follow-up discussion and inspire further research.

2. Airborne Transmission of COVID-19

It is vital to unravel and then acknowledge the channels of transmission of infectious diseases in order to design infectious control measures and COVID-19 is no exception. In earlier times, close contact and virus-contaminated surfaces (fomite) [9] were believed to be the principle transmission channels of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Gradually, an increasing amount of scientific evidence has gravitated to support possible airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus [10,11,12,13,14], albeit a controversy at the moment of compiling this article ([15] and references therein). Aerosol particles were found to play a critical role in the airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus [9,16,17]. Particles carrying the virus originated from patients could be expelled through exhalation, talking, sneezing and coughing [18,19]. The expelled particles travel in ambient environments to different spatial extents and have an atmospheric lifetime depending on (1) particles sizes, (2) indoor ventilation or outdoor air movement and (3) ambient temperature and humidity [20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. Considering the evaporation and falling of the droplets indoors, Xie and co-authors determined that particles with sizes between 60 μm and 100 μm would fully evaporate before falling for 2 m, subject to environmental conditions [20]. According to Bourouiba [12], in the occasion of forced discharge, the turbulence cloud carrying the virus-containing particles could possibly reach as far as 6 m to 8 m. Prather, Wang and Schooley [17] suggested that universal mask wearing is an effective way to minimize the spread of the virus among persons amid a good few asymptomatic patients.
Tackling the COVID-19 pandemic is an interdisciplinary mission that involves natural science, medical science and social science [27]. Within the field of natural science, apart from climate scientists and environmental scientists, aerosol scientists have a particular role in answering questions about the airborne transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus [11]. Specific questions include, but are not limited to, (1) the lifetime and the fate of the virus carrying aerosol particles in both indoor and outdoor environments [28] and (2) the interactions between the virus and other chemical compositions within particles [29,30]. The answers to these questions combined with relevant researches from virologists and epidemiologists could elucidate the physiological and environmental factors determining contagiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Results of these interdisciplinary studies are essential in (1) the detection of the virus-containing aerosol in both indoor and outdoor environments [31,32,33], (2) the development of infection control measures in both indoor and outdoor environments [28,34,35] and (3) the recommendation to the general public for infection prevention (Figure 1).

