Next Article in Journal
From Single Orders to Batches: A Sensitivity Analysis of Warehouse Picking Efficiency
Previous Article in Journal
Research on the Identification, Network Construction, and Optimization of Ecological Spaces in Metropolitan Areas Based on the Concept of Production-Living-Ecological Space
Previous Article in Special Issue
Anthropic-Induced Variability of Greenhouse Gasses and Aerosols at the WMO/GAW Coastal Site of Lamezia Terme (Calabria, Southern Italy): Towards a New Method to Assess the Weekly Distribution of Gathered Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 18
10.3390/su16188229
sustainability-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:
Article

Trends in CO, CO2, CH4, BC, and NOx during the First 2020 COVID-19 Lockdown: Source Insights from the WMO/GAW Station of Lamezia Terme (Calabria, Southern Italy)

by
Francesco D’Amico
1,2,*,
Ivano Ammoscato
1,
Daniel Gullì
1,
Elenio Avolio
1,
Teresa Lo Feudo
1,
Mariafrancesca De Pino
1,
Paolo Cristofanelli
3,
Luana Malacaria
1,
Domenico Parise
1,†,
Salvatore Sinopoli
1,
Giorgia De Benedetto
1 and
Claudia Roberta Calidonna
1,*
1
Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research Council of Italy, Area Industriale Comp. 15, I-88046 Lamezia Terme, Catanzaro, Italy
2
Department of Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Calabria, Via Bucci Cubo 15B, I-87036 Rende, Cosenza, Italy
3
Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, National Research Council of Italy, Via P. Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Current address: National Research Council of Italy, Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Str. Prv. Lecce-Monteroni km 1.2, I-73100 Lecce, Italy.
Sustainability 2024, 16(18), 8229; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188229
Submission received: 26 August 2024 / Revised: 16 September 2024 / Accepted: 18 September 2024 / Published: 21 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Climate Action for Global Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In 2020, the COVID-19 outbreak led many countries across the globe to introduce lockdowns (LDs) that effectively caused most anthropic activities to either stop completely or be significantly reduced. In Europe, Italy played a pioneeristic role via the early introduction of a strict nationwide LD on March 9th. This study was aimed at evaluating, using both chemical and meteorological data, the environmental response to that occurrence as observed by the Lamezia Terme (LMT) GAW/WMO station in Calabria, Southern Italy. The first 2020 lockdown was therefore used as a “proving ground” to assess CO, CO2, CH4, BC, and NOx concentrations in a rather unique context by exploiting the location of LMT in the context of the Mediterranean Basin. In fact, its location on the Tyrrhenian coast of Calabria and local wind circulation both lead to daily cycles where western-seaside winds depleted in anthropogenic pollutants can be easily differentiated from northeastern-continental winds, enriched in anthropogenic outputs. In addition to this, the first Italian LD occurred during the seasonal transition from winter to spring and, consequently, summer, thus providing new insights on emission outputs correlated with seasons. The findings clearly indicated BC and, in particular, CO as strongly correlated with average daily temperatures, as well as possibly domestic heating. CO2’s reduction during the lockdown and consequent increase in the post-lockdown period, combined with wind data, allowed us to constrain the local source of emissions located northeast from LMT. NOx reductions during specific circumstances were consistent with hypotheses from previous research, which linked them to rush hour traffic and other forms of transportation emissions. CH4’s stable patterns were consistent with livestock, landfills, and other sources assumed to be nearly constant during LD periods.

1. Introduction

On 9 March 2020, the Italian Government issued a DPCM (Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri, Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers) introducing the first full scale lockdown (LD) in the world, outside China, due to the COVID-19 outbreak [1]. The first LD was extremely strict and effectively prohibited non-essential activities, thus causing most of them to come to a complete stop or be vastly reduced. The LD persisted until May 18th, when a second DPCM lifted most restrictions [2]. In the following year and a half, other minor LDs were introduced, though none of them were as strict as the first, thus making that LD a unique circumstance for the evaluation of atmospheric concentrations of select parameters. In fact, following similar LDs throughout the globe, researchers quickly performed studies on the unprecedented environmental conditions brought by LD measures [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10].
The environmental response to reduced anthropic activities was not constant among the main parameters, greenhouse gases (GHGs), aerosols, and other key compounds observed globally across international networks such as the WMO/GAW (World Meteorological Organization—Global Atmosphere Watch). For example, despite generally lower anthropogenic emissions [11] and improved air quality [12,13], methane experienced a global surge in 2020 [14,15]. Stevenson et al. (2022) [16] reported a 3.8 to 5.8 ppb increase in the 2020 annual growth rate of methane linked to the large reduction in anthropogenic NOx (nitrogen oxides) releases to the atmosphere, which was partially counterbalanced by fewer CO (carbon monoxide) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC) emissions; the net increase, accounting for NOx, CO, and NMVOC counterbalance effects, has been reported as 2.9 (1.7 to 4.0) ppb. NOx compounds are known to be key regulating factors of methane [17,18], accounting for an approximate 1000 ppb total reduction in atmospheric concentration levels [19]. It is also worth noting that LDs have led to an increase in methane emissions related to the energy sector [20]. In the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a 5.3–5.5 ppb increase in the annual methane growth rate up to the value of 15.0 ppb yr−1 was observed [21]. Locally, the first multi-year evaluation of LMT methane cycles and trends shown in D’Amico et al. (2024a) [22] highlighted a 2020 surge that was in accordance with the global trend observed by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) [21]. Conversely, several studies reported a decline in other compounds such as CO, as a direct consequence of LD restrictions and reduced anthropogenic emissions [12,23,24].
Research studies in Italy primarily focused on the impact of LD restrictions on atmospheric particle concentrations [25,26], urban air quality [27,28,29], specific GHGs in a variety of environments [30,31,32], and multiparameter evaluations [33,34]. Globally, a review by Addas and Maghrabi (2021) [35] reported that most studies published within one year from the first LDs focused, in order, on NO2, PM2.5, PM10, SO2, and CO as key indicators of changes in air quality due to LD restrictions. In the context of Europe, as early as 2020, several studies reported increase in air quality throughout the continent [36,37,38]. Following research provided information on reduced emissions on a continental scale, in particular with respect to nitrogen compounds [39,40,41].
With respect to the Lamezia Terme (LMT) observation site in Calabria, Southern Italy, a previous study assessed the effect of LD restrictions on nanoparticle concentrations via a comparison with data gathered at Lecce (Apulia, Southern Italy) [42]. However, no other research has ventured deeper into a multiparameter evaluation of the first LD period at LMT, accounting for multiple gases and aerosols. This study is therefore a first attempt at analyzing CO, CO2, CH4, BC, and NOx trends as well as key meteorological data observed at LMT during that period, providing new insights with respect to source apportionment in an area characterized by multiple anthropogenic and natural emission outputs [22,43].
Each of the analyzed parameters is an indicator of certain sources. Carbon monoxide (CO) is a common byproduct of combustion processes, and its atmospheric trends have been frequently linked to the application of sustainable policies and new technologies to combustion engines [44]; carbon dioxide (CO2) is a primary output of fossil fuel burning and has been known for decades to be a primary driver of climate change [45,46,47,48,49,50]; methane (CH4) is also a byproduct of the fuel combustion, for instance, of regular vehicles [51] and airplane engines [22,52,53], though natural outputs such as wetlands [54] and specific anthropogenic emissions such as livestock [55] are responsible for a considerable fraction of the annual global output; eBC (equivalent black carbon) is an excellent indicator of combustion processes [56], known to pose both health [57] and climate [58,59,60,61] hazards; nitrogen oxides (NOx) also serve as indicators of anthropogenic activities, with various studies highlighting their reduction during LDs [62,63]. Fossil and biomass burning, as well as the use of fertilizers in agriculture, are among the main anthropogenic sources of atmospheric NOx [64,65].
Overall, the analysis of these parameters, combined with the peculiar configuration of the observation site and local wind circulation, are expected to provide new insights on the first 2020 LD in Southern Italy, which in turn can be used to gather new information on local source apportionment and, by extension, the development of new sustainable policies at a local scale.
This research is organized as follows: Section 2 describes and characterizes the observation site of LMT; Section 3 shows the results of the performed analyses; and Section 4 and Section 5 are focused on the discussion and the conclusions of this study.

