Next Article in Journal
Examining the Associations between COVID-19-Related Psychological Distress, Social Media Addiction, COVID-19-Related Burnout, and Depression among School Principals and Teachers through Structural Equation Modeling
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Sulfamethazine and Cupric Ion on Treatment of Anaerobically Digested Swine Wastewater with Growing Duckweed
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 4
10.3390/ijerph19041950
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:
Review

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Air Quality: A Systematic Review

by
Ana Catarina T. Silva
1,2,
Pedro T. B. S. Branco
1,2 and
Sofia I. V. Sousa
1,2,*
1
LEPABE—Laboratory for Process Engineering, Environment, Biotechnology and Energy, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
2
ALiCE—Associate Laboratory in Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(4), 1950; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041950
Submission received: 1 January 2022 / Revised: 2 February 2022 / Accepted: 3 February 2022 / Published: 10 February 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, several governments imposed severe restrictions on socio-economic activities, putting most of the world population into a general lockdown in March 2020. Although scattered, studies on this topic worldwide have rapidly emerged in the literature. Hence, this systematic review aimed to identify and discuss the scientifically validated literature that evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on air quality. Thus, a total of 114 studies that quantified the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on air quality through monitoring were selected from three databases. The most evaluated countries were India and China; all the studies intended to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on air quality, mainly concerning PM10, PM2.5, NO2, O3, CO, and SO2. Most of them focused on the 1st lockdown, comparing with the pre- and post-lockdown periods and usually in urban areas. Many studies conducted a descriptive analysis, while others complemented it with more advanced statistical analysis. Although using different methodologies, some studies reported a temporary air quality improvement during the lockdown. More studies are still needed, comparing different lockdown and lifting periods and, in other areas, for a definition of better-targeted policies to reduce air pollution.

1. Introduction

Air pollution was estimated to cause 4.2 million premature deaths worldwide in 2016, according to estimations made by the World Health Organization (WHO) [1], reaching almost 5 million in 2017 according to the Health Effects Institute [2]. Hence, this should be more than enough to motivate more aggressive policies to reduce air pollution. On 11 March 2020, the WHO declared the global pandemic of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) [3]. Due to its transmissibility and rapid spread worldwide, several governments imposed severe restrictions on both social life and economic activity, including stay-at-home orders, social distancing, mandatory quarantines and remote work and school. Those restrictions put most of the global population into a general lockdown on late March 2020 (around 157 countries [4]), which temporarily reduced some of the major anthropogenic emission sources of air pollution and, consequently, resulted in marked air quality improvements worldwide [5]. Although those measures were temporary and possessed a high socioeconomic impact, they were both a global and local-scale unique opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of some short-term measures to reduce air pollution in real-world. Thus, understanding the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on air quality is a unique opportunity to define better targeted short and long-term policies to ameliorate the air quality, derived from the restrictions imposed by the governments.
Hence, it is important to conduct a detailed review of the studies that have been published so far about this topic, so that future policies based on the findings achieved can be proposed to improve air quality.
Some review papers (around 15) have been published concerning air quality improvement due to the lockdown effects [6,7,8,9,10], presenting general overviews. Besides, most of these review papers related the lockdown effect on air quality with other themes, such as water quality, noise pollution, energy consumption, and socioeconomic context. Moreover, as far as the authors’ knowledge goes, a systematic review has not yet been published.
Thus, the main aim of this study was to identify and discuss the scientifically validated literature that evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on air quality. Specifically, it intended to identify and discuss: (i) the impacts of the pandemic and associated restrictions on air pollutants’ concentrations; (ii) where the monitoring occurred in the reviewed studies; and (iii) the methodologies used for data analysis in different countries. This review only focused on studies that used air pollutants’ concentrations obtained through monitoring.

2. Materials and Methods

The present review includes studies published in the following databases: Science Direct, Scopus and PubMed. The keywords used in the first two databases were “Air Quality”, “Lockdown” and “Impact of COVID-19”, while, in PubMed, the keywords used were “Air Quality”, “Lockdown”, “Impact” and “COVID-19”. In the Scopus database, the search was limited to the subject area “Environmental Science”. No language restrictions were imposed during the search. Considering that COVID-19 was a recent phenomenon, there were no date restrictions imposed during the search. Therefore, all the studies fully published and in press until 27 April 2021 were considered.
A total of 439 articles were found with potential interest from the initial search. After removing duplicates, 266 articles were screened and their titles and abstracts appropriately reviewed. After this, articles were excluded based on the following criteria: (i) The study focused not only on the air quality, but also on other environmental compartments or themes, such as water quality, noise pollution, etc.; (ii) Air quality data was obtained only through modelling or satellite data; (iii) The study only considered an air quality index (AQI) instead of the air pollutants’ concentrations; (iv) The pollutants’ concentrations were not obtained from monitoring sites.
Hence, applying the exclusion criteria resulted in 114 articles. Figure 1 illustrates the flowchart with the numbers of studies identified, included and excluded.

3. Results

3.1. Study Design and Main Conclusions

Table S1 (in the Supplementary Material) summarises the information of the 114 articles reviewed, namely, study location, main objectives and data collected, methodology, and main conclusions. The summary of 30 studies that used as reference data an historical period of at least five years for comparison purposes, hence increasing the robustness of the analyses, are represented in Table 1. In this table, the main conclusions only refer to the pollutants’ behaviour, while, in the Supplementary Material, other withdrawn conclusions were included.
Figure 2 shows the study location of the 114 studies reviewed (Figure 2a) and the number of publications of the studied locations (Figure 2b). At least one study was developed in each continent. Ten publications reported studies conducted at a multinational level, namely: (i) Southeast Asia Region [40]; (ii) The United States of America and China [41]; (iii) worldwide [39,42,43]; (iv) America and Europe [44]; (v) Europe [12,45,46]; and (vi) The United States of America, India, China, and Europe [37]. India and China were the most studied countries, representing 55%, while 35% of the 114 publications were in India (e.g., [47,48]) From the 30 included in Table 1, it is possible to see more predominant studies from Europe (13 studies), but Asia was the focus of a similar number of studies (10).
The main objective of all the reviewed papers was to study and quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the lockdown (considering different periods in some cases), on air quality.
However, some studies also intended to associate the impact of COVID-19 on air pollution with other variables. Some examples include energy consumption [48], general and/or COVID-19 mortality [49,50,51,52], other health impacts [24,27,53,54,55], traffic [17,23,44,56], and mobility trends [21,34,57].
Regarding data collected, and, specifically the evaluated pollutants, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and suspended particles with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5) and 10 µm (PM10) were the most analysed, followed by ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulphur dioxide (SO2) (Figure 3).
Other pollutants were also evaluated, namely non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and total hydrocarbons (THC) [58]. Viteri et al. [22] also analysed NMHC, while Jain et al. [59] evaluated both suspended particles with an equivalent aerodynamic diameter smaller than 1 µm (PM1) and carbon dioxide (CO2); Dinoi et al. [16] investigated the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on submicron particles.
Another very important factor when analysing air pollution data is the temporal resolution. This characteristic may impact the results, depending on the analysis performed. Most of the studies considered daily averages, although other temporal resolutions were also used, namely hourly data and monthly averages (more common), and weekly means, daily maximum of 8-h running means (especially for O3), daily maximum of 1-h average (for NO2), or even annual average. Considering an average of the whole study period was also a common practice observed in the reviewed studies (e.g., [52,60,61]).
In addition to the air pollutants’ concentrations, some studies considered other variables to complement the investigation developed. Those corresponded mainly to meteorological conditions, AQI and satellite data, representing 51%, 28% and 27%, respectively, of the total articles reviewed. As the weather conditions strongly influence air quality creating seasonal trends, more than half of the reviewed studies included meteorological variables (e.g., temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, wind speed and direction, solar radiation), whereas others included historical data to account for those trends. In addition, 41% of the reviewed articles integrated both weather conditions and historical data to achieve more accurate results.