3. Air Quality and COVID-19

Aerosol particles, also known as PM2.5 (particles with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers), have been accused of deteriorating air quality and leading to various kinds of pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases causing premature death [37]. A few studies have indicated that cities with poorer air quality are prone to a higher death rate of COVID-19 than cleaner ones [38,39,40]. The mechanisms behind the positive correlation remain to be explored further [41,42,43,44]. It is reasonable to speculate and investigate the roles of ambient aerosol particles in (1) promoting airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in both indoor and outdoor environments and (2) promoting a higher premature death rate of COVID-19. Furthermore, for (2), it is worth examining whether the higher premature death rate is due to the weakening of immunity from the underlying chronic diseases caused by poor air quality or due to the interactions between the SARS-CoV-2 virus contained in the particles and other coexisting chemical components.
Since March 2020, many cities have been on lockdown. A few studies reported significantly improved air quality and visibility in many cities and postulated or attributed that to the reduced emissions from industrial productions, local transport, power generations and many other economic activities. This is evident from satellite images and ground-based measurements of PM2.5 and major gaseous pollutants in many cities [45,46,47,48,49,50]. Measurements of NO2 showed that extensive reductions of an average of 53% happened in urban areas in Europe due to restrictions on transport, and the reduction of NO2 in Wuhan, China amounted to 57% with respect to the 3-year average level (2017–2019). Urban PM2.5 concentrations were found to decrease by about 8% and 42% in Europe and Wuhan, respectively [51]. However, the daily average ozone concentrations in urban centers increased in a number of European cities as well as Wuhan. The increase during the lockdown ranged from 2.4% to 27% in European cities and 36% in Wuhan. The reduction of NO2 was blamed for the increase in ozone concentrations [51]. Bekbulat and colleagues calculated the temporally-corrected time series of ozone and PM2.5 from US EPA daily data and concluded that both PM2.5 and ozone were higher than their corresponding expected values in the post-COVID-19 period across the US [52]. In addition, a number of studies revealed generally that there has been a decrease in NO2 and PM2.5 and an increase in ozone concentrations during or after the lockdown in Barcelona, Spain [53], Delhi, India [46] and cities in Central China [54]. In the UK during April, although NO2 concentrations were found to be lower with respect to the 4-year average (2015–2019), PM2.5 and ozone did not show any significant difference [55]. It has been evident from the observations in various countries that air quality improvement is achievable. However, it should also be acknowledged that variations exist among individual countries in terms of magnitudes and temporal patterns of the changes in the air quality induced by their respective lockdown policies. These variations are due to the differences in upwind regions, topography, meteorological characteristics and emission characteristics, which are related to socioeconomically-driven human activities. To devise a city- or nation-specific clear air policy, the lockdown has offered an evaluation testbed of emission control policy in mitigating severe air pollution facing humankind globally [56,57,58].
Apart from the outdoor air quality, indoor air quality has been a concern regarding the spread of the disease and the associated preventive and infection control measures. Places of special interest include, but are not limited to, toilets, hospitals, clinics, aircrafts and train compartments. Recent laboratory studies [59,60] revealed the presence of SAR-CoV-2 viral RNA in patients’ feces. Comparing the presence of viral RNA in respiratory swabs (16.7 days in their sampled patients), that in fecal samples lasted for a longer period (27.9 days) with respect to the first symptom onset [58]. Along with that, it has been well recognized that a toilet plume composed of virus containing bioaerosol particles could be produced during flushing [61,62]. Johnson and co-authors found that 95% of toilet flushing generated droplets were less than 2 μm and >99% less than 5 μm in diameter and the amount of airborne bioaerosols increased with flush energy [61]. Measurements by Knowlton and colleagues showed the particles’ diameter peaked at 0.3 μm and stayed in the air for longer than 30 min after the flush. The bioaerosols generated by toilet flushing contained live pathogens and, apart from lingering in the air, could contaminate surfaces [62]. These findings raise an essential question pertinent to infection control measures carried out in highly contagious places such as hospitals, which is “Is flushing toilet a possible mean of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through the generation of an aerosol plume?” McDermott and colleagues further mentioned a few research questions regarding the potential roles of bioaerosols from toilet flushing in transmitting SARS-CoV-2 [63]. Meanwhile, putting a lid down before flushing is a simple precaution to reduce the amount of airborne bioaerosols.
From indoor air quality and microclimate perspectives, several venues should be given particular considerations, namely (1) processes generating clouds of virus laden aerosols, such as the use of nebulizers during medical treatment and flushing toilets, (2) air exchange frequency and ventilation strategy between the outdoor and indoor environments, (3) the cleanliness of the filters of air conditioning systems, (4) temperature and relative humidity control strategies and (5) the density and flow of humans indoors. All of these are expected to impact on the duration of the bioaerosols remaining airborne, the extent of contamination of the nearby surfaces and the viability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus contained in the particles.