2. The LMT Station, Instruments, and Datasets

2.1. Characterization of the LMT Site

The regional coastal observation site of Lamezia Terme (WMO/GAW code: LMT) is located 600 m from the Tyrrhenian coast of the southern Italian region of Calabria, in the Sant’Eufemia plain. The station, active since 2015, is operated by the National Research Council of Italy—Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (CNR-ISAC) and continuously gathers data on a number of chemical and meteorological parameters.
The observation site is characterized by a peculiar local wind circulation, which results into two main corridors: a western-seaside direction yielding generally low concentrations in pollutants and other parameters and a northeastern-continental corridor, which generally yields much higher concentrations [22,43]. Figure 1 shows the location of LMT in Italy and also highlights several key emission sources in the area.
Several studies in the past have analyzed wind circulation, demonstrating that it is locally dominated by a breeze regime [66,67]. Specifically, Federico and collaborators (2010a) [66] demonstrated how local circulation is dominated by breezes, which also play a relevant role in local climate regulation. The same study reported seasonal changes in wind speeds, in addition to minor changes in terms of wind orientation, through the main W-WSW/NE-ENE corridor remains responsible for most of the circulation throughout the year. It is worth reporting however that when the 850 hPa layer is analyzed, a dominant NW direction is observed, which matches large-scale circulation in the sector. In another study published in the same year, Federico and collaborators [67] used two years of wind data to demonstrate that large-scale forcing is responsible for daytime circulation in the winter season, as well as in November, and nighttime flows are attributable to nocturnal breezes. Moreso, during summer as spring, as well as part of fall, daytime breeze circulation has been demonstrated to be the result of large-scale and local flows.
Local wind circulation also has a direct influence on air traffic, as demonstrated by the 10/28 (100–280° N) runway orientation at the nearby Lamezia Terme International Airport (IATA: SUF; ICAO: LICA) located 3 km north from the observation site.
Further research on breeze and its influence on local circulation was performed in the following years via a characterization of wind profiles at several altitude thresholds (10 to 300 m), using a Zephir lidar 300 [68]. Additional research has been aimed specifically at PBL (planetary boundary layer) structure via the combination of multiple instruments and techniques [69,70].
As mentioned before, there are several local sources of emission in the area. Previous studies have reported the airport, A2 highway (part of the European route E45), local livestock farming, landfills, and urban traffic among these sources [22,43]. These local outputs are deemed responsible for the observed peaks in CO, CO2, CH4, eBC, and NOx. With respect to NOx, previous research indicated rush hour traffic and other forms of transportation [43], while landfills and livestock farming have been indicated as key CH4 emission hotspots [22,43]. Data gathered at the observatory have been used to assess possible anthropic influences via an evaluation of weekday/weekend patterns, which are assumed to be subject to anthropic cycles [71,72]. Due to its location in the Mediterranean Basin, LMT is also subject to summertime open fire emissions [73], which result into notable CO and eBC peaks, as well as Saharan dust events [74].

2.2. Instruments and Datasets

Measurements of CO, CO2, CH4, eBC, and NOx were performed using three distinct instruments. Data on carbon monoxide (ppb), carbon dioxide (ppm), and methane (ppb) mole fractions were gathered by a CRDS (Cavity Ring-Down Spectrometry) analyzer, the Picarro G2401 (Santa Clara, CA, USA). CRDS analyzers such as the G2401 measure, with high degrees of precision, the mole fractions of trace gases via the ring-down principle, specifically via the light scattering and absorption effects that occur at certain wavelengths [75]. At the WMO/GAW observation site of Lamezia Terme, Picarro G2401 operate via a four-point configuration type that is handled by a Vici-Valco rotative valve (model: EMTMA-CE) that switches, at regular intervals, between the following points: one is used for ambient air gathering; three points are connected to standard cylinders (CO: WMO X2014; CO2: WMO X2019; CH4: WMO X2004) provided by NOAA’s GML (Global Monitoring Laboratory). These reference cylinders cover CO concentrations in the 40–500 nmol/mol range, CO2 mole fractions in the 250–520 µmol/mol range, and CH4 concentrations in the 300–2600 nmol/mol range. Every 14 days, the same cylinders are measured by G2401 analyzers three times each, and each measurement is performed for 30 continuous minutes. In order to contain the effect of water vapor on the accuracy of all measurements, a Nafion dryer (model: MD-070-144S-4) is used to dry ambient air prior to CRDS analysis. G2401 analyzers at LMT perform a measurement every 5 s (precision: 1 ppb).
eBC measurements were performed by a MAAP (Multi-Angle Absorption Photometer), specifically the model Thermo Scientific 5012 (Franklin, MA, USA). The MAAP relies on short-wave absorption properties of eBC and other aerosol particles to perform its measurements. The MAAP measures equivalent black carbon (eBC) and the short-wave radiation aerosol absorption coefficient (sa) at 637 nm on a per-minute basis [76,77]. For the sampling of aerosol, a pump maintaining a flow rate set to a constant value (200 L/min) gathers ambient air at 4 m above local ground level. The gathered stream of aerosols is isokinetically split into several instruments, such as a nephelometer and the above mentioned. With respect to the MAAP, it illuminates a particle-loaded filter and measures, at the same time, the radiation passing through said filter, as well as backscattered light from three different angles [78]. The flow is set at 16.7 L/min. It was constantly verified, via a mass closure, that eBC was lower than 50% of the overall PM2.5 mass concentration.
NOx (NO + NO2) measurements were performed by another Thermo Scientific instrument, specifically the 42i (Franklin, MA, USA). The instrument relies on a chemiluminescence (CL) reaction by which atmospheric NO gathered by the 42i reacts with O3 (ozone) released by the instrument itself, and the reaction results into the release NO2 (in an excited state) and O2 [79]. The excited NO2 returns to a more stable condition by emitting ultraviolet radiation at a specific wavelength, which is measured by the instrument to estimate NO mole fractions in the atmosphere. In order to measure NO2 concentrations, some of the analyzed ambient air passes through a catalytic converter capable of reducing atmospheric NO2 in NO. Via a pure subtraction between total NOx mole fractions and NO, NO2 concentrations are therefore calculated. Measurements are subject to monthly checks against zero and span checks via external zero air generators (Thermo 1160), plus GPT/gas dilution systems (Thermo 160i). More details on NOx measurements and calibrations at LMT are available in Cristofanelli et al. (2017) [43].
Key meteorological data (wind speed and direction, temperature) were gathered by a Vaisala WXT520 (Vantaa, Finland). Wind data were gathered by the instrument via ultrasonic transducers placed on a horizontal plane and the measurement of the time span it takes for the ultrasound pulses to travel between transducers. Temperature was measured by a RC oscillator and two reference capacitors, with a continuous measurement of the capacitance of the sensors themselves. Specifically, a microprocessor performs compensations for temperature dependencies on humidity and pressure sensors. Wind speed is recorded in meters per second (m/s) with a precision of 0.3 m/s, wind direction in degrees (°) with a precision of 3°, and temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) with a precision of 0.3 °C. Meteorological data are gathered on a per-minute basis, but for the purpose of this research, hourly, and daily aggregates were used. Additional information on instruments and their configurations are available in previous research works on LMT findings [43,71,73,74]. Figure 2 shows the main features of local wind circulation between February and July 2020.
Data were aggregated on an hourly and daily basis, depending on each analysis. Table 1 shows the degrees of data coverage per category/instrument. Datasets focus entirely on the period between 1 February and 31 July, which is longer than the first Italian LD (9 March–18 May). The longer time span is used to assess and evaluate late responses of the environment to the LD in June and July, as well as the conditions that preceded the LD itself (February and early March). Overall, the analyzed period includes 4368 h in 182 days.
Unless the integration of multiple parameters is required (e.g., CO and eBC), each analysis focuses on instrument-specific data. This choice was meant to optimize total data availability, as choosing data with all four instruments fully operating at the same time would have resulted in unnecessary data loss. Due to the 100% coverage rate of wind and temperature data, meteorological parameters can be easily implemented with other data without any loss in terms of coverage. Multiple instruments were affected by extended power shortages between 1 March and 5 March, with 3 March having no operational instruments except for the Vaisala WXT520.
All datasets were processed in R 4.4.0 via ggplot2, ggpubr, openair, tidyverse, and dplyr packages, as well as their respective libraries. When required, pre(ante)-lockdown, lockdown, and post-lockdown periods were grouped in the categories ALD, LD, and PLD, respectively. ALD includes all hours/days between 1 February and 8 March; LD includes 9 March through 18 May; PLD includes 19 May through 31 July.