3.2. Methodologies Used

Only 23 out of the 114 papers included rural and suburban areas concerning the areas of influence studied. It should be emphasised that 13 out of those 23 articles that included suburban and rural areas corresponded to European countries, possibly revealing a higher data availability in these areas in Europe than in other regions of the world, and/or demonstrating a more significant concern of studying these areas in Europe.
All the reviewed studies defined the first COVID-19 lockdown period as the main period of study, and the majority even included the periods immediately before and after it so that a comparison between the pollutants’ concentrations in these periods could be established. Many studies (45 out of 114) did not compare with previous years (before 2020), they just compared between the periods of measurement. Others chose to compare data from the lockdown period with the same period in 2019 (27 studies) or with a historical period of the 5 previous years or more (30 studies, Table 1). As described above, using at least five years as reference data, such as the ones presented in Table 1, enables the influence of the seasonal trends to be negligible, enhancing the robustness of the studies.
Regarding statistical analysis, 36 out of the 114 studies used simple descriptive statistical data analysis or a difference-in-difference analysis. Still, other studies went further in the statistical analysis and other more advanced statistical approaches were used, including: (i) significance testing (t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, ANOVA, Kruskall–Wallis rank sum test, Duncan’s multiple range test, F-test, Dunn’s test); (ii) correlation analysis (Pearson, Spearman and Kendall rank correlation); (iii) cluster analysis (principal component analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis, and cluster analysis based on Euclidean distance and Ward’s methods); (iv) regression analysis (linear regression, including performance indexes such as coefficient of determination, root mean square error (RMSE), relative bias and mean absolute error (MBE), generalised linear model, generalised additive model, stepwise regression with backwards elimination, linear mixed effects model, Theil–Sen estimation, locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS), simple ordinary least squares, functional concurrent regression model, Sen’s slope, breakpoint analysis and segment regression; (v) time-series (interrupted time-series analysis, time-series decomposition, Mann–Kendall test, multifractal time series analysis); (vi) geostatistical techniques (cokriging method, simple kriging, inverse distance weighting); (vii) probability distribution (generalised extreme value distribution); (viii) machine learning algorithms (random forest machine learning algorithm); and (ix) other methods, including panel regression, Fourier series and pollutants’ concentrations normalisation.

4. Discussion

The Asian region is one of the regions that suffers the most from air pollution; thus, it is natural that there would be a higher number of studies from this region. According to Rodríguez-Urrego [43], the capital cities from Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan, South Korea, and Singapore were included in the 50 most polluted cities of the world. Delhi is also often considered one of the most polluted cities. Moreover, PM and NO2, two of the most concerning air pollutants for human health, are largely emitted in those places [26,43], and have been covered by the studies published so far, which emphasises the relevance of quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on air quality in the most polluted places.
Overall, the reviewed studies concluded that air quality improved during the lockdown compared with the pre-lockdown [62,63,64]. Some studies also reported increases for the post-lockdown periods because pollutants’ concentration increased to the pre-lockdown levels as soon as the lockdown period ended [65,66,67,68,69]. Nevertheless, not all evidenced an increase of the pollutants after the lockdown, because of the slow economic recovery [48,61,70]. Similarly, studies that compared to the same period in previous years [71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87], and even more robustly with historical data of more than 5 years (Table 1), reported a decrease of pollutants’ concentrations during the lockdown. As shown in Table 1, decreases between 9–60%, 21.4–61.6%, and 30–66% were obtained for PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 respectively (pollutants that were consistently reduced).The studies that also used satellite data corroborated the results obtained with the ground-based levels [33,57,88,89,90], and those that included AQI claimed that it improved during the lockdown period [54,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100]. Besides, the higher levels of reduction were mainly found for the new industrialised areas, e.g., India and China [101].
The most studied pollutants were PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 since these are largely emitted especially by traffic in urban sites and, consequently, more strongly impact human health, particularly in Asian countries such as China and India, being also the most monitored. As for the remaining pollutants, they also significantly contribute to air pollution globally and, thus, are often found in the monitoring stations [42]. For example, Lian et al. [102] evaluated PM2.5, NO2, O3, PM10, CO, and SO2, once all of them are analysed by the State Control Station (China). Specifically, PM2.5, PM10 and NO2 consistently reduced in every part of the globe compared to the historical and the pre- and post-lockdown periods. Regarding the geographical distribution, the highest reductions were achieved in India and China, being mostly from 20% to 30% for PM and 30% to 60% for NO2, as expected given the high air pollution levels in those locations. The higher reductions were obtained when comparing the lockdown with the pre- and post-lockdown periods.
Concerning O3, an increase was evidenced in almost every study (e.g., [70,103]). Some authors correlated this O3 increment with the reduction of NO and the increase of solar radiation [104,105,106,107]. Specifically, Collivignarelli et al. [108] correlated the increase of this later pollutant with the high levels of benzene, noticed during the lockdown in Milan. Nevertheless, in some cities, O3 concentration was also reduced, mainly due to unfavourable weather conditions for this pollutant’s production [12,109,110,111,112,113]. Furthermore, Donzelli et al. [114] claimed that O3 was not monitored in urban/suburban sites; hence, significant conclusions about this pollutant’s behaviour were not drawn.
SO2 and CO results were not as consistent, having been more dependent on the location [28,56], presenting increases, decreases and, sometimes, remaining unchanged [42]. Part of the reviewed studies reported a decrease in CO concentrations, in some cases even higher than those of PM and NO2, e.g., in California (USA) [35]. Furthermore, a reduction of submicron particles was found during the lockdown [16].
Concerning the air pollution data temporal resolution, several temporal resolutions were chosen, nevertheless, and given the studies’ main objective, this factor apparently did not represent a major influence on the major conclusions.
Regarding the studies that used both weather conditions and a historical period as reference data, Marinello et al. [115] demonstrated that taking into account the meteorological conditions is very important, even when comparing to the previous year of the COVID-19 (2019) pandemic, since the weather conditions revealed an influence on the air pollutants’ dispersion and, consequently, on the improvement of the air quality, during the lockdown. Huang et al. [116] claimed a similar idea but highlighted the importance of the weather conditions in studies that compared periods of measurement in the same year.
Most of the authors investigated urban sites, not only because the lockdown restrictions more strongly impacted the cities rather than the rural and suburban locations, but also due to the higher contribution of urban areas for air pollution and the greater availability of air quality data there [36]. As a result, the air pollutant’s concentration, especially the traffic-related pollutants such as PM and NO2, reduced more in the urban areas, as described above. In addition, the studies that also evaluated other areas besides urban did not clearly discuss where the major impact was noticed, with the exception of Sannino et al. [117], who claimed a lower impact in the background areas due to the lockdown compared to urban traffic and industrial sites.
Although various statistical analyses were used, significance tests (t-tests) and correlation analysis were the most adopted besides descriptive analysis. A general reduction of the pollutants’ concentration was observed concerning the conclusions obtained from the studies. Hence, even though many different statistical analyses were performed, the similarity in the major findings reveals that comparing the conclusions achieved between the different studies is feasible and the results obtained are robust and credible. Yet, the most robust statistical analysis should be favoured, as they can give more credible quantifiable results. By using data collected in fixed monitoring stations, geostatistical techniques, such as inverse distance weighting and kriging, are robust methods to quantify populations’ exposure to air pollution [118]; they can serve as the basis for health impact assessment.
Some significant findings extracted from the reviewed studies that also intended to associate the impact of COVID-19 on air pollution with other variables were: (i) during the lockdown the energy consumption reduced; (ii) the reduction of air pollution led to a higher number of avoided premature-deaths, emphasising the health benefits from the air quality improvement achieved, as well as an avoided-economic cost; (iii) the traffic and public transport usage reduced during the lockdown period; (iv) the decrease in the number of vehicles circulating was one of the main sources that contributed to the air pollutant’s concentration reduction. The importance of creating policies that enable traffic emissions’ reduction was emphasized by Gao et al. [56]. In parallel with the main objective, Mehmood et al. [119] also intended to investigate the possible correlation between air pollutants and COVID-19, including the predicted number of infected cases, peak time, impact on the healthcare system and mortality. On the other hand, Dasgupta and Srikanth [120] qualitatively analysed the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on air quality in conjunction with city level socioeconomic parameters and policies to gain insights on the scope for integrating improved air quality with economic recovery for a sustainable transition. Vultaggio et al. [14] also evaluated the advantages of the lockdown as a measure to reduce air pollution, while Skirienė and Stasiškienė [45] investigated the association between industrial production index during the COVID-19 pandemic and air quality changes. Zhou et al. [31] associated the normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI) with air pollution during and after the lockdown. Other significant findings withdrawn from these reviewed studies were: (i) the air pollutants and COVID-19 revealed poor association (e.g.: [119]); (ii) the industrial production index was poorly correlated with the air quality changes (e.g.: [45]); (iii) a higher vegetation coverage induced a higher improvement on air quality (e.g.: [31]); (iv) the lockdown brought an opportunity to rethink new policies to ameliorate the air quality, considering a sustainable economic development (e.g.: [121,122,123,124,125,126,127]).