4. Climate, Climate Change, COVID-19 and Beyond

While the cleaner air during lockdown has demonstrated that it is feasible for human society to improve air quality, the climate implications of reduced aerosol and gaseous pollutants emissions during the global pandemic of COVID-19 remain to be scrutinized. On the other hand, the climate could modulate the spread of the pandemic and climate change could lead to the emergence of novel infectious diseases.
Decarbonization has been suggested by climate scientists and environmental protection activists as a solution to global climate change. Since the emission reduction during COVID-19 lockdown is of a global scale, it could offer some clues about the efficacy of greenhouse gases and PM2.5 reductions of a hypothetical global scale decarbonization. A recent preliminary calculation showed a 17% cut of daily global carbon dioxide emissions in April 2020 compared with the 2019 average [64]. This global scale lockdown is analogous to a natural testbed of a geoengineering experiment offered by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 [65,66,67,68]. Another venue for climate-relevant evaluation is air traffic. Since the outbreak of COVID-19, both international and domestic air traffic has been diminishing. The impacts of air traffic on the climate can be explored by contrasting the global climate model simulated radiative forcing due to air traffic [69,70] before COVID-19 and during COVID-19 lockdown.
Although it has been reported that the air quality has improved in many cities since lockdown, an ad hoc emission reduction of this kind undoubtedly does not offer a fundamental and long-lasting solution to air quality deterioration and climate change. The emission of PM2.5 and gaseous pollutants will likely bounce back when economic activities resume. In addition, during COVID-19, an enormous amount of one-time disposable items, for example, surgical masks, personal protection equipment and commodity packaging, have been discarded [71,72]. This waste treatment potentially results in an extra amount of air pollutants.
The outbreak of influenza and SARS [73] in 2003 (caused by SARS-CoV-1) demonstrated clear seasonality and latitudinal dependence [74,75,76,77]. Some studies suggested that the temperature and humidity of a locality influenced the virus spread [24,25,78,79,80,81,82]. In light of the seasonal emergence pattern of SARS-CoV-1, it has been speculated that high temperatures and high humidity may suppress the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. It was believed that COVID-19 could follow a seasonal pattern alternating between the southern and the northern hemisphere, characterized by an outbreak in the winter-spring, then a decline in the summer and followed by a recurrence in the next winter. However, enormous locally infected cases found in countries having high ambient temperatures such as Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia put the speculation into question [83]. It is possible that the role of climate in the transmission of COVID-19 could be modulated by other factors including population density, age distribution, hygiene level, policy intervention and local culture that are specific to individual countries. This probably gives rise to the ambiguous seasonal signal of local SARS-CoV-2 transmission, if any. Further studies are needed to elucidate whether the climate plays any role and to what extent in regulating the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. This could offer some hints for an early warning of the next wave of an outbreak. In the long term, the temperature, humidity and latitudinal dependence of some infectious diseases implies that climate change could further complicate the future spread of infectious diseases including COVID-19. Besides, several studies have indicated the enhanced incidence of infectious diseases amid a warming climate through changing precipitation patterns and temperature variations [84,85,86,87]. More frequent occurrences of extreme weather could contribute in this regard. In addition, it is worrisome that under global warming, ancient micro-organisms, including viruses, bacteria and fungi that have been locked in permafrost, icebergs and glaciers, could be released into the atmosphere upon the melting of the ice [88,89,90]. This poses a potential threat to humankind since the immune system of the modern human has never encountered those pathogens carried by the ancient micro-organisms [90].

5. Looking Forward

Fighting against COVID-19 has provided humankind an enlightening lesson, which has established a database and experience for developing future strategies to combat global pandemics, improve air quality and mitigate climate change. In the battle against the pandemic, it is obvious that the combined effort of academic institutions, medical institutions, private corporates, governments and general public is vital in order to bring the pandemic under control. This is also applicable in global air quality improvement and climate change mitigation. Particularly, academic researchers of relevant areas should participate in providing advice to policy makers in formulating science-based decisions, assessing risk and issuing early warning and contribute to raising general public awareness through education and communication. Besides, since the success in restricting the emission of CFCs [91] in healing the ozone hole over Antarctica, international efforts such as the recent Paris Agreement have resulted in no significant achievement towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. International collaboration is treasured not only in fighting against COVID-19 but also in global warming mitigation and air quality improvement.
The era of Anthropocene [6,7,8] is characterized by the nexus of the environment-climate-public health-society [3,4,92]. Human activities affect the surrounding environment and the Earth’s climate system significantly and conversely the environmental and climate changes present extreme weather, natural disasters and threats to public health. Within the context of global warming, increasingly frequent extreme weather could enhance the emergence and spread of various kinds of infectious diseases. Close monitoring, effective international communication and early warning systems of global pandemics are desired. In recent decades, when sustainable development goals (SDGs) have been emphasized [93,94], the societal prevention and preparedness towards natural and manmade disasters [95] as well as adaptation and resilience to the environmental and climate changes have become increasingly indispensable. Shifting to a green economy may be a solution to global sustainability.

6. Conclusions

We conclude this brief communication by summarizing the unresolved issues discussed and raising corresponding follow-up research questions in Table 1. Table 2 lists a few important research questions for post-COVID-19. We believe ongoing scientific research will continue to unlock how the pandemic of COVID-19 interacts with the fabric of society. What is as important as scientific research is how individuals respond to the challenges in all facets as a responsible global citizen. Perhaps everyone, not only scientists, should reflect on the questions “What have we learnt from the global pandemic of COVID-19?” and “Are we prepared for the challenges ahead, if this time is only a rehearsal?”.