3. Results

3.1. Daily Temperatures and Correlations with Observed Parameters

The observation period (FEB-JUL 2020, 182 days) involved a seasonal transition from winter to spring, then summer. Some of the observed parameters in this research are believed to be dependent on domestic heating and other activities correlated with temperatures. Figure 3 shows the averaged daily temperatures throughout the entire observation period.
Consequently, the correlation between daily temperatures and each parameter (CO, CO2, CH4, eBC, NOx) was tested. ALD, LD, and PLD categories (described in Section 2.2) were used to differentiate averaged data by their period of occurrence, i.e., if they were observed before (ALD), during (LD), or after (PLD) the first nationwide LD. Hours falling in the same period were grouped in data ellipses [80] with a 90% multivariate t-distribution confidence level; the results are shown in Figure 4.
Table 2 reports R2 values computed for linear and quadratic regressions of the same data shown in Figure 4.

3.2. Hourly Averaged Trends

After the evaluation of daily averages and their correlation with temperatures, hourly trends were tested and differentiated by period of observation (ALD, LD, PLD). The results are shown in Figure 5.

3.3. Daily ALD, LD, and PLD Cycles

Following the evaluation of CH4 daily cycles seen in D’Amico et al. (2024a) [22] and their correlation with local wind circulation patterns, similar plots were created to test the response of each observed parameter to daily cycles between February and July 2020. The x axis of these plots is identical to that of Figure 2B. The results of these analyses, differentiated by category (ALD, LD, PLD), are shown in Figure 6.

3.4. Integration of Wind Data

Following the correlations observed in D’Amico et al. (2024a) [22] with respect to wind corridors and speeds, this research performed a similar analysis aimed specifically at ALD, LD, and PLD periods in 2020. The results are shown in Figure 7, while Table 3 reports the number of hourly data falling in each wind sector category. Data ellipses in this case had a lower confidence level of 70% compared to Figure 4, set to ease visualization. Figure 7(A3,B3,C3,D3,E3) consider all wind directions, including those outside the 0–90° N and 240–300° N ranges set for the NE and W sectors, respectively. Ellipses were excluded from these plots to ease visualization and highlight the “hyperbola branch pattern” (HBP) observed in D’Amico et al. (2024a) [22].

3.5. Assessment of Weekly Cycles

Following the methods seen in D’Amico et al. (2024a, 2024b) [22,72], weekly cycles were assessed by period of observation (ALD, LD, PLD). This type of evaluation was computed to highlight the impact of LD restrictions on anthropogenic emissions characterized by a weekly cycle. The results are shown in Figure 8.

4. Discussion

In this study, Italy’s pioneeristic role in introducing a nationwide lockdown (LD) [1] during the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 and Lamezia Terme’s (LMT) coastal location (Figure 1) and local wind circulation (Figure 2) were both exploited to assess CO, CO2, CH4, eBC, and NOx parameters between February and July 2020, a time span exceeding the first nationwide LD (9 March–31 July) in order to account for pre- and post-LD trends and late environmental responses to LD restrictions. The first Italian LD, which was more strict than similar measures meant to contain COVID-19 in late 2020 and in 2021, therefore provided a unique circumstance to analyze key parameters with reduced anthropic activities. Among the observed parameters, CH4 alone has so far been subject to a detailed multi-year study accounting for most of LMT’s observation history [22], while the others are as of today not characterized on an observation site level.
Generally speaking, the Mediterranean Basin is considered a hotspot for air quality assessments [81] as well as a context where multiple air mass transport mechanisms combine [82,83,84]. The first LD occurred during a seasonal transition between Mediterranean winter and spring, then summer, and resulted into most anthropic activities either being completely interrupted or significantly reduced. The most documented reduction in anthropic activity in the LMT area is that of the nearby international airport (Figure 1), where only one daily flight to/from Rome–Fiumicino (IATA: FCO; ICAO: LIRF) operated during the LD to ensure the most basic connections to air travel networks [85]. The LD also affected other activities, such as the education sector, in a country where schools are normally open from Monday to Saturday and urban rush hours in the Lamezia Terme municipality area are linked to that form of commuting. The A2 highway (Figure 1) also experienced a sharp reduction in vehicular traffic, though the toll-free policy applied to it does not allow a detailed estimate on traffic reduction.
The seasonal transition during which the first LD occurred allowed for the testing of several correlations with parameters usually linked to domestic heating and, consequently, daily temperatures. In fact, although a full-scale census and assessment on the phenomenon does not exist, many households in the rural areas nearby rely on biomass burning (in particular, wood) as domestic heating during the winter season.
Figure 3 confirms the seasonal change, which resulted in a nearly constant increase in daily temperatures since mid-April, with the exception of a heat wave slightly before the restriction lift, which occurred on 18 May [2]. This allowed a direct comparison between the above-mentioned daily temperatures and daily aggregated data concerning key parameters, as seen in Figure 4 and Table 2, which allowed for the determination of two different types of response to rising temperatures. In particular, CO (Figure 4A), eBC (Figure 4D), and NOx (Figure 4E), as shown by 90% confidence ellipses and R2 values reported in Table 2, are characterized by a correlation between daily temperatures and observed concentrations. CO in particular seems the most affected parameter, as winter concentrations are higher due to more emissions from domestic heating as well as lower OH (hydroxyl radical) concentrations, with the latter being a notable sink [86]. Conversely, CO2 (Figure 4B) and CH4 (Figure 4C) showed no correlation, as the range of daily concentrations did not seem to be affected by temperature changes and the R2 values reported in Table 2 were low.
Different trends among observed parameters were also reported in the evaluation of hourly averages throughout the entire observation period (FEB–JUL 2020), as shown in Figure 5. In the case of CO (Figure 5A), hourly data added extra detail to the correlation with daily temperatures, as peaks fell considerably from mid-April onwards, reflecting an increase in daily temperatures (Figure 3). This was also observed in the case of eBC (Figure 5D), though the pattern was not as prominent as that observed for CO. CO2 (Figure 5B) and CH4 (Figure 5C) both leaned towards a stabilization of observed hourly trends but showed an upward trend in the PLD period. CH4 in particular yielded the notable hourly peaks in the PLD period, a finding that is not in accordance with the general seasonal trend of CH4 at LMT reported in D’Amico et al. (2024a) [22] but does reflect the peak experienced by this compound in 2020. Previous studies linked CH4 concentrations and their relative stability to local sources, such as landfills (Figure 1), waste management, and livestock [43], which are all believed to have been constant during the LD. NOx experienced a decline (Figure 5E), though peaks in hourly averages were present during the LD.
Following the daily cycle analysis seen in D’Amico et al. (2024a) [22], ALD, LD, and PLD trends were analyzed for the purpose of this research study, with results shown in Figure 6. At LMT, the daily cycle is heavily influenced by local wind circulation (Figure 2): daytime flows generally come from the sea and yield low values in all parameters, while nighttime flows come from the northeast and are enriched. Unlike the trends seen in D’Amico et al. (2024a), Figure 6 shows different responses of the daily cycle between ALD, LD, and PLD periods: CO (Figure 6A) mole fractions were very low during the PLD period, but followed similar trends during the ALD and LD periods, and nighttime peaks were consistent with previous research that attributed them to stable layer conditions [43]; CO2 (Figure 6B) and CH4 (Figure 6C) both showed the actual daily cycle expected at LMT due to local wind circulation, with ALD values being generally lower than their LD and PLD counterparts; eBC (Figure 6D) and NOx (Figure 6E) both showed a daily cycle affected by a perturbance in the early morning, which is linked to the transition between NE-continental and W-seaside winds. The observed NOx pattern in early morning hours is compatible with the findings of a previous study [43], which linked them to rush hour emissions within the shallow coastal PBL. In fact, the ALD peak was significantly greater than LD and PLD concentrations observed at the same hours, highlighting a reduction in anthropic activities (specifically, transportation).
The influence of local wind circulation is further analyzed in Figure 7. Table 3 shows that, once the filters were applied, the W to NE ratio in terms of gathered hourly data was 1.67–1.71. D’Amico et al. (2024a) [22], in analyzing CH4 data at LMT, already reported a clear differentiation between W and NE mole fractions. The same study also reported a correlation between NE concentrations and wind speed, with lower speeds being correlated with the highest concentrations observed at the site, attributable to nearby sources. The study found evidence of a “hyperbola branch pattern” (HBP) in wind speeds and mole fractions. This finding from previous research was not only confirmed for CH4 in the context of the 2020 LD period but is also extended to all other observed parameters (CO, CO2, eBC, and NOx) and allows for the better constraining of some of the local sources of pollution. CO (Figure 7(A1–A3)) showed a clear seasonal trend, with ALD and PLD mole fractions being well differentiated; the main source of CO is from the NE sector and showed little influence of wind speeds, which may point to remote sources. The highest reported values from the W sector were observed during the LD at low to moderate wind speeds, which also point to contributions from other locations in the context of the Mediterranean Basin. CO2 (Figure 7(B1–B3)) showed a clear W/NE differentiation, with LD data yielding generally low values regardless of wind speed, though peaks linked to the LD period were reported. CH4 (Figure 7(C1–C3)) showed patterns similar to those of CO2, which is consistent with other evaluations in this research paper, as well as finding from previous research [43], and may indicate contributions from remote and local sources alike. eBC (Figure 7(D1–D3)) showed a seasonal trend, plus a peculiar behavior during the LD period: contributions from nearby and remote locations were prominent in the NE sector alone. NOx (Figure 7(E1–E3)) concentrations showed reduced influence from wind speeds, which resulted in high values even from the W sector, which previous research attributed to offshore ship emissions related to traffic to and from the Gioia Tauro port, located ≈55 km S-SW of LMT, which is a key logistical hub in the central Mediterranean [43].
A final comparison between ALD, LD, and PLD data was performed on a weekday latu sensu (Monday to Sunday) basis, as shown in Figure 8, following the findings from D’Amico et al. (2024a, 2024b) [22,72]. By averaging gathered hourly data per weekday, anthropic influences were tested under the assumption that no natural phenomenon would lead to a proper weekly cycle, unlike anthropogenic emissions that are subject to such cycles [87,88,89,90]. CO (Figure 8A) showed no LD and PLD weekly cycles, while a weekly cycle during the ALD period was present and was consistent with changes in anthropic activities across the week, a pattern that is believed to have been reduced to a bare minimum during the LD. The LD period did not show a proper weekly cycle for CO, which is consistent with constant domestic heating emissions during the lockdown; in addition to that, the PLD period did not show a weekly cycle, which is also consistent with a shift from CO emissions from domestic heating (and comparable sources of emission) to wildfires, which are assumed to be spread equally over the course of a standard week. In the case of CO, fluctuations in daily concentrations differed up to ≈50%. CO2 (Figure 8B), CH4 (Figure 8C), eBC (Figure 8D), and NOx (Figure 8E) all showed well defined weekly changes in the ALD period. In the case of CO2, it is worth noting that the observed fluctuations were in the order of a few ppm around the average of 427.5 ppm and were therefore not comparable to the major fluctuations seen for other parameters. CH4 showed a clear pattern in the ALD period, which was consistent with a weekly cycle of anthropogenic emissions; LD and PLD CH4 weekly behaviors tended towards a normalization, which supports the hypothesis of a constant, or nearly constant, output from sources such as landfills and livestock. eBC’s flattening in the PLD period was consistent with a shift from anthropogenic emissions to other outputs such as wildfires (which can be of anthropic origin, but do not have a clear weekly cycle). NOx had a prominent ALD cycle, with weekly fluctuations reaching a peak of ≈250%, a threshold not observed in any of the other parameters.
In addition to weekly fluctuations, averaged values per weekday (dotted horizontal lines) in Figure 8 also highlight the differences between absolute ALD, LD, and PLD concentrations, which reflect clear seasonal changes in the case of CO and eBC and major shifts in emission sources. Both parameters had much lower PLD averages compared to their LD and ALD counterparts.
An assessment of the environmental response to LDs also needs to consider restrictions and regulations enforced in other countries. As described in Section 2.1, in fact, LMT’s location in the central Mediterranean area makes the site subject to the influence of several European and African outputs [74]. The Mediterranean Basin itself is also known to be subject to air masses originating in continental Europe and enriched in various pollutants [83,84,91]. At LMT, the W sector is assumed not to have physical obstacles for hundreds of kilometers, as the Italian island of Sardinia is in fact located ≈600 km W-NW from LMT. Continental Spain and France are located ≈1300 and ≈1000 km in those directions, respectively. In the case of the NE corridor however, it is worth noting that both Greece and Albania are in a ≈350 km radius from the LMT observation site in the E/NE direction, meaning that at least some of the observed emission outputs could be attributable to such “remote” regions as well as other countries in the Balkans. For instance, Greece had a different LD policy in early 2020 compared to Italy (23 March–4 May in Greece, 42 days [92]) that does not overlap with the definitions of ALD, LD, and PLD used in this paper.
Overall, a cross analysis of the ALD, LD, and PLD periods at LMT allowed us to better constrain, for the first time in its operational history, the seasonal cycles of parameters such as CO and eBC in conditions with extremely low anthropogenic emissions, as well as provide new insights on the sources of CO2, CH4, and NOx emissions in the NE sector. These new findings significantly expand the knowledge on source apportionment at LMT and provide baseline data for future research relying on additional atmospheric tracers.

5. Conclusions

For the first time, the first Italian lockdown (LD) of 2020 has been used to assess the behavior of CO (carbon monoxide), CO2 (carbon dioxide), CH4 (methane), eBC (equivalent black carbon), and NOx (nitrogen oxides, NO + NO2) at the WMO/GAW regional coastal site of Lamezia Terme in Calabria, Southern Italy. The study exploited the station’s location in the context of the Mediterranean Basin, where local wind circulation patterns allow for the discrimination between western-seaside corridors yielding generally low concentration values and northeastern-continental corridors, enriched in most pollutants and agents of climate change. The study considered a period longer than the actual first nationwide LD, which was introduced on 9 March and consequently lifted on 18 May. Data gathered between February and July therefore allowed us to assess the behavior of observed parameters before (ALD), during (LD), and after (PLD) the first lockdown.
This research allowed us to better constrain the correlation between key parameters and seasonal changes, as the observation period is characterized by a nearly constant increase in daily temperatures. CO and eBC were proven to be the most affected by seasonal changes, thus confirming that local sources of emissions may in fact be related to domestic heating and similar outputs.
Other evaluations considered hourly averages and, particularly, their patterns in daily cycles. The analysis of these cycles, differentiated by ALD, LD, and PLD, allowed us to better constrain local and potentially remote emission sources, as well as the influences of wind circulation on observed data. Consequently, the integration of wind data (direction and speed) also allowed us to find notable differences between the W and NE corridors, with the former being depleted in most parameters across the entire observation period. The NE corridor is characterized by the same hyperbola branch pattern (HBP) observed in a previous study, with low wind speeds being correlated with high concentrations and, vice versa, high speeds yielding low values. This finding allowed us to identify local sources in the NE sector as responsible for most of these peaks.
Finally, following the implementation of new methods seen in previous research, all parameters were evaluated with respect to their weekly cycles, under the assumption that no natural phenomenon (unlike anthropic activities) would lead to a proper weekly cycle and trend. This analysis proved the ALD period to be affected by such cycles, while the LD and PLD periods were much less affected, further corroborating the hypothesis proposed in other research by which anthropogenic emissions are responsible for a significant fraction of the peaks observed at the LMT station.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.D. and C.R.C.; methodology, F.D., C.R.C., D.G. and T.L.F.; software, F.D.; validation, C.R.C., I.A., D.G., T.L.F. and P.C.; formal analysis, F.D.; investigation, F.D.; data curation, F.D., I.A., D.G., E.A., T.L.F., P.C., L.M., D.P., S.S. and G.D.B.; writing—original draft preparation, F.D.; writing—review and editing, F.D., C.R.C., I.A., D.G., E.A., T.L.F., M.D.P., P.C., L.M., D.P., S.S. and G.D.B.; visualization, F.D., C.R.C., D.G. and T.L.F.; supervision, C.R.C. and P.C.; funding acquisition, C.R.C. and M.D.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by AIR0000032—ITINERIS, the Italian Integrated Environmental Research Infrastructures System (D.D. n. 130/2022—CUP B53C22002150006) under the EU—Next Generation EU PNRR—Mission 4 “Education and Research”—Component 2: “From research to business”—Investment 3.1: “Fund for the realization of an integrated system of research and innovation infrastructures”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because they are part of other ongoing studies.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editorial board for their support and assistance. They would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers who contributed to expand and improve the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Italian Republic. Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers, 9 March 2020. GU Serie Generale n. 62. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2020/03/09/20A01558/sg (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  2. Italian Republic. Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers, 18 May 2020. GU Serie Generale n. 127. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2020/05/18/20A02727/sg (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  3. Bai, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Alatalo, J.M.; Hughes, A.C. Changes in Air Quality during the First-Level Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Shanghai Municipality, China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bherwani, H.; Nair, M.; Musugu, K.; Gautam, S.; Gupta, A.; Kapley, A.; Kumar, R. Valuation of air pollution externalities: Comparative assessment of economic damage and emission reduction under COVID-19 lockdown. Air. Qual. Atmos. Health 2020, 13, 683–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bolaño-Ortiz, T.R.; Puliafito, S.E.; Berná-Peña, L.L.; Pascual-Flores, R.M.; Urquiza, J.; Camargo-Caicedo, Y. Atmospheric Emission Changes and Their Economic Impacts during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in Argentina. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jia, C.; Fu, X.; Bartelli, D.; Smith, L. Insignificant Impact of the “Stay-At-Home” Order on Ambient Air Quality in the Memphis Metropolitan Area, U.S.A. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Piccoli, A.; Agresti, V.; Balzarini, A.; Bedogni, M.; Bonanno, R.; Collino, E.; Colzi, F.; Lacavalla, M.; Lanzani, G.; Pirovano, G.; et al. Modeling the Effect of COVID-19 Lockdown on Mobility and NO2 Concentration in the Lombardy Region. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sharma, S.; Zhang, M.; Anshika 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]
  9. Venter, Z.S.; Aunan, K.; Chowdhury, S.; Lelieveld, J. COVID-19 lockdowns cause global air pollution declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 18984–18990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, Z.; Arshad, A.; Zhang, C.; Hussain, S.; Li, W. Unprecedented Temporary Reduction in Global Air Pollution Associated with COVID-19 Forced Confinement: A Continental and City Scale Analysis. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Le Quéré, C.; Jackson, R.B.; Jones, M.W.; Smith, A.J.P.; 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. Change 2020, 10, 647–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tondelli, S.; Farhadi, E.; Akbari Monfared, B.; Ataeian, M.; Tahmasebi Moghaddam, H.; Dettori, M.; Saganeiti, L.; Murgante, B. Air Quality and Environmental Effects Due to COVID-19 in Tehran, Iran: Lessons for Sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khalaf, A.T.; Wei, Y.; Wan, J.; Abdul Kadir, S.Y.; Zainol, J.; Jiang, H.; Abdalla, A.N. How Did the Pandemic Affect Our Perception of Sustainability? Enlightening the Major Positive Impact on Health and the Environment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Laughner, J.L.; Neu, J.L.; Schimel, D.; Wennberg, P.O.; Barsanti, K.; Bowman, K.W.; Chatterjee, A.; Croes, B.E.; Fitzmaurice, H.L.; Henze, D.K.; et al. Societal shifts due to COVID-19 reveal large-scale complexities and feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry and climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2109481118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Peng, S.; Lin, X.; Thompson, R.L.; Xi, Y.; Liu, G.; Hauglustaine, D.; Lan, X.; Poulter, B.; Ramonet, M.; Saunois, M.; et al. Wetland emission and atmospheric sink changes explain methane growth in 2020. Nature 2022, 612, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Stevenson, D.S.; Derwent, R.G.; Wild, O.; Collins, W.J. COVID-19 lockdown emission reductions have the potential to explain over half of the coincident increase in global atmospheric methane. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2022, 22, 14243–14252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Prather, M.J. Lifetimes and Eigenstates in Atmospheric Chemistry. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1994, 21, 801–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Derwent, R.G.; Collins, W.J.; Johnson, C.E.; Stevenson, D.S. Transient Behaviour of Tropospheric Ozone Precursors in a Global 3-D CTM and Their Indirect Greenhouse Effects. Clim. Change 2001, 49, 463–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stevenson, D.S.; Young, P.J.; Naik, V.; Lamarque, J.-F.; Shindell, D.T.; Voulgarakis, A.; Skeie, R.B.; Dalsoren, S.B.; Myhre, G.; Berntsen, T.K.; et al. Tropospheric ozone changes, radiative forcing and attribution to emissions in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, 3063–3085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McNorton, J.; Bousserez, N.; Agustí-Panareda, A.; Balsamo, G.; Cantarello, L.; Engelen, R.; Huijnen, V.; Inness, A.; Kipling, Z.; Parrington, M.; et al. Quantification of methane emissions from hotspots and during COVID-19 using a global atmospheric inversion. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2022, 22, 5961–5981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lan, X.; Thoning, K.W.; Dlugokencky, E.J. Trends in Globally-Averaged CH4, N2O, and SF6 Determined from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory Measurements. Version 2024-06. 2024. Available online: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends_doi.html (accessed on 16 July 2024).
  22. D’Amico, F.; Ammoscato, I.; Gullì, D.; Lo Feudo, T.; De Pino, M.; Cristofanelli, P.; Malacaria, L.; Parise, D.; Sinopoli, S.; De Benedetto, G.; et al. Integrated analysis of methane cycles and trends at the WMO/GAW station of Lamezia Terme (Calabria, Southern Italy). Atmosphere 2024, 15, 946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lopez-Coto, I.; Ren, X.; Karion, A.; McKain, K.; Sweeney, C.; Dickerson, R.R.; McDonald, B.C.; Ahn, D.Y.; Salawitch, R.J.; He, H.; et al. Carbon Monoxide Emissions from the Washington, DC, and Baltimore Metropolitan Area: Recent Trend and COVID-19 Anomaly. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 2172–2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gamal, G.; Abdeldayem, O.M.; Elattar, H.; Hendy, S.; Gabr, M.E.; Mostafa, M.K. Remote Sensing Surveillance of NO2, SO2, CO, and AOD along the Suez Canal Pre- and Post-COVID-19 Lockdown Periods and during the Blockage. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Conte, M.; Dinoi, A.; Grasso, F.M.; Merico, E.; Guascito, M.R.; Contini, D. Concentration and size distribution of atmospheric particles in southern Italy during COVID-19 lockdown period. Atmos. Environ. 2022, 295, 119559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Giardi, F.; Nava, S.; Calzolai, G.; Pazzi, G.; Chiari, M.; Faggi, A.; Andreini, B.P.; Collaveri, C.; Franchi, E.; Nincheri, G.; et al. PM10 variation, composition, and source analysis in Tuscany (Italy) following the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2022, 22, 9987–10005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Marinello, S.; Lolli, F.; Gamberini, R. The Impact of the COVID-19 Emergency on Local Vehicular Traffic and Its Consequences for the Environment: The Case of the City of Reggio Emilia (Italy). Sustainability 2021, 13, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mashayekhi, R.; Pavlovic, R.; Racine, J.; Moran, M.D.; Manseau, P.M.; Duhamel, A.; Katal, A.; Miville, J.; Niemi, D.; Peng, S.J.; et al. Isolating the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on urban air quality in Canada. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2021, 14, 1549–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gualtieri, G.; Brilli, L.; Carotenuto, F.; Vagnoli, C.; Zaldei, A.; Gioli, B. Long-Term COVID-19 Restrictions in Italy to Assess the Role of Seasonal Meteorological Conditions and Pollutant Emissions on Urban Air Quality. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yusup, Y.; Ramli, N.K.; Kayode, J.S.; Yin, C.S.; Hisham, S.; Mohamad Isa, H.; Ahmad, M.I. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Electricity Production Due to Lockdown. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tan, C.H.; Ong, M.Y.; Nomanbhay, S.M.; Shamsuddin, A.H.; Show, P.L. The Influence of COVID-19 on Global CO2 Emissions and Climate Change: A Perspective from Malaysia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Venturi, S.; Randazzo, A.; Tassi, F.; Gioli, B.; Buccianti, A.; Gualtieri, G.; Capecchiacci, F.; Cabassi, J.; Brilli, L.; Carotenuto, F.; et al. Unveiling the changes in urban atmospheric CO2 in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: A case study of Florence (Italy). Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kar, S.; Ghosh, I.; Show, S.; Sen, A.; Gupta, T.; Chowdhury, P.; Chatterjee, T.; RoyChowdhury, A. Impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak on Society, Air Quality, and Economy in India: A Study of Three “P”s of Sustainability in India. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Putaud, J.P.; Pozzoli, L.; Pisoni, E.; Martins Dos Santos, S.; Lagler, F.; Lanzani, G.; Dal Santo, U.; Colette, A. Impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown on air pollution at regional and urban background sites in northern Italy. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2021, 21, 7597–7609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Addas, A.; Maghrabi, A. The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns on Air Quality—A Global Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Baldasano, J.M. COVID-19 lockdown effects on air quality by NO2 in the cities of Barcelona and Madrid (Spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Giani, P.; Castruccio, S.; Anav, A.; Howard, D.; Hu, W.; Crippa, P. Short-term and long-term health impacts of air pollution reductions from COVID-19 lockdowns in China and Europe: A modelling study. Lancet 2020, 4, E474–E482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Menut, L.; Bessagnet, B.; Siour, G.; Mailler, S.; Pennel, R.; Cholakian, A. Impact of lockdown measures to combat COVID-19 on air quality over western Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 741, 140426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Petetin, H.; Bowdalo, D.; Soret, A.; Guevara, M.; Jorba, O.; Serradell, K.; Pérez García-Pando, C. Meteorology-normalized impact of the COVID-19 lockdown upon NO2 pollution in Spain. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 20, 11119–11141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ciarelli, G.; Jiang, J.; El Haddad, I.; Bigi, A.; Aksoyoglu, S.; Prévôt, A.S.H.; Marinoni, A.; Shen, J.; Yan, C.; Bianchi, F. Modeling the effect of reduced traffic due to COVID-19 measures on air quality using a chemical transport model: Impacts on the Po Valley and the Swiss Plateau regions. Environ. Sci. Atmos. 2021, 1, 228–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guevara, M.; Jorba, O.; Soret, A.; Petetin, H.; Bowdalo, D.; Serradell, K.; Tena, C.; Denier van der Gon, H.; Kuenen, J.; Peuch, V.-H.; et al. Time-resolved emission reductions for atmospheric chemistry modelling in Europe during the COVID-19 lockdowns. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2021, 21, 773–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dinoi, A.; Gullì, D.; Ammoscato, I.; Calidonna, C.R.; Contini, D. Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic Lockdown on Atmospheric Nanoparticle Concentrations in Two Sites of Southern Italy. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cristofanelli, P.; Busetto, M.; Calzolari, F.; Ammoscato, I.; Gullì, D.; Dinoi, A.; Calidonna, C.R.; Contini, D.; Sferlazzo, D.; Di Iorio, T.; et al. Investigation of reactive gases and methane variability in the coastal boundary layer of the central Mediterranean basin. Elem. Sci. Anth. 2017, 5, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zheng, B.; Chevallier, F.; Ciais, P.; Yin, Y.; Deeter, M.N.; Worden, H.M.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; He, K. Rapid decline in carbon monoxide emissions and export from East Asia between years 2005 and 2016. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 044007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bolin, B.; Eriksson, E. Changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere and sea due to fossil fuel combustion. Atmos. Sea Motion 1959, 1, 130–146. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wilson, D. Quantifying and comparing fuel-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions: Coal, oil and natural gas consumption. Energy Policy 1990, 18, 550–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Scheraga, J.D.; Leary, N.A. Improving the efficiency of policies to reduce CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 1992, 20, 394–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Smith, I.M. CO2 and climatic change: An overview of the science. Energy Convers. Manag. 1993, 34, 729–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Danny Harvey, L.D. A guide to global warming potentials (GWPs). Energy Policy 1993, 21, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Keeling, C.D.; Whorf, T.P.; Wahlen, M.; van der Plichtt, J. Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980. Nature 1995, 375, 666–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Clairotte, M.; Suarez-Bertoa, R.; Zardini, A.A.; Giechaskiel, B.; Pavlovic, J.; Valverde, V.; Ciuffo, B.; Astorga, C. Exhaust emission factors of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from European road vehicles. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2020, 32, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, D.S.; Fahey, D.; Forster, P.M.; Newton, P.J.; Wit, R.C.N.; Lim, L.L.; Owen, B.; Sausen, R. Aviation and global climate change in the 21st century. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 3520–3537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, D.S.; Fahey, D.W.; Skowron, A.; Allen, M.R.; Burkhardt, U.; Chen, Q.; Doherty, S.J.; Freeman, S.; Forster, P.M.; Fuglestvedt, J.; et al. The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018. Atmos. Environ. 2021, 244, 117834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Saunois, M.; Stavert, A.R.; Poulter, B.; Bousquet, P.; Canadell, J.G.; Jackson, R.B.; Raymond, P.A.; Dlugokencky, E.J.; Houweling, S.; Patra, P.K.; et al. The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2020, 12, 1561–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chang, J.; Peng, S.; Ciais, P.; Saunois, M.; Dangal, S.R.S.; Herrero, M.; Havlík, P.; Tian, H.; Bousquet, P. Revisiting enteric methane emissions from domestic ruminants and their δ13CCH4 source signature. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Edwards, D.P.; Emmons, L.K.; Hauglustaine, D.A.; Chu, D.A.; Gille, J.C.; Kaufman, Y.J.; Pétron, G.; Yurganov, L.N.; Giglio, L.; Deeter, M.N.; et al. Observations of carbon monoxide and aerosols from the Terra satellite: Northern Hemisphere variability. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2004, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lighty, J.S.; Veranth, J.M.; Sarofim, A.F. Combustion aerosols: Factors governing their size and composition and implications to human health. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2000, 50, 1565–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Horvath, H. Atmospheric light absorption: A review. Atmos. Environ. Part A 1993, 27, 293–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jacobson, M.Z. Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols. Nature 2001, 409, 695–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chameides, W.L.; Bergin, M. Soot takes center stage. Science 2002, 297, 2214–2215. Available online: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1076866 (accessed on 9 August 2024). [CrossRef]
  61. Bond, T.C.; Doherty, S.J.; Fahey, D.W.; Forster, P.M.; Berntsen, T.; DeAngelo, B.J.; Flanner, M.G.; Ghan, S.; Kärcher, B.; Koch, D.; et al. Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2013, 118, 5380–5552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hassan, F.; Chaudhry, M.U.; Yasir, M.; Asghar, M.N.; Sarkodie, S.A. Monitoring the Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on the Production of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Pollutants Using Satellite Imagery: A Case Study of South Asia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yoo, S.; Managi, S. Lockdowns Save People from Air Pollution: Evidence from Daily Global Tropospheric NO2 Satellite Data. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jacob, D.J. Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  65. Seinfeld, J.H.; Pandis, S.N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics; A Wiley-Inter Science Publication, John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  66. Federico, S.; Pasqualoni, L.; De Leo, L.; Bellecci, C. A study of the breeze circulation during summer and fall 2008 in Calabria, Italy. Atmos. Res. 2010, 97, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Federico, S.; Pasqualoni, L.; Sempreviva, A.M.; De Leo, L.; Avolio, E.; Calidonna, C.R.; Bellecci, C. The seasonal characteristics of the breeze circulation at a coastal Mediterranean site in South Italy. Adv. Sci. Res. 2010, 4, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gullì, D.; Avolio, E.; Calidonna, C.R.; Lo Feudo, T.; Torcasio, R.C.; Sempreviva, A.M. Two years of wind-lidar measurements at an Italian Mediterranean Coastal Site. In European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2017, EGU—Division Energy, Resources & Environment, ERE. Energy Procedia 2017, 125, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Avolio, E.; Federico, S.; Miglietta, M.M.; Lo Feudo, T.; Calidonna, C.R.; Sempreviva, A.M. Sensitivity analysis of WRF model PBL schemes in simulating boundary-layer variables in southern Italy: An experimental campaign. Atmos. Res. 2017, 192, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lo Feudo, T.; Calidonna, C.R.; Avolio, E.; Sempreviva, A.M. Study of the Vertical Structure of the Coastal Boundary Layer Integrating Surface Measurements and Ground-Based Remote Sensing. Sensors 2020, 20, 6516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Donateo, A.; Lo Feudo, T.; Marinoni, A.; Calidonna, C.R.; Contini, D.; Bonasoni, P. Long-term observations of aerosol optical properties at three GAW regional sites in the Central Mediterranean. Atmos. Res. 2020, 241, 104976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. D’Amico, F.; Ammoscato, I.; Gullì, D.; Lo Feudo, T.; De Cristofanelli, M.; Cristofanelli, P.; Malacaria, L.; Parise, D.; Sinopoli, S.; De Benedetto, G.; et al. Anthropic-induced variability of greenhouse gases and aerosols at the WMO/GAW coastal site of Lamezia Terme (Calabria, Southern Italy): Towards a new method to assess the weekly distribution of gathered data. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Malacaria, L.; Parise, D.; Lo Feudo, T.; Avolio, E.; Ammoscato, I.; Gullì, D.; Sinopoli, S.; Cristofanelli, P.; De Pino, M.; D’Amico, F.; et al. Multiparameter detection of summer open fire emissions: The case study of GAW regional observatory of Lamezia Terme (Southern Italy). Fire 2024, 7, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Calidonna, C.R.; Avolio, E.; Gullì, D.; Ammoscato, I.; De Pino, M.; Donateo, A.; Lo Feudo, T. Five Years of Dust Episodes at the Southern Italy GAW Regional Coastal Mediterranean Observatory: Multisensors and Modeling Analysis. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chu, P.M.; Hodges, J.T.; Rhoderick, G.C.; Lisak, D.; Travis, J.C. Methane-in-air standards measured using a 1.65 μm frequency-stabilized cavity ring-down spectrometer. In Proceedings of the SPIE 6378, Chemical and Biological Sensors for Industrial and Environmental Monitoring II, Boston, MA, USA, 25 October 2006; Volume 6378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Petzold, A.; Kramer, H.; Schönlinner, M. Continuous Measurement of Atmospheric Black Carbon Using a Multi-angle Absorption Photometer. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2002, 4, 78–82. [Google Scholar]