5. Conclusions

The present systematic review allowed us to summarise the information available in the literature that had been released about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on air quality.
The most evaluated countries consisted of those highly affected by air pollution (India and China), even though at least one study was conducted in every continent. Furthermore, the critical pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, NO2, O3, CO, SO2) were the most studied, particularly during the 1st lockdown in 2020 and mainly in urban areas, which are frequently more affected by air pollution. The pre- and post-lockdown periods were the periods most used for comparison, although comparisons with historical data (same period in previous years) also occurred. Several studies conducted a descriptive analysis, but many others complemented it with statistical analyses, which were diverse among the studies but led to similar conclusions. To have more credible quantifiable results, the most robust statistical analysis should be favoured, including geostatistical techniques that allow for estimating populations’ exposure and health impact assessment. Overall, similar findings were achieved among the studies, claiming a general improvement in the air quality during the lockdown compared to the pre-lockdown, post-lockdown (yet temporarily when compared with these periods), and historical periods. In particular, NO2 and PM were especially reduced in countries with higher air pollution levels; O3 registered mainly an increase, while SO2 and CO evidenced more diverse results.
Future work would benefit from: (i) the widening of the analysis concerning the study area, if possible, since little is known about the suburban and rural areas in other countries besides Europe (which was the continent that mainly evaluated these areas); (ii) the evaluation of the impact of the restrictions imposed during the pandemic beyond the 1st lockdown, and comparison of the effectiveness of those restrictions based on the 1st lockdown, since it was the period with the highest impact on citizens’ lives due to its novelty; (iii) the understanding of the impact of the lockdown on air quality under different meteorological conditions and the role that the weather conditions would play in the improvement or not of the air quality during the lockdown; (iv) the assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on air quality attending the different social-economic sectors, i.e., tourism, services (such as public transportation, cafes, restaurants, etc.), industries, among others, and emission sources (e.g., residential); (v) the definition of better targeted and more effective policies to reduce air pollution both at a global and local scale; and (vi) to assess the health and economic burden avoided due to the air pollution reduction during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph19041950/s1, Table S1: Summary of the main characteristics of 114 reviewed studies, namely reference, location studied, main objectives, data, methodology, statistical analysis, and conclusions.

Author Contributions

A.C.T.S. contributed to the study design, data collection, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and drafting the manuscript. P.T.B.S.B. contributed to the study design, analysis of the results, and critically revised the manuscript. S.I.V.S. conceived the study, led the study design, coordination, supervision and funding acquisition, contributed to the interpretation of the results and critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by: LA/P/0045/2020 (ALiCE) and UIDB/00511/2020—UIDP/00511/2020 (LEPABE) funded by national funds through FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO (World Health Organization). Ambient (Outdoor) Air Pollution. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ambient-(outdoor)-air-quality-and-health (accessed on 13 February 2021).
  2. Health Effects Institute. State of Global Air 2019; Health Effects Institute: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cucinotta, D.; Vanelli, M. WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic. Acta Biomedica 2020, 91, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Blavatnik School of Government. COVID-19 Government Response Tracker; Blavatnik School of Government: Oxford, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. Liu, F.; Wang, M.; Zheng, M. Effects of COVID-19 lockdown on global air quality and health. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 142533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Albayati, N.; Waisi, B.; Al-Furaiji, M.; Kadhom, M.; Alalwan, H. Effect of COVID-19 on air quality and pollution in different countries. J. Transp. Health 2021, 21, 101061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Arora, S.; Bhaukhandi, K.D.; Mishra, P.K. Coronavirus lockdown helped the environment to bounce back. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 742, 140573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bashir, M.F.; Ma, B.; Shahzad, L. A brief review of socio-economic and environmental impact of COVID-19. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2020, 13, 1403–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rume, T.; Islam, S.D.-U. Environmental effects of COVID-19 pandemic and potential strategies of sustainability. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Sharifi, A.; Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R. The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 749, 142391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Group, T.P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Ordóñez, C.; Garrido-Perez, J.M.; García-Herrera, R. Early spring near-surface ozone in Europe during the COVID-19 shutdown: Meteorological effects outweigh emission changes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. 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]
  14. Vultaggio, M.; Varrica, D.; Alaimo, M.G. Impact on air quality of the COVID-19 lockdown in the urban area of Palermo (Italy). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Brancher, M. Increased ozone pollution alongside reduced nitrogen dioxide concentrations during Vienna’s first COVID-19 lockdown: Significance for air quality management. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 284, 117153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dinoi, A.; Gulli, D.; Ammoscato, I.; Calidonna, C.; 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]
  17. Gama, C.; Relvas, H.; Lopes, M.; Monteiro, A. The impact of COVID-19 on air quality levels in Portugal: A way to assess traffic contribution. Environ. Res. 2021, 193, 110515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lonati, G.; Riva, F. Regional scale impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on air quality: Gaseous pollutants in the po valley, northern Italy. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lovrić, M.; Pavlović, K.; Vuković, M.; Grange, S.K.; Haberl, M.; Kern, R. Understanding the true effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on air pollution by means of machine learning. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 274, 115900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Malpede, M.A.-O.; Percoco, M. Lockdown measures and air quality: Evidence from Italian provinces. Lett. Spat. Resour. Sci. 2021, 14, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Orak, N.H.; Ozdemir, O. The impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on PM10 and SO2 concentrations and association with human mobility across Turkey. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Viteri, G.; de Mera, Y.D.; Rodríguez, A.; Tajuelo, M.; Escalona, A.; Aranda, A. Impact of SARS-CoV-2 lockdown and de-escalation on air-quality parameters. Chemosphere 2021, 265, 129027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kerimray, A.; Baimatova, N.; Ibragimova, O.; Bukenov, B.; Kenessov, B.; Plotitsyn, P.; Karaca, F. Assessing air quality changes in large cities during COVID-19 lockdowns: The impacts of traffic-free urban conditions in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 730, 139179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kumar, P.; Hama, S.; Omidvarborna, H.; Sharma, A.; Sahani, J.; Abhijith, K.; Debele, S.E.; Zavala-Reyes, J.C.; Barwise, Y.; Tiwari, A. Temporary reduction in fine particulate matter due to ‘anthropogenic emissions switch-off’ during COVID-19 lockdown in Indian cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 62, 102382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Silver, B.; He, X.; Arnold, S.R.; Spracklen, D.V. The impact of COVID-19 control measures on air quality in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 84021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yadav, R.; Korhale, N.; Anand, V.; Rathod, A.; Bano, S.; Shinde, R.; Latha, R.; Sahu, S.; Murthy, B.; Beig, G. COVID-19 lockdown and air quality of SAFAR-India metro cities. Urban Clim. 2020, 34, 100729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bai, H.; Gao, W.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L. Assessment of health benefit of PM2.5 reduction during COVID-19 lockdown in China and separating contributions from anthropogenic emissions and meteorology. J. Environ. Sci. 2021, 115, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chu, B.; Zhang, S.; Liu, J.; Ma, Q.; He, H. Significant concurrent decrease in PM2.5 and NO2 concentrations in China during COVID-19 epidemic. J. Environ. Sci. 2021, 99, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Garg, A.; Kumar, A.; Gupta, N. Comprehensive study on impact assessment of lockdown on overall ambient air quality amid COVID-19 in Delhi and its NCR, India. J. Hazard. Mater. Lett. 2021, 2, 100010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xian, T.; Li, Z.; Wei, J. Changes in air pollution following the COVID-19 epidemic in Northern China: The role of meteorology. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhou, M.; Huang, Y.; Li, G. Changes in the concentration of air pollutants before and after the COVID-19 blockade period and their correlation with vegetation coverage. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 23405–23419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hudda, N.; Simon, M.C.; Patton, A.P.; Durant, J.L. Reductions in traffic-related black carbon and ultrafine particle number concentrations in an urban neighborhood during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total. Environ. 2020, 742, 140931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nakada, L.Y.K.; Urban, R.C. COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on the air quality during the partial lockdown in São Paulo state, Brazil. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 730, 139087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kutralam-Muniasamy, G.; Pérez-Guevara, F.; Roy, P.D.; Elizalde-Martínez, I.; Shruti, V. Impacts of the COVID-19 lockdown on air quality and its association with human mortality trends in megapolis Mexico City. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2021, 14, 553–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, Q.; Harris, J.T.; Chiu, L.S.; Sun, D.; Houser, P.R.; Yu, M.; Duffy, D.Q.; Little, M.M.; Yang, C. Spatiotemporal impacts of COVID-19 on air pollution in California, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 750, 141592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Patel, H.; Talbot, N.; Salmond, J.; Dirks, K.; Xie, S.; Davy, P. Implications for air quality management of changes in air quality during lockdown in Auckland (New Zealand) in response to the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 746, 141129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Bray, C.D.; Nahas, A.; Battye, W.H.; Aneja, V.P. Impact of lockdown during the COVID-19 outbreak on multi-scale air quality. Atmos. Environ. 2021, 254, 118386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rao, S.T.; Zurbenko, I.G. Detecting and tracking changes in ozone air quality. Air Waste 1994, 44, 1089–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Torkmahalleh, M.A.; Akhmetvaliyeva, Z.; Omran, A.D.; Omran, F.F.D.; Kazemitabar, M.; Naseri, M.; Naseri, M.; Sharifi, H.; Malekipirbazari, M.; Adotey, E.K.; et al. Global air quality and COVID-19 pandemic: Do we breathe cleaner air? Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2021, 21, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kanniah, K.D.; Zaman, N.A.F.K.; Kaskaoutis, D.G.; Latif, M.T. COVID-19’s impact on the atmospheric environment in the Southeast Asia region. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 736, 139658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Shakoor, A.; Chen, X.; Farooq, T.H.; Shahzad, U.; Ashraf, F.; Rehman, A.; Sahar, N.E.; Yan, W. Fluctuations in environmental pollutants and air quality during the lockdown in the USA and China: Two sides of COVID-19 pandemic. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2020, 13, 1335–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kumari, P.; Toshniwal, D. Impact of lockdown on air quality over major cities across the globe during COVID-19 pandemic. Urban Clim. 2020, 34, 100719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rodríguez-Urrego, D.; Rodríguez-Urrego, L. Air quality during the COVID-19: PM2.5 analysis in the 50 most polluted capital cities in the world. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266, 115042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sahraei, M.A.; Kuşkapan, E.; Çodur, M.Y. Public transit usage and air quality index during the COVID-19 lockdown. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 286, 112166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Skirienė, A.F.; Stasiškienė, Ž. COVID-19 and air pollution: Measuring pandemic impact to air quality in five european countries. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Solberg, S.; Walker, S.-E.; Schneider, P.; Guerreiro, C. Quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown measures on nitrogen dioxide levels throughout Europe. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kumari, P.; Toshniwal, D. Impact of lockdown measures during COVID-19 on air quality—A case study of India. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2020, 32, 503–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Shehzad, K.; Sarfraz, M.; Shah, S.G.M. The impact of COVID-19 as a necessary evil on air pollution in India during the lockdown. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 266, 115080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hernández-Paniagua, I.Y.; Valdez, S.I.; Almanza, V.; Rivera-Cárdenas, C.; Grutter, M.; Stremme, W.; García-Reynoso, A.; Ruiz-Suárez, L.G. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on air quality and resulting public health benefits in the Mexico City Metropolitan Area. Front. Public Health 2021, 9, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Khomsi, K.; Najmi, H.; Amghar, H.; Chelhaoui, Y.; Souhaili, Z. COVID-19 national lockdown in morocco: Impacts on air quality and public health. One Health 2020, 11, 100200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Naqvi, H.R.; Datta, M.; Mutreja, G.; Siddiqui, M.A.; Naqvi, D.F.; Naqvi, A.R. Improved air quality and associated mortalities in India under COVID-19 lockdown. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 268, 115691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sahoo, P.K.; Chauhan, A.K.; Mangla, S.; Pathak, A.K.; Garg, V.K. COVID-19 pandemic: An outlook on its impact on air quality and its association with environmental variables in major cities of Punjab and Chandigarh, India. Environ. Forensics 2021, 22, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bai, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Alatalo, J.; Hughes, A. 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]
  54. 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] [PubMed]
  55. Wang, M.; Liu, F.; Zheng, M. Air quality improvement from COVID-19 lockdown: Evidence from China. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2021, 14, 591–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gao, C.; Li, S.; Liu, M.; Zhang, F.; Achal, V.; Tu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Cai, C. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on air pollution in Chinese megacities from the perspective of traffic volume and meteorological factors. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 773, 145545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Li, J.; Tartarini, F. Changes in air quality during the COVID-19 lockdown in Singapore and associations with human mobility trends. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020, 20, 1748–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. 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]
  59. Jain, C.D.; Madhavan, B.; Singh, V.; Prasad, P.; Krishnaveni, A.S.; Kiran, V.R.; Ratnam, M.V. Phase-wise analysis of the COVID-19 lockdown impact on aerosol, radiation and trace gases and associated chemistry in a tropical rural environment. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Duc, H.; Salter, D.; Azzi, M.; Jiang, N.; Warren, L.; Watt, S.; Riley, M.; White, S.; Trieu, T.; Chang, L.T.-C.; et al. The effect of lockdown period during the COVID-19 pandemic on air quality in Sydney region, Australia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Srivastava, S.; Kumar, A.; Bauddh, K.; Gautam, A.S.; Kumar, S. 21-day lockdown in India dramatically reduced air pollution indices in Lucknow and New Delhi, India. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2020, 105, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ghosal, R.; Saha, E. Impact of the COVID-19 Induced lockdown measures on PM2.5 concentration in USA. Atmos. Environ. 2021, 254, 118388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Morsy, E.; Habeebullah, T.M.; Othman, A. Assessing the air quality of megacities during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown: A case study from Makkah City, Saudi Arabia. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sipra, H.; Aslam, F.; Syed, J.H.; Awan, T.M. Investigating the implications of COVID-19 on PM2.5 in Pakistan. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2021, 21, 200459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chen, L.-W.A.; Chien, L.-C.; Li, Y.; Lin, G. Nonuniform impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on air quality over the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 745, 141105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Goel, A. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the air quality in Delhi, India. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 2020, 19, 1095–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sahoo, P.K.; Mangla, S.; Pathak, A.K.; Salãmao, G.N.; Sarkar, D. Pre-to-post lockdown impact on air quality and the role of environmental factors in spreading the COVID-19 cases—A study from a worst-hit state of India. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2021, 65, 205–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Sulaymon, I.D.; Zhang, Y.; Hopke, P.K.; Zhang, Y.; Hua, J.; Mei, X. COVID-19 pandemic in Wuhan: Ambient air quality and the relationships between criteria air pollutants and meteorological variables before, during, and after lockdown. Atmos. Res. 2021, 250, 105362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, Q.; Yang, X. How do pollutants change post-pandemic? Evidence from changes in five key pollutants in nine Chinese cities most affected by the COVID-19. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Anil, I.; Alagha, O. The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on the air quality of Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2021, 14, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Al-Abadleh, H.A.; Lysy, M.; Neil, L.; Patel, P.; Mohammed, W.; Khalaf, Y. Rigorous quantification of statistical significance of the COVID-19 lockdown effect on air quality: The case from ground-based measurements in Ontario, Canada. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 413, 125445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Al-Qaness, M.A.; Fan, H.; Ewees, A.A.; Yousri, D.; Elaziz, M.A. Improved ANFIS model for forecasting Wuhan City air quality and analysis COVID-19 lockdown impacts on air quality. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Briz-Redón, Á.; Belenguer-Sapiña, C.; Serrano-Aroca, Á. Changes in air pollution during COVID-19 lockdown in Spain: A multi-city study. J. Environ. Sci. 2021, 101, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Celik, E.; Gul, M. How COVID-19 pandemic and partial lockdown decisions affect air quality of a city? The case of Istanbul, Turkey. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 24, 1616–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dragic, N.; Bijelovic, S.; Jevtic, M.; Velicki, R.; Radic, I. Short-term health effects of air quality changes during the COVID-19 pandemic in the City of Novi Sad, the Republic of Serbia. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2021, 34, 223–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Filonchyk, M.; Hurynovich, V.; Yan, H. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on air quality in the Poland, Eastern Europe. Environ. Res. 2021, 198, 110454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Ganguly, R.; Sharma, D.; Kumar, P. Short-term impacts of air pollutants in three megacities of India during COVID-19 lockdown. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 18204–18231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gualtieri, G.; Brilli, L.; Carotenuto, F.; Vagnoli, C.; Zaldei, A.; Gioli, B. Quantifying road traffic impact on air quality in urban areas: A Covid19-induced lockdown analysis in Italy. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 267, 115682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Ravindra, K.; Singh, T.; Biswal, A.; Singh, V.; Mor, S. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on ambient air quality in megacities of India and implication for air pollution control strategies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 21621–21632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Roy, S.S.; Balling, R.C. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on air quality in the Delhi Metropolitan Region. Appl. Geogr. 2021, 128, 102418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shehzad, K.; Xiaoxing, L.; Ahmad, M.; Majeed, A.; Tariq, F.; Wahab, S. Does air pollution upsurge in megacities after COVID-19 lockdown? A spatial approach. Environ. Res. 2021, 197, 111052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Srivastava, A.K.; Bhoyar, P.D.; Kanawade, V.P.; Devara, P.C.; Thomas, A.; Soni, V.K. Improved air quality during COVID-19 at an urban megacity over the Indo-Gangetic Basin: From stringent to relaxed lockdown phases. Urban Clim. 2021, 36, 100791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. SSu, Z.; Duan, Z.; Deng, B.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X. Impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on air quality trends in Guiyang, Southwestern China. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Teixidó, O.; Tobías, A.; Massagué, J.; Mohamed, R.; Ekaabi, R.; Hamed, H.I.; Perry, R.; Querol, X.; Al Hosani, S. The influence of COVID-19 preventive measures on the air quality in Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates). Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2021, 14, 1071–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Tian, X.; An, C.; Chen, Z.; Tian, Z. Assessing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on urban transportation and air quality in Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 765, 144270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Zhang, J.; Li, H.; Lei, M.; Zhang, L. The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the air quality in China: Evidence from a quasi-natural experiment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 296, 126475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Zhang, T.; Tang, M. The Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ambient air quality in China: A quasi-difference-in-difference approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Broomandi, P.; Karaca, F.; Nikfal, A.; Jahanbakhshi, A.; Tamjidi, M.; Kim, J.R. Impact of COVID-19 event on the air quality in Iran. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020, 20, 1793–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hashim, B.M.; Al-Naseri, S.K.; Al-Maliki, A.; Al-Ansari, N. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on NO2, O3, PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations and assessing air quality changes in Baghdad, Iraq. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 141978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pei, Z.; Han, G.; Ma, X.; Su, H.; Gong, W. Response of major air pollutants to COVID-19 lockdowns in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Chekir, N.; Ben Salem, Y. What is the relationship between the coronavirus crisis and air pollution in Tunisia? EuroMediterr. J. Environ. Integr. 2021, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. He, C.; Huang, G.; Liu, L.; Li, Y.; Zhai, M.; Cao, R. Assessment and offset of the adverse effects induced by PM2.5 from coal-fired power plants in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. He, G.; Pan, Y.; Tanaka, T. The short-term impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air pollution in China. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 1005–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. 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]
  95. Mahato, S.; Ghosh, K.G. Short-term exposure to ambient air quality of the most polluted Indian cities due to lockdown amid SARS-CoV-2. Environ. Res. 2020, 188, 109835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Pal, S.; Das, P.; Mandal, I.; Sarda, R.; Mahato, S.; Nguyen, K.-A.; Liou, Y.-A.; Talukdar, S.; Debanshi, S.; Saha, T.K. Effects of lockdown due to COVID-19 outbreak on air quality and anthropogenic heat in an industrial belt of India. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Sahoo, P.K.; Salomão, G.N.; Júnior, J.d.S.F.; Farias, D.D.L.; Powell, M.A.; Mittal, S.; Garg, V.K. COVID-19 lockdown: A rare opportunity to establish baseline pollution level of air pollutants in a megacity, India. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 18, 1269–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sarkar, M.; Das, A.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Assessing the immediate impact of COVID-19 lockdown on the air quality of Kolkata and Howrah, West Bengal, India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 8613–8642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Seo, J.; Jeon, H.; Sung, U.; Sohn, J.-R. Impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on air quality in Korea. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Tripathi, A. Air pollution in four Indian cities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2020, 78, 696–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Boddin, D. The Role of Newly Industrialized Economies in Global Value Chains; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  102. Lian, X.; Huang, J.; Huang, R.-J.; Liu, C.; Wang, L.; Zhang, T. Impact of city lockdown on the air quality of COVID-19-hit of Wuhan city. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 742, 140556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mor, S.; Kumar, S.; Singh, T.; Dogra, S.; Pandey, V.; Ravindra, K. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on air quality in Chandigarh, India: Understanding the emission sources during controlled anthropogenic activities. Chemosphere 2021, 263, 127978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Dumka, U.; Kaskaoutis, D.; Verma, S.; Ningombam, S.S.; Kumar, S.; Ghosh, S. Silver linings in the dark clouds of COVID-19: Improvement of air quality over India and Delhi metropolitan area from measurements and WRF-CHIMERE model simulations. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2021, 12, 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Kumari, S.; Lakhani, A.; Kumari, K.M. COVID-19 and air pollution in indian cities: World’s most polluted cities. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020, 20, 2592–2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Peralta, O.; Ortínez-Alvarez, A.; Torres-Jardón, R.; Suárez-Lastra, M.; Castro, T.; Ruíz-Suárez, L.G. Ozone over Mexico City during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 761, 143183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Saxena, A.; Raj, S. Impact of lockdown during COVID-19 pandemic on the air quality of North Indian cities. Urban Clim. 2021, 35, 100754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Collivignarelli, M.C.; Abbà, A.; Bertanza, G.; Pedrazzani, R.; Ricciardi, P.; Miino, M.C. Lockdown for COVID-2019 in Milan: What are the effects on air quality? Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 732, 139280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Aljahdali, M.O.; Alhassan, A.B.; Albeladi, M.N. Impact of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) lockdown on ambient air quality of Saudi Arabia. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 1356–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Donzelli, G.; Cioni, L.; Cancellieri, M.; Llopis-Morales, A.; Morales-Suárez-Varela, M. Relations between air quality and COVID-19 lockdown measures in Valencia, Spain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fu, S.; Guo, M.; Fan, L.; Deng, Q.; Han, D.; Wei, Y.; Luo, J.; Qin, G.; Cheng, J. Ozone pollution mitigation in guangxi (south China) driven by meteorology and anthropogenic emissions during the COVID-19 lockdown. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 272, 115927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Maji, K.J.; Namdeo, A.; Bell, M.; Goodman, P.; Nagendra, S.M.S.; Barnes, J.H.; De Vito, L.; Hayes, E.; Longhurst, J.W.; Kumar, R.; et al. Unprecedented reduction in air pollution and corresponding short-term premature mortality associated with COVID-19 lockdown in Delhi, India. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2021, 71, 1085–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Nguyen, T.P.M.; Bui, T.H.; Nguyen, M.K.; Vu, V.T.; Pham, H.L. Impact of COVID-19 partial lockdown on PM2.5, SO2, NO2, O3, and trace elements in PM2.5 in Hanoi, Vietnam. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Donzelli, G.; Cioni, L.; Cancellieri, M.; Morales, A.L.; Suárez-Varela, M.M. The effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on air quality in three Italian medium-sized cities. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. 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]
  116. Huang, Y.; Zhou, J.L.; Yu, Y.; Mok, W.-C.; Lee, C.; Yam, Y.-S. Uncertainty in the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on air quality in Hong Kong, China. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sannino, A.; D’Emilio, M.; Castellano, P.; Amoruso, S.; Boselli, A. Analysis of air quality during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in Naples (Italy). Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2021, 21, 200381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wong, D.W.; Yuan, L.; A Perlin, S. Comparison of spatial interpolation methods for the estimation of air quality data. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2004, 14, 404–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Mehmood, K.; Bao, Y.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Abbas, R.; Abrar, M.M.; Saifullah; Mustafa, A.; Soban, A.; Saud, S.; Ahmad, M.; et al. Investigating connections between COVID-19 pandemic, air pollution and community interventions for Pakistan employing geoinformation technologies. Chemosphere 2021, 272, 129809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Dasgupta, P.; Srikanth, K. Reduced air pollution during COVID-19: Learnings for sustainability from Indian Cities. Glob. Transit. 2020, 2, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Jain, S.; Sharma, T. Social and travel lockdown impact considering coronavirus disease (COVID-19) on air quality in megacities of India: Present benefits, future challenges and way forward. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2020, 20, 1222–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Singh, R.P.; Chauhan, A. Impact of lockdown on air quality in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2020, 13, 921–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Bera, B.; Bhattacharjee, S.; Shit, P.K.; Sengupta, N.; Saha, S. Significant impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on urban air pollution in Kolkata (India) and amelioration of environmental health. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 6913–6940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Chauhan, A.; Singh, R.P. Effect of lockdown on HCHO and trace gases over India during March 2020. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2021, 21, 200445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Das, M.; Das, A.; Ghosh, S.; Sarkar, R.; Saha, S. Spatio-temporal concentration of atmospheric particulate matter (PM2.5) during pandemic: A study on most polluted cities of indo-gangetic plain. Urban Clim. 2021, 35, 100758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Das, M.; Das, A.; Sarkar, R.; Saha, S.; Mandal, A. Examining the impact of lockdown (due to COVID-19) on ambient aerosols (PM2.5): A study on Indo-Gangetic plain (IGP) cities, India. Stoch. Hydrol. Hydraul. 2021, 35, 1301–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Datta, A.; Rahman, H.; Suresh, R. Did the COVID-19 lockdown in Delhi and Kolkata improve the ambient air quality of the two cities? J. Environ. Qual. 2021, 50, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 19 01950 g001 550
Figure 1. Systematic review flowchart (Adapted from Moher et al. [11]).
Figure 1. Systematic review flowchart (Adapted from Moher et al. [11]).
Ijerph 19 01950 g001
Ijerph 19 01950 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Geographic representation on the world map of the studied locations from the 114 articles reviewed; (b) number of publications of the studied locations with at least 4 publications.
Figure 2. (a) Geographic representation on the world map of the studied locations from the 114 articles reviewed; (b) number of publications of the studied locations with at least 4 publications.
Ijerph 19 01950 g002
Ijerph 19 01950 g003 550
Figure 3. Graphical representation of the pollutants evaluated among the 114 articles reviewed.
Figure 3. Graphical representation of the pollutants evaluated among the 114 articles reviewed.
Ijerph 19 01950 g003
Table
Table 1. Summary of the main characteristics of the 30 reviewed studies (that used as reference data an historical period of at least 5 years), namely reference, location studied, main objectives, data, methodology, statistical analysis, and conclusions.
Table 1. Summary of the main characteristics of the 30 reviewed studies (that used as reference data an historical period of at least 5 years), namely reference, location studied, main objectives, data, methodology, statistical analysis, and conclusions.
ReferenceLocationMain AimDataMethodologyMain Conclusions
Main PollutantsTemporal Resolution Other VariablesAreas of Influence (Nº Monitoring Sites)Period of MeasurementStatistical Analysis
Europe
[12]EuropeStudy the lockdown impact on NO2 and O3NO2, O3Daily max 1 h mean (NO2), daily max 8 h mean (O3)T, wind components, Geopotential Height, Precipitation, 2-mspecific humidity, solar radiationUrban background and rural (1331)15 March to 30 April 2020Generalised Additive ModelIn 80% of sites studied NO2 decreased 5–55%, and O3 increased 5–22%, except in the Iberia Peninsula (lowered about 7%)
[13]Lombardy, ItalyAssess the lockdown impact on air quality, using ground-level measurements and scenarios simulations with CAMxNO2Daily averageT, RH, WS, PrecipitationUrban traffic (5), and urban background (1)2 periods in 2020:
Pre-lockdown: 1 January to 7 March
Lockdown: 8 March to 30 April		Kruskal—Wallis rank sum test, Mann-Whitney- Wilcoxon testNO2 reduced 4.3– 33.7% based on the scenarios created, which was validated by the decreased registered with the monitoring sites data
[14]Palermo, ItalyAssess changes on air quality due to the lockdownCO, NO2, O3, PM10Hourly mean, daily mean (only for PM10)N/AUrban Traffic (11)1 January 1 to 31 July 2020Two-tailed paired t-testCO, NO2, and PM10 reduced around 51%, 50%, and 45% in the lockdown, whereas O3 increased
[15]Vienna, AustriaStudy the lockdown impact, namely road transportation changes, on air quality, and weather conditions influenceNO2, O3HourlyTotal oxidant (Ox), Monthly average daily traffic counts, mobility data (from Google and Apple), WS, WD, T, P, RHUrban traffic, urban background, suburban background, suburban traffic and suburban industrial (17)16 February to 30 September 2020 (lockdown—16 March to 13 April 2020)Random forest machine learning algorithm, Mann-Whitney U-testNO2 reduced around 13.7–30.4%, while O3 increased about 3.7–11.0%
[16]Southern ItalyStudy the impact of the lockdown on air quality, namely size and concentration of submicron particlesSubmicron particlesDaily averageT, RH, Rainfall, WS, WD, size particles dataUrban background (1),—suburban (1)3 periods in 2020:
Pre- Lockdown: 1 January to 9 March
Lockdown: 10 March to 17 May
Post-Lockdown: 18 May to 31 July 		Mann-Whitney U-testSubmicron particles reduced about 4% to 23%.
[17]PortugalAssess the impact of the lockdown on air qualityNO2, PM10Hourly, daily averageMobility dataRural (9), urban background (14) and urban traffic (11)2 periods, in 2020:
Lockdown: 1 January to 15 March
Lifting: 16 March to 31 May		Descriptive Statistics- NO2 and PM10 diminished around 41% and 18%, with NO2 reduction above 60% on urban areas
- Light increase on NO2 and PM10 concentration was noticed in the last 2 weeks of May
[18]Po Valley, ItalyStudy the effects of the lockdown, namely the anthropogenic emissions’ reduction, on air qualityNO2, Benzene, NH3Monthly average, daily averageN/AMonitoring sites selected for NO2 (218), Benzene (62), and NH3 (14) from Emilia-Romagna, Lombardia, Piemonte, and VenetoJanuary to June 2020Kolmogorov-Smirnov test- NO2 and benzene (traffic-related) decreased about 35–40%
- NH3 (agriculture-related), did not significantly changed
[19]Graz, AustriaAssess the influence of the lockdown on air qualityO3, PM10, NO2Average concentrationsTraffic data, total oxidant (Ox), T, RH, P, WS, WD, precipitationTraffic, industrial, urban background (5)January to May 2020Principal Component Analysis, Random Forest RegressionPM10 and NO2 decreased during lockdown, whereas O3 increased
[20]ItalyAssess the impact of the restrictive measures on air qualityPM10, PM2.5, NO2Weekly average N/ANot specified 24 February to 4 May 2020Panel regression- PM10 and NO2 decreased about 5.125 µg/m3 and 5.375 µg/m3
- PM2.5 did not statistically significant changed
[21]TurkeyAssess the impact of the lockdown on air quality in 81 cities from TurkeyPM10, SO2Daily averageMobility data, Car-purchasing dataNot specified (minimum of 81 sites)January to November 2020Welch’s t-test, F-test, Pearson’s correlation- PM10 reduced 53.90 µg/m3- 43.75 µg/m3 during the lockdown