Author Contributions

The manuscript was mainly drafted by J.C. with the collaboration of M.K. Both authors later revised the manuscript together based on the reviewers’ suggestion. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research is financially supported by Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN: a constituent member of NIHU) Project No. 14200133 (Aakash). J.C. is International Research Fellow of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and acknowledges the financial support from the JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research in Japan (Standard). M.K. and J.C. acknowledge the support from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Sciences (JSPS) (KAKENHI grant nos. JP19F19402, JP19H01155 and JP16KK0018).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rolling updates on coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen (accessed on 30 January 2020).
  2. Worldometers. Coronavirus Statistic. 2020. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed on 10 July 2020).
  3. Kinney, P.L. Climate change, air quality, and human health. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 35, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Whitmee, S.; Haines, A.; Beyrer, C.; Boltz, F.; Capon, A.G.; de Souza Dias, B.F.; Ezeh, A.; Frumkin, H.; Gong, P.; Head, P.; et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 2015, 386, 1973–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lelieveld, J.; Klingmüller, K.; Pozzer, A.; Burnett, R.T.; Haines, A.; Ramanathan, V. Effects of fossil fuel and total anthropogenic emission removal on public health and climate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 7192–7197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Crutzen, P.J. The “anthropocene”. In Earth System Science in the Anthropocene; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 13–18. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ruddiman, W.F. The anthropocene. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2013, 41, 45–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lewis, S.L.; Maslin, M.A. Defining the anthropocene. Nature 2015, 519, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Tellier, R.; Li, Y.; Cowling, B.J.; Tang, J.W. Recognition of aerosol transmission of infectious agents: A commentary. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Anderson, E.L.; Turnham, P.; Griffin, J.R.; Clarke, C.C. Consideration of the Aerosol Transmission for COVID-19 and Public Health. Risk Anal. 2020, 40, 902–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Asadi, S.; Bouvier, N.; Wexler, A.S.; Ristenpart, W.D. The coronavirus pandemic and aerosols: Does COVID-19 transmit via expiratory particles? Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 635–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Bourouiba, L. Turbulent gas clouds and respiratory pathogen emissions: Potential implications for reducing transmission of COVID-19. JAMA 2020, 323, 1837–1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Morawska, L.; Cao, J. Airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2: The world should face the reality. Environ. Int. 2020, 139, 105730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, J.; Du, G. COVID-19 may transmit through aerosol. Ir. J. Med. Sci. (1971–) 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Lewis, D. Is the coronavirus airborne? Experts can’t agree. Nature 2020, 580, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Drossinos, Y.; Stilianakis, N.I. What aerosol physics tells us about airborne pathogen transmission? Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2020, 54, 639–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Prather, K.A.; Wang, C.C.; Schooley, R.T. Reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Science 2020, 368, 1422–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Bourouiba, L.; Dehandschoewercker, E.; Bush, J.W. Violent expiratory events: On coughing and sneezing. J. Fluid Mech. 2014, 745, 537–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ningthoujam, R. COVID 19 can spread through breathing, talking, study estimates. Curr. Med. Res. Pract. 2020, 10, 132–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xie, X.; Li, Y.; Chwang, A.T.; Ho, P.L.; Seto, W.H. How far droplets can move in indoor environments—Revisiting the Wells evaporation-falling curve. Indoor Air 2007, 17, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tang, J.W. The effect of environmental parameters on the survival of airborne infectious agents. J. R. Soc. Interface 2009, 6 (Suppl. 6), S737–S746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Casanova, L.M.; Jeon, S.; Rutala, W.A.; Weber, D.J.; Sobsey, M.D. Effects of air temperature and relative humidity on coronavirus survival on surfaces. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 2712–2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Lee, J.; Yoo, D.; Ryu, S.; Ham, S.; Lee, K.; Yeo, M.; Min, K.; Yoon, C. Quantity, size distribution, and characteristics of cough-generated aerosol produced by patients with an upper respiratory tract infection. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2018, 19, 840–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marr, L.C.; Tang, J.W.; Van Mullekom, J.; Lakdawala, S.S. Mechanistic insights into the effect of humidity on airborne influenza virus survival, transmission and incidence. J. R. Soc. Interface 2019, 16, 20180298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ma, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; He, X.; Wang, B.; Fu, S.; Yan, J.; Niu, J.; Zhou, J.; Luo, B. Effects of temperature variation and humidity on the death of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 724, 138226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Mittal, R.; Ni, R.; Seo, J.H. The flow physics of COVID-19. J. Fluid Mech. 2020, 894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Vaishya, R.; Deshmukh, S.G. Areas of academic research with the impact of COVID-19. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 2020, 38, 1524–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wei, J.; Li, Y. Airborne spread of infectious agents in the indoor environment. Am. J. Infect. Control 2016, 44, S102–S108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mikhailov, E.; Vlasenko, S.; Niessner, R.; Pöschl, U. Interaction of aerosol particles composed of protein and salts with water vapor: Hygroscopic growth and microstructural rearrangement. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. Eur. Geosci. Union 2003, 3, 4755–4832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Vejerano, E.P.; Marr, L.C. Physico-chemical characteristics of evaporating respiratory fluid droplets. J. R. Soc. Interface 2018, 15, 20170939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Fernandez, M.O.; Thomas, R.J.; Garton, N.J.; Hudson, A.; Haddrell, A.; Reid, J.P. Assessing the airborne survival of bacteria in populations of aerosol droplets with a novel technology. J. R. Soc. Interface 2019, 16, 20180779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Liu, Y.; Ning, Z.; Chen, Y.; Guo, M.; Liu, Y.; Gali, N.K.; Sun, L.; Duan, Y.; Cai, J.; Westerdahl, D.; et al. Aerodynamic characteristics and RNA concentration of SARS-CoV-2 aerosol in Wuhan hospitals during COVID-19 outbreak. BioRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Setti, L.; Passarini, F.; De Gennaro, G.; Barbieri, P.; Pallavicini, A.; Ruscio, M.; Piscitelli, P.; Colao, A.; Miani, A. Searching for SARS-COV-2 on Particulate Matter: A Possible Early Indicator of COVID-19 Epidemic Recurrence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cook, T.M. Personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease (COVID) 2019 pandemic—A narrative review. Anaesthesia 2020, 75, 920–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Cheng, V.C.; Wong, S.C.; Chen, J.H.; Yip, C.C.; Chuang, V.W.; Tsang, O.T.; Sridhar, S.; Chan, J.F.; Ho, P.L.; Yuen, K.Y. Escalating infection control response to the rapidly evolving epidemiology of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 in Hong Kong. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. About Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/seisakunitsuite/bunya/newpage_00032.html (accessed on 28 March 2020).
  37. Cohen, A.J.; Brauer, M.; Burnett, R.; Anderson, H.R.; Frostad, J.; Estep, K.; Balakrishnan, K.; Brunekreef, B.; Dandona, L.; Dandona, R.; et al. Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: An analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015. Lancet 2017, 389, 1907–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Frontera, A.; Cianfanelli, L.; Vlachos, K.; Landoni, G.; Cremona, G. Severe air pollution links to higher mortality in COVID-19 patients: The “double-hit” hypothesis. J. Infect. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ogen, Y. Assessing nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels as a contributing factor to the coronavirus (COVID-19) fatality rate. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Wu, X.; Nethery, R.C.; Sabath, B.M.; Braun, D.; Dominici, F. Exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Conticini, E.; Frediani, B.; Caro, D. Can atmospheric pollution be considered a co-factor in extremely high level of SARS-CoV-2 lethality in Northern Italy? Environ. Pollut. 2020, 261, 114465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fattorini, D.; Regoli, F. Role of the chronic air pollution levels in the Covid-19 outbreak risk in Italy. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 264, 114732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sanità di Toppi, L.; Sanità di Toppi, L.; Bellini, E. Novel coronavirus: How atmospheric particulate affects our environment and health. Challenges 2020, 11, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yongjian, Z.; Jingu, X.; Fengming, H.; Liqing, C. Association between short-term exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 infection: Evidence from China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138704. [Google Scholar]