  77. Petzold, A.; Schloesser, H.; Sheridan, P.J.; Arnott, P.; Ogren, J.A.; Virkkula, A. Evaluation of multiangle absorption photometry for measuring aerosol light absorption. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Petzold, A.; Schönlinner, M. Multi-angle absorption photometry—A new method for the measurement of aerosol light absorption and atmospheric black carbon. J. Aerosol Sci. 2004, 35, 421–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sander, S.P.; Golden, D.M.; Kurylo, M.J.; Moortgat, G.K.; Wine, P.H.; Ravishankara, A.R.; Kolb, C.E.; Molina, M.J.; Finlayson-Pitts, B.J.; Orkin, V.L. Chemical Kinetics and Photochemical Data for Use in Atmospheric Studies Evaluation Number 15; Jet Propulsion Laboratory, National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Pasadena, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  80. Friendly, M.; Monette, G.; Fox, J. Elliptical Insights: Understanding Statistical Methods through Elliptical Geometry. Statist. Sci. 2013, 28, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Monks, P.S.; Granier, C.; Fuzzi, S.; Stohl, A.; Williams, M.L.; Akimoto, H.; Amann, M.; Baklanov, A.; Baltensperger, U.; Bey, I.; et al. Atmospheric composition change—Global and regional air quality. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 5268–5350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lelieveld, J.; Berresheim, H.; Borrmann, S.; Crutzen, P.J.; Dentener, F.J.; Fischer, H.; Feichter, J.; Flatau, P.J.; Heland, J.; Holzinger, R.; et al. Global Air Pollution Crossroads over the Mediterranean. Science 2002, 298, 794–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Henne, S.; Furger, M.; Nyeki, S.; Steinbacher, M.; Neininger, B.; de Wekker, S.F.J.; Dommen, J.; Spichtinger, N.; Stohl, A.; Prévôt, A.S.H. Quantification of topographic venting of boundary layer air to the free troposphere. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2004, 4, 497–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Duncan, B.N.; West, J.J.; Yoshida, Y.; Fiore, A.M.; Ziemke, J.R. The influence of European pollution on ozone in the Near East and northern Africa. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8, 2267–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Italian Civil Aviation Authority (ENAC—Ente Nazionale per l’Aviazione Civile). 2020 Air Traffic Data. Report Issued on 20 April 2021. Available online: https://www.enac.gov.it/news/dati-di-traffico-2020#:~:text=Sono%20stati%2052.759.724%20i,del%20%2D72%2C5%25 (accessed on 15 August 2024).
  86. Schultz, M.G.; Akimoto, H.; Bottenheim, J.; Buchmann, B.; Galbally, I.E.; Gilge, S.; Helmig, D.; Koide, H.; Lewis, A.C.; Novelli, P.C.; et al. The Global Atmosphere Watch reactive gases measurement network. Elem. Sci. Anth. 2015, 3, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Cleveland, W.S.; Graedel, T.E.; Kleiner, B.; Warner, J.L. Sunday and Workday Variations in Photochemical Air Pollutants in New Jersey and New York. Science 1974, 186, 1037–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Elkus, B.; Wilson, K.R. Photochemical air pollution: Weekend-weekday differences. Atmos. Environ. 1977, 11, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Karl, T.R. Day of the week variations of photochemical pollutants in the St. Louis area. Atmos. Environ. 1978, 12, 1657–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Balthasar, N.; Ohnmacht, T.; Z’Rotz, J.; Hostettler Macias, L.; Rérat, P. The effects of teleworking on CO2 emissions from commuting: Baselining key data to investigate transformative change in living labs. Consum. Soc. 2024, 20, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Safieddine, S.; Boynard, A.; Coheur, P.-F.; Hurtmans, D.; Pfister, G.; Quennehen, B.; Thomas, J.L.; Raut, J.-C.; Law, K.S.; Klimont, Z.; et al. Summertime tropospheric ozone assessment over the Mediterranean region using the thermal infrared IASI/MetOp sounder and the WRF-Chem model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 10119–10131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Spandonidis, C.; Paraskevopoulos, D.; Saravanos, C. Neighborhood-Level Particle Pollution Assessment during the COVID-19 Pandemic via a Novel IoT Solution. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 08229 g001aSustainability 16 08229 g001b
Figure 1. (A): MapChart of Italy highlighting the region of Calabria. (B): Location of LMT in Calabria itself. (C) Details of the Lamezia Terme area with a highlight on notable emission sources in the area. The “Highway” mark refers to a point where the distance between the A2 highway and LMT is approximately 4.3 km. Farms are spread over the area. “Lamezia Terme” points to the most densely populated areas of the municipality.
Figure 1. (A): MapChart of Italy highlighting the region of Calabria. (B): Location of LMT in Calabria itself. (C) Details of the Lamezia Terme area with a highlight on notable emission sources in the area. The “Highway” mark refers to a point where the distance between the A2 highway and LMT is approximately 4.3 km. Farms are spread over the area. “Lamezia Terme” points to the most densely populated areas of the municipality.
Sustainability 16 08229 g001aSustainability 16 08229 g001b
Sustainability 16 08229 g002
Figure 2. (A): Total hourly wind speeds and directions observed between 1 February and 31 July 2020 at LMT, plotted in a wind rose highlighting the main W (seaside) and NE (continental) corridors described in Section 2.1. Each bar covers an angle of 8 degrees (1/45 of 360°). (B): Average hourly wind directions during the ALD (ante-lockdown), LD (lockdown), and PLD (post-lockdown) periods, with shaded areas covering the average ± σ (standard deviation) range.
Figure 2. (A): Total hourly wind speeds and directions observed between 1 February and 31 July 2020 at LMT, plotted in a wind rose highlighting the main W (seaside) and NE (continental) corridors described in Section 2.1. Each bar covers an angle of 8 degrees (1/45 of 360°). (B): Average hourly wind directions during the ALD (ante-lockdown), LD (lockdown), and PLD (post-lockdown) periods, with shaded areas covering the average ± σ (standard deviation) range.
Sustainability 16 08229 g002
Sustainability 16 08229 g003
Figure 3. Daily averaged temperatures (°C) throughout the entire FEB–JUL 2020 study period. The vertical dotted lines mark the beginning and the end of the first Italian nationwide LD, respectively. These periods are also marked by the horizontal ALD, LD, and PLD labels. The color pattern was set to mark the difference between typical Mediterranean winter temperatures (dark blue) and temperatures closer to summertime averages (red).
Figure 3. Daily averaged temperatures (°C) throughout the entire FEB–JUL 2020 study period. The vertical dotted lines mark the beginning and the end of the first Italian nationwide LD, respectively. These periods are also marked by the horizontal ALD, LD, and PLD labels. The color pattern was set to mark the difference between typical Mediterranean winter temperatures (dark blue) and temperatures closer to summertime averages (red).
Sustainability 16 08229 g003
Sustainability 16 08229 g004aSustainability 16 08229 g004b
Figure 4. Correlations between daily temperatures and each parameter, differentiated by period of observation (ALD, LD, PLD). Data ellipses refer to a 90% confidence interval. (A): CO; (B): CO2; (C): CH4; (D): eBC; (E): NOx.
Figure 4. Correlations between daily temperatures and each parameter, differentiated by period of observation (ALD, LD, PLD). Data ellipses refer to a 90% confidence interval. (A): CO; (B): CO2; (C): CH4; (D): eBC; (E): NOx.
Sustainability 16 08229 g004aSustainability 16 08229 g004b
Sustainability 16 08229 g005aSustainability 16 08229 g005b
Figure 5. Hourly trends observed between February and July 2020, differentiated by period (ALD, LD, PLD). The smoothed black line was computed using the “loess” method to estimate trends through time. (A): CO; (B): CO2; (C): CH4; (D): eBC; (E): NOx.
Figure 5. Hourly trends observed between February and July 2020, differentiated by period (ALD, LD, PLD). The smoothed black line was computed using the “loess” method to estimate trends through time. (A): CO; (B): CO2; (C): CH4; (D): eBC; (E): NOx.
Sustainability 16 08229 g005aSustainability 16 08229 g005b
Sustainability 16 08229 g006aSustainability 16 08229 g006b
Figure 6. Averaged daily cycles of all observed parameters, differentiated by ALD, LD, and PLD periods. Shaded areas show ±σ (standard deviation) ranges. To ease visualization, the legend is shown in (A) alone. (A): CO; (B): CO2; (C): CH4; (D): eBC; (E): NOx.
Figure 6. Averaged daily cycles of all observed parameters, differentiated by ALD, LD, and PLD periods. Shaded areas show ±σ (standard deviation) ranges. To ease visualization, the legend is shown in (A) alone. (A): CO; (B): CO2; (C): CH4; (D): eBC; (E): NOx.
Sustainability 16 08229 g006aSustainability 16 08229 g006b
Sustainability 16 08229 g007aSustainability 16 08229 g007bSustainability 16 08229 g007cSustainability 16 08229 g007dSustainability 16 08229 g007e
Figure 7. Correlation between hourly averaged data and wind speeds, differentiated by sector (#1 plots for the NE-continental corridor; #2 plots for the W-seaside corridor; and #3 plots for all wind directions, including those falling outside the two main corridors). The color scheme differentiates periods of observation (ALD, LD, PLD) following the same pattern used in other graphs. (A1–A3): CO; (B1–B3): CO2; (C1–C3): CH4; (D1–D3): eBC; (E1–E3): NOx.
Figure 7. Correlation between hourly averaged data and wind speeds, differentiated by sector (#1 plots for the NE-continental corridor; #2 plots for the W-seaside corridor; and #3 plots for all wind directions, including those falling outside the two main corridors). The color scheme differentiates periods of observation (ALD, LD, PLD) following the same pattern used in other graphs. (A1–A3): CO; (B1–B3): CO2; (C1–C3): CH4; (D1–D3): eBC; (E1–E3): NOx.
Sustainability 16 08229 g007aSustainability 16 08229 g007bSustainability 16 08229 g007cSustainability 16 08229 g007dSustainability 16 08229 g007e
Sustainability 16 08229 g008aSustainability 16 08229 g008b
Figure 8. Weekly trends observed at LMT between February and July 2020. The dotted horizontal lines show average values per category. ALD (dark blue), LD (yellow), PLD (dark green). (A): CO; (B): CO2; (C): CH4; (D): eBC; (E): NOx.
Figure 8. Weekly trends observed at LMT between February and July 2020. The dotted horizontal lines show average values per category. ALD (dark blue), LD (yellow), PLD (dark green). (A): CO; (B): CO2; (C): CH4; (D): eBC; (E): NOx.
Sustainability 16 08229 g008aSustainability 16 08229 g008b
Table 1. Coverage of all instruments with respect to the observation period (1 February–31 July), vided by aggregation type (hourly and daily). The “type” refers to performed data aggregations, which were either hourly or daily. “Count” refers to the total number of hours and days elapsed during the study period (February–July 2020). Columns referring to various employed instruments indicate the coverage rate (%) of their respective datasets compared to maximum count per type.
Table 1. Coverage of all instruments with respect to the observation period (1 February–31 July), vided by aggregation type (hourly and daily). The “type” refers to performed data aggregations, which were either hourly or daily. “Count” refers to the total number of hours and days elapsed during the study period (February–July 2020). Columns referring to various employed instruments indicate the coverage rate (%) of their respective datasets compared to maximum count per type.
TypeCountG2401 (%)T5012 (%)T42i (%)WXT520 (%)
Hours436897.3296.1597.57100
Days18297.897.897.8100
Table 2. Linear and quadratic R2 values for CO (Figure 4A), CO2 (Figure 4B), CH4 (Figure 4C), eBC (Figure 4D), and NOx (Figure 4E) daily averages, all compared with average daily temperatures.
Table 2. Linear and quadratic R2 values for CO (Figure 4A), CO2 (Figure 4B), CH4 (Figure 4C), eBC (Figure 4D), and NOx (Figure 4E) daily averages, all compared with average daily temperatures.
ParameterLinearQuadratic
CO0.690.75
CO20.0010.006
CH40.0040.098
eBC0.110.17
NOx0.170.21
Table 3. Number of hours falling into the western-seaside (240–300° N) and northeastern-continental (0–90° N) filters by wind direction, as well as their ratios. Vaisala WXT520 data, due to their coverage rate of 100% (see Table 1), are used as a reference.
Table 3. Number of hours falling into the western-seaside (240–300° N) and northeastern-continental (0–90° N) filters by wind direction, as well as their ratios. Vaisala WXT520 data, due to their coverage rate of 100% (see Table 1), are used as a reference.
CorridorWXT520G2401T5012T42i
West2002193719271934
Northeast1167114311231155
Ratio1.711.691.711.67
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