- SO2 increased slighlty in the lockdown and significantly in the post-lockdown
[22]SpainStudy the lockdown repercussion on air quality in 4 citiesSO2, CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, O3, BTXs, NH3Monthly averageNMHCUrban traffic (1), suburban background (1), industrial and residential influence (1), and national coverage background2 periods, in 2020:
Pre-Lockdown: January to February
Lockdown and de-escalation: 14 March to 30 June		Student’s t-test, Mann-Whitney U testNOx, BTXs, CO, NMHC, and NH3′ reduced statistically significant in March and April
PM10 and PM2.5 changes were small due to natural and residential sources
Asia
[23]Almaty, KazakhstanAssess the changes on air quality, before and during the lockdown PM2.5, BTEX, NO2, O3, SO2, CODaily and average concentrations, and 12-h average (BTEX)WS, WD, T, RH, PrecipitationRoad traffic; PM2.5: (7); BTEX: (6); NO2, O3, SO2, and CO (1)PM2.5:
Pre-lockdown: 21 February to 18 March
Lockdown: 19 March to 14 April 2020
BTEX:
Since end of March until beginning of April (3rd)
Remaining:
2 March to 14 April 2020		Cokriging methodPM2.5, CO, and NO2, reduced about 21%, 49%, and 35%, while SO2 and O3 increased 7% (not statistically significant) and 15% (due to high insolation)
High levels of benzene and toluene (101 µg/m3 and 67 µg/m3) due to coal-related sources (e.g: householding, power plants)
[24]IndiaStudy the impact of the lockdown and associated anthropogenic activities interruption on PM2.5 and aerosols, in 5 citiesPM2.5Hourly averageAOD (satellite imagery)Not specified25 March to 11 May 2020Generalised Extreme Value distributionPM2.5 decreased from 10% to 52% in the total of the 5 cities
[25]ChinaStudy the impact of the lockdown on air qualityO3, NO2, CO, PM2.5, PM10, SO2Average concentrationN/ANot specified (1640)January to April 2020, corresponding to the lockdown period from 23 January to 31 March 2020Theil-Sen estimation, Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoothing (LOWESS)NO2, PM2.5, PM10 and CO decreased 27%, 10.5%, 21.4% and 12.1%, while O3 showed few changes
[26]IndiaStudy the influence of the lockdown on air quality in Delhi, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, and PunePM2.5, PM10, NO2Daily averageRainfall, TCity coverage (32–40)20 March to 15 April 2020Descriptive StatisticsOverall, NO2, PM2.5, PM10 reduced 60–66%, 25–50%, and 46–50%
[27]ChinaStudy the impact of the lockdown on PM2.5 PM2.5Daily averageAir pressure, total column water, wind components, T, total column ozone, RH and planetary boundary layer height, population, and mortality dataNot specified (1388)Lockdown: February to March, 2020Kolmogorov-Zurbenko filter and multiple linear regressionPM2.5 average concentrations decreased around 30–60%, with the national average concentrations reducing by 18 µg/m3
[28]ChinaEvaluate the impact of the lockdown on air quality in Wuhan, Hubei, and China (excluding Hubei)PM2.5,PM10, SO2, NO2, O3, CODaily averageN/ANot specified (365)21 January to 23 March 2020Descriptive StatisticsNO2 reduced 53%, 50% and 30%, in Wuhan, Hubei and China, as well as PM2.5 by 35%, 29% and 19%, when compared to 2019
PM10 had similar reduction to PM2.5
SO2 and CO reduced but not as much as the before-mentioned pollutants
O3 increased up to 58%, in Wuhan
[29]National Capital Regional, IndiaAssess the impact of the lockdown on air qualityPM10, PM2.5 NOx, NO, NO2, NH3, SO2, CO, Benzene, O324-h averageRH, T, WS, solar radiation, AQI (calculated)Monitoring sites from Delhi (20), Gurugram (4), Faridabad (4), Ghaziabad (4), and Noida (4)1 March to 1 May 2020, with the lockdown on 25 March to 1 AprilPearson’s correlation, ANOVAPM10, PM2.5, NOx, NO, NO2, SO2, CO, NH3 and Benzene reduced around 61.6%, 60.0%, 58.6%, 62.3%, 46.8%, 33%, 44.8%, 26.6% and 53%
[30]Northern ChinaStudy the impact of the lockdown on air quality, with minimization of weather and other environmental influencesPM2.5, NO2Daily averageRH, WD, WS, Sea Level Pressure, planetary Boundary Layer Height Not SpecifiedJanuary to December 2020Descriptive StatisticsPM2.5 and NO2 decreased 0.03 µg/m3 and 17.13 µg/m3
[31]ChinaEvaluate the impact of the lockdown on air quality in 341 citiesNO2, CO, O3, PM10, PM2.5, SO2Daily average, monthly average, 1-h, and 8-h (only for O3) averageAQI and Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)Not specified1 January–31 June 2020, with the lockdown on 23 January to 27 MarchPearson’s correlation, t-test, linear regressionOverall, comparing pre- and during the lockdown periods, PM2.5, PM10, SO2, CO and NO2 reduced by 35.59%, 38.52%, 20.81%, 31.10% and 55.10%, and O3 increased by 82.52%
This behaviour was also observed when comparing the data with previous years
America
[32]Sommerville, USAStudy the changes on air quality due to traffic-reduction, due to the lockdownBlack Carbon, PM2.5, NO2DailyTotal Traffic Volume, T, WSTraffic, near I-93 route (1) and urban background (1)24 March–15 May 2020Wilcoxon Rank Sum testBlack carbon reduced 51% (both sites), NO2 reduced 30% (traffic) and 47% (urban background), and PM2.5 lowered 9% (traffic—near I-93 roadway) and 52% (urban background)
[33]São Paulo, BrazilStudy the effects on air quality, due to the partial lockdownPM10, PM2.5, CO, NO, NO2, NOx, SO2, O3Monthly averageNO2 (satellite data)Urban traffic (2), urban industrial (1) and influence on a city centre (1)2 periods in 2020:
Before partial-lockdown: 25 February to 23 March
Partial-lockdown: 24 March to 20 April		Descriptive StatisticsNO, NO2, CO, and PM2.5 reduced by 48.6–77.3%, 30.1–54.3%, and 36.1–64.8%, and 29.8%, while O3 increased by 30%
[34]MexicoStudy the impact of the the lockdownon air qualitySO2, NO2, CO, PM10, PM2.5, O3Average concentrationAverage traffic count, T, RH, WS, PrecipitationNot specified2 periods in 2020:
Pre-lockdown: 1 January to 31 March
Lockdown:
1st phase: 1–30 April
2nd phase: 1–31 May		Correlation testsCompared to the pre-lockdown period, SO2, NO2 and PM10 reduced by 55%, 29% and 11%, whereas O3, CO and PM2.5 increased around 63%, 1.1% and 19%, respectively
In comparison to the 2015–2019, NO2, SO2, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 reduced by 19–36%, and O3 decreased around 14%
[35]California, USAAssess the changes on air quality due to the lockdownNO2, O3, PM2.5, PM10, CODaily averageNO2 (satellite data), main power plants, highways, and
wildfire’s location		Not Specified3 periods in 2020
Pre-lockdown: 26 January to 18 March
Lockdown: 19 March to 8 May
Post-lockdown: 9 May to 14 June		Pollutants’ concentrations NormalizationCO reduced more than NO2 and PM2.5 during lockdown
NO2 increased in residential and transportation hub areas.
Oceania
[36]Auckland, New ZealandStudy the impact of the lockdown on air qualityPM10, PM2.5, Black Carbon, O3, NO224-h averageNO2 (satellite data), T, RH, WS, Rainfall, traffic dataUrban (1), suburban roadside (1), and urban background (1)February to April 2020, being the lockdown during 27 March until 17 Aprilt-testsThe pollutants reduced, except O3 which increased
Black carbon and NO2 reduced the most
Multi-country
[37]USA, India, China, and EuropeAssess the impact of the measures implemented on a multi-scale, on air qualityO3, PM2.5, SO2, CO, PM10, NO2Monthly averageNO2 (satellite data)Not specifiedJanuary to April, 2020Statistical approach developed by [38]The pollutants reduced, except O3 which increased
In some European cities, besides O3 other pollutants increased contrarily to other countries—In New Delhi O3 did not increase
[39]WorldwideInvestigate the impact of the lockdown on air qualityPM2.5, NO2, O3Daily average, monthly averageN/AUrban and/only traffic, background, industrial, semi-rural area (458)1 January to 30 April 2020Signed Rank test, Paired t-test, ANOVA, Time Series DecompositionNO2 and O3 had the reduction and increase globally, respectively. PM2.5 also reduced globally
max—Maximum; h—Hour; T—Air Temperature; CAMx—Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extension; RH—Relative Humidity; WS—Wind Speed; N/A—Not Applicable; WD—Wind Direction; P- Precipitation; NMHC—Non-Methane Hydrocarbons; AOD—Aerosol Optical Depth; AQI—Air Quality Index; ANOVA—Analysis of Variance; WHO—World Health Organization; NDVI—Normalised Difference Vegetation Index.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, A.C.T.; Branco, P.T.B.S.; Sousa, S.I.V. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Air Quality: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041950

AMA Style

Silva ACT, Branco PTBS, Sousa SIV. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Air Quality: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(4):1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041950

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Ana Catarina T., Pedro T. B. S. Branco, and Sofia I. V. Sousa. 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Air Quality: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 4: 1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19041950

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