  45. Dantas, G.; Siciliano, B.; França, B.B.; da Silva, C.M.; Arbilla, G. The impact of COVID-19 partial lockdown on the air quality of the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 729, 139085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mahato, S.; Pal, S.; Ghosh, K.G. Effect of lockdown amid COVID-19 pandemic on air quality of the megacity Delhi, India. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 730, 139086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wang, Q.; Su, M. A preliminary assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on environment—A case study of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Venter, Z.S.; Aunan, K.; Chowdhury, S.; Lelieveld, J. COVID-19 lockdowns cause global air pollution declines with implications for public health risk. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Sharma, S.; Zhang, M.; Gao, J.; Zhang, H.; Kota, S.H. Effect of restricted emissions during COVID-19 on air quality in India. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shrestha, A.M.; Shrestha, U.B.; Sharma, R.; Bhattarai, S.; Tran, H.N.T.; Rupakheti, M. Lockdown caused by COVID-19 pandemic reduces air pollution in cities worldwide. EarthArXiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sicard, P.; De Marco, A.; Agathokleous, E.; Feng, Z.; Xu, X.; Paoletti, E.; Rodriguez, J.J.D.; Calatayud, V. Amplified ozone pollution in cities during the COVID-19 lockdown. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 735, 139542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bekbulat, B.; Apte, J.S.; Millet, D.B.; Robinson, A.; Wells, K.C.; Marshall, J.D. PM2.5 and Ozone Air Pollution Levels Have Not Dropped Consistently Across the US Following Societal Covid Response. ChemRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tobías, A.; Carnerero, C.; Reche, C.; Massagué, J.; Via, M.; Minguillón, M.C.; Alastuey, A.; Querol, X. Changes in air quality during the lockdown in Barcelona (Spain) one month into the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Xu, K.; Cui, K.; Young, L.H.; Wang, Y.F.; Hsieh, Y.K.; Wan, S.; Zhang, J. Air Quality Index, Indicatory Air Pollutants and Impact of COVID-19 Event on the Air Quality near Central China. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020, 20, 1204–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Annex to the AQEG Report: Estimation of Changes in Air Pollution Emissions, Concentrations and Exposure during the COVID-19 Outbreak in the UK. Available online: https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat09/2007010845_AQEG_COVID-19_Evidence_cited_in_report.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
  56. Cadotte, M. Early evidence that COVID-19 government policies reduce urban air pollution. EarthArXiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Muhammad, S.; Long, X.; Salman, M. COVID-19 pandemic and environmental pollution: A blessing in disguise? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Tanzer-Gruener, R.; Li, J.; Robinson, A.; Presto, A. Impacts of Modifiable Factors on Ambient Air Pollution: A Case Study of COVID-19 Shutdowns. ChemRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wu, Y.; Guo, C.; Tang, L.; Hong, Z.; Zhou, J.; Dong, X.; Yin, H.; Xiao, Q.; Tang, Y.; Qu, X.; et al. Prolonged presence of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in faecal samples. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 5, 434–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tian, Y.; Rong, L.; Nian, W.; He, Y. Review article: Gastrointestinal features in COVID-19 and the possibility of faecal transmission. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2020, 51, 843–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Johnson, D.; Lynch, R.; Marshall, C.; Mead, K.; Hirst, D. Aerosol Generation by Modern Flush Toilets. Aerosol Sci. Technol. J. Am. Assoc. Aerosol Res. 2013, 47, 1047–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Knowlton, S.D.; Boles, C.L.; Perencevich, E.N.; Diekema, D.J.; Nonnenmann, M.W. Bioaerosol concentrations generated from toilet flushing in a hospital-based patient care setting. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2018, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. McDermott, C.V.; Alicic, R.Z.; Harden, N.; Cox, E.J.; Scanlan, J.M. Put a lid on it: Are faecal bio-aerosols a route of transmission for SARS-CoV-2. J. Hosp. Infect. 2020, 105, 397–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Le Quéré, C.; Jackson, R.B.; Jones, M.W.; Smith, A.J.; Abernethy, S.; Andrew, R.M.; De-Gol, A.J.; Willis, D.R.; Shan, Y.; Canadell, J.G.; et al. Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Minnis, P.; Harrison, E.F.; Stowe, L.L.; Gibson, G.G.; Denn, F.M.; Doelling, D.R.; Smith, W.L. Radiative climate forcing by the Mount Pinatubo eruption. Science 1993, 259, 1411–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Parker, D.E.; Wilson, H.; Jones, P.D.; Christy, J.R.; Folland, C.K. The impact of Mount Pinatubo on world-wide temperatures. Int. J. Climatol. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 1996, 16, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Trenberth, K.E.; Dai, A. Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2007, 34, L15702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Robock, A.; Bunzl, M.; Kravitz, B.; Stenchikov, G.L. A test for geoengineering? Science 2010, 327, 530–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Burkhardt, U.; Kärcher, B. Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2011, 1, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Wilcox, L.J.; Shine, K.P.; Hoskins, B.J. Radiative forcing due to aviation water vapour emissions. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 63, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Klemeš, J.J.; Van Fan, Y.; Tan, R.R.; Jiang, P. Minimising the present and future plastic waste, energy and environmental footprints related to COVID-19. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 127, 109883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. You, S.; Sonne, C.; Ok, Y.S. COVID-19′s unsustainable waste management. Science 2020, 368, 1438. [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhong, N.S.; Zheng, B.J.; Li, Y.M.; Poon, L.L.M.; Xie, Z.H.; Chan, K.H.; Li, P.H.; Tan, S.Y.; Chang, Q.; Xie, J.P.; et al. Epidemiology and cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Guangdong, People’s Republic of China, in February, 2003. Lancet 2003, 362, 1353–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Lofgren, E.; Fefferman, N.H.; Naumov, Y.N.; Gorski, J.; Naumova, E.N. Influenza seasonality: Underlying causes and modeling theories. J. Virol. 2007, 81, 5429–5436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Azziz Baumgartner, E.; Dao, C.N.; Nasreen, S.; Bhuiyan, M.U.; Mah-E-Muneer, S.; Mamun, A.A.; Sharker, M.Y.; Zaman, R.U.; Cheng, P.Y.; Klimov, A.I.; et al. Seasonality, timing, and climate drivers of influenza activity worldwide. J. Infect. Dis. 2012, 206, 838–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Bloom-Feshbach, K.; Alonso, W.J.; Charu, V.; Tamerius, J.; Simonsen, L.; Miller, M.A.; Viboud, C. Latitudinal variations in seasonal activity of influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV): A global comparative review. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Deyle, E.R.; Maher, M.C.; Hernandez, R.D.; Basu, S.; Sugihara, G. Global environmental drivers of influenza. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 13081–13086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Shaman, J.; Kohn, M. Absolute humidity modulates influenza survival, transmission, and seasonality. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 3243–3248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Liu, J.; Zhou, J.; Yao, J.; Zhang, X.; Li, L.; Xu, X.; He, X.; Wang, B.; Fu, S.; Niu, T.; et al. Impact of meteorological factors on the COVID-19 transmission: A multi-city study in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 726, 138513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Tosepu, R.; Gunawan, J.; Effendy, D.S.; Lestari, H.; Bahar, H.; Asfian, P. Correlation between weather and Covid-19 pandemic in Jakarta, Indonesia. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 725, 138436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Zhu, Y.; Xie, J. Association between ambient temperature and COVID-19 infection in 122 cities from China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 724, 138201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Rios, V.; Gianmoena, L. Is there a link between temperatures and COVID-19 contagions? Evidence from Italy. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. O’Reilly, K.M.; Auzenbergs, M.; Jafari, Y.; Liu, Y.; Flasche, S.; Lowe, R. Effective transmission across the globe: The role of climate in COVID-19 mitigation strategies. Lancet Planet. Health 2020, 4, e172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shope, R. Global climate change and infectious diseases. Environ. Health Perspect. 1991, 96, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Epstein, P.R. Climate change and emerging infectious diseases. Microbes Infect. 2001, 3, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Khasnis, A.A.; Nettleman, M.D. Global warming and infectious disease. Arch. Med. Res. 2005, 36, 689–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Shuman, E.K. Global climate change and infectious diseases. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 362, 1061–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Charlier, P.; Claverie, J.M.; Sansonetti, P.; Coppens, Y.; Augias, A.; Jacqueline, S.; Rengot, F.; Deo, S. Re-emerging infectious diseases from the past: Hysteria or real risk? Eur. J. Intern. Med. 2017, 44, 28–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Charlier, P.; Héry-Arnaud, G.; Coppens, Y.; Malaurie, J.; Hoang-Oppermann, V.; Deps, P.; Kenmogne, J.B.; Foka, M.; Josué, E.; Schor, X.E.; et al. Global warming and planetary health: An open letter to the WHO from scientific and indigenous people urging for paleo-microbiology studies. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2020, 82, 104284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sajjad, W.; Rafiq, M.; Din, G.; Hasan, F.; Iqbal, A.; Zada, S.; Ali, B.; Hayat, M.; Irfan, M.; Kang, S. Resurrection of inactive microbes and resistome present in the natural frozen world: Reality or myth? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 735, 139275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Schrope, M. Successes in fight to save ozone layer could close holes by 2050. Nature 2000, 408, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Ravindra, K.; Rattan, P.; Mor, S.; Aggarwal, A.N. Generalized additive models: Building evidence of air pollution, climate change and human health. Environ. Int. 2019, 132, 104987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Robert, K.W.; Parris, T.M.; Leiserowitz, A.A. What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2005, 47, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Griggs, D.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Gaffney, O.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Shyamsundar, P.; Steffen, W.; Glaser, G.; Kanie, N.; Noble, I. Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013, 495, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chakraborty, I.; Maity, P. COVID-19 outbreak: Migration, effects on society, global environment and prevention. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 17 05167 g001a 550Ijerph 17 05167 g001b 550
Figure 1. (a) A banner reminding park goers to keep a social distance of 2 m. (b) Posters on a public notice board showing the preventive measures recommended by Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [36].
Figure 1. (a) A banner reminding park goers to keep a social distance of 2 m. (b) Posters on a public notice board showing the preventive measures recommended by Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [36].
Ijerph 17 05167 g001aIjerph 17 05167 g001b
Table
Table 1. Some of the unresolved issues about COVID-19 and corresponding follow-up questions suggested in the article.
Table 1. Some of the unresolved issues about COVID-19 and corresponding follow-up questions suggested in the article.
Unresolved IssuesFollow-Up Questions
  • Microphysically, there is a controversy over whether airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 takes place, although it is increasingly evident that it is the case.
  • How do the SARS-CoV-2 virus containing particles interact with other ambient aerosol particles?
  • How does the SARS-CoV-2 virus interact with other coexisting components in the same particles?
  • What are the factors determining the atmospheric lifetime and fate of SARS-CoV-2 virus containing particles? What is the minimum amount SARS-CoV-2 virus required to cause COVID-19? Consequently, how do those factors affect the infectiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus? How does the effectiveness of airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 virus compare with transmission through close physical contact and contaminated surfaces (also known as fomite)?
  • How do we compile science-based infectious control measures and policies and recommendations to the general public in both indoor and outdoor public areas?
2.
Macrophysically, there is a seemingly positive correlation between the COVID-19 death rate and pollution level in many cities. It is uncertain if such a positive correlation is prevalent worldwide. Also, the underlying mechanisms responsible for that remain to be explored.
3.
The impacts on the global climate from the drastically reduced greenhouse gases and particulate matter (PM) emissions during lockdown remain to be examined.
5.
How does the reduced emissions during lockdown affect air quality and global climate quantitatively and qualitatively? What are the mechanisms behind those impacts?
6.
How do we leverage the testbed offered by the lockdown for compiling a future emission policy for air quality improvement and global warming mitigation?
4.
The impacts on air quality from the drastically reduced gaseous pollutants and PM emissions during lockdown remain to be examined.
Table
Table 2. Some of the important questions for post-COVID-19.
Table 2. Some of the important questions for post-COVID-19.
  • How would the emissions after the resumption of economics and human activities shape the air quality and climate and consequently public health?
2.
How would the treatment of the extra medical and household waste (e.g., take away catering packaging) generated during COVID-19 affect the air quality and climate and consequently public health?
3.
What have we learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic? Under the circumstance of potentially more frequent occurrences of infectious diseases amid climate change, are we prepared for the next?

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ching, J.; Kajino, M. Rethinking Air Quality and Climate Change after COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5167. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145167

AMA Style

Ching J, Kajino M. Rethinking Air Quality and Climate Change after COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(14):5167. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145167

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ching, Joseph, and Mizuo Kajino. 2020. "Rethinking Air Quality and Climate Change after COVID-19" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 14: 5167. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145167

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop