Liu Miaomiao, Lei Yu, Wang Xin, Xue Wenbo, Zhang Wei, Jiang Hongqiang, Wang Jinnan, Bi Jun
State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, School of the Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China.
State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Environmental Planning and Policy Simulation, Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, Beijing, 100041, China.
Environ Sci Technol. 2023 Mar 28;57(12):4720-4731. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.2c08306. Epub 2023 Mar 14.
The emissions from various pollution sources were not proportional to their contributions to ambient PM concentrations and associated health burdens. That means even with the same total abatement targets, different abatement allocation strategies across emission sources can have distinct health benefits. Insufficient knowledge of various sources' contributions to health burdens in China, the country suffering substantial PM-related deaths, hindered the government from seeking optimized abatement allocation strategies. In this context, we separated the contributions of 155 emission sources (31 provinces × 5 sectors) to PM-related mortality across China in 2017 by coupling the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx), Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF), and health impact assessment model. We further identified the priority-control emission sources and quantified interprovincial ecological compensation volumes to alleviate inequality induced by emission allocation strategies. Results showed that PM pollution caused 899,443 excess deaths and around 127 billion USD costs in 2017. Approximately half of the deaths and costs were attributable to emissions from sources outside the boundary of the regions where the deaths occurred. Twenty-five out of 155 emission sources that contributed to the top 60% mortality burdens and had high marginal abatement efficiencies in China shall be the priority-control emission sources. A 1 μg/m decrease of PM concentration in regions where these key emission sources occur shall be compensated by 76-153 million USD in their receptor regions. Our study sheds light on the sources' contributions to mortality burdens and costs and provides scientific evidence for optimizing the emission allocation and compensation strategies in China. It also has wide implications for other countries suffering similar problems.
来自各种污染源的排放与它们对环境中细颗粒物（PM）浓度及相关健康负担的贡献并不成正比。这意味着，即使减排总量目标相同，不同的污染源减排分配策略也可能带来截然不同的健康效益。在中国这个因PM相关死亡人数众多而饱受困扰的国家，对各种污染源对健康负担贡献的了解不足，阻碍了政府寻求优化的减排分配策略。在此背景下，我们通过将综合空气质量模型扩展版（CAMx）、天气研究与预报模型（WRF）以及健康影响评估模型相结合，分离出了2017年中国155个排放源（31个省份×5个行业）对与PM相关死亡率的贡献。我们进一步确定了优先控制排放源，并量化了省际生态补偿量，以缓解排放分配策略导致的不平等现象。结果显示，2017年PM污染导致了899,443例超额死亡和约1270亿美元的成本。约一半的死亡人数和成本可归因于死亡发生地区边界以外的污染源排放。在中国，对60%最高死亡率负担有贡献且边际减排效率高的155个排放源中有25个应作为优先控制排放源。这些关键排放源所在地区PM浓度每降低1μg/m³，其受体地区应获得7600万至1.53亿美元的补偿。我们的研究揭示了污染源对死亡负担和成本的贡献，为优化中国的排放分配和补偿策略提供了科学依据。它对其他面临类似问题的国家也具有广泛的启示意义。