D’Amico, F.; Ammoscato, I.; Gullì, D.; Avolio, E.; Lo Feudo, T.; De Pino, M.; Cristofanelli, P.; Malacaria, L.; Parise, D.; Sinopoli, S.; et al. Trends in CO, CO2, CH4, BC, and NOx during the First 2020 COVID-19 Lockdown: Source Insights from the WMO/GAW Station of Lamezia Terme (Calabria, Southern Italy). Sustainability 2024, 16, 8229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188229

AMA Style

D’Amico F, Ammoscato I, Gullì D, Avolio E, Lo Feudo T, De Pino M, Cristofanelli P, Malacaria L, Parise D, Sinopoli S, et al. Trends in CO, CO2, CH4, BC, and NOx during the First 2020 COVID-19 Lockdown: Source Insights from the WMO/GAW Station of Lamezia Terme (Calabria, Southern Italy). Sustainability. 2024; 16(18):8229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188229

Chicago/Turabian Style

D’Amico, Francesco, Ivano Ammoscato, Daniel Gullì, Elenio Avolio, Teresa Lo Feudo, Mariafrancesca De Pino, Paolo Cristofanelli, Luana Malacaria, Domenico Parise, Salvatore Sinopoli, and et al. 2024. "Trends in CO, CO2, CH4, BC, and NOx during the First 2020 COVID-19 Lockdown: Source Insights from the WMO/GAW Station of Lamezia Terme (Calabria, Southern Italy)" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 8229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188229

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