The Yangtze River Delta (YRD) and the megacity of Shanghai are host to one of the busiest port clusters in the world; the region also suffers from high levels of air pollution. The goal of this study was to estimate the contributions of shipping to regional emissions, air quality, and population exposure and to characterize the importance of the geographic spatiality of shipping lanes and different types of ship-related sources for the baseline year of 2015, which was prior to the implementation of China's Domestic Emission Control Areas (DECAs) in 2016. The WRF-CMAQ model, which combines the Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF) and the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model, was used to simulate the influence of coastal and inland-water shipping, port emissions and ship-related cargo transport on air quality and on the population-weighted concentrations (which is a measure of human exposure). Our results showed that the impact of shipping on air quality in the YRD was primarily attributable to shipping emissions within 12 NM (nautical miles) of shore, but emissions coming from the coastal area between 24 and 96 NM still contributed substantially to ship-related PM_2.5 concentrations in the YRD. The overall contribution of ships to the PM_2.5 concentration in the YRD could reach 4.62 µg m⁻³ in summer when monsoon winds transport shipping emissions onshore. In Shanghai city, inland-water going ships were major contributors (40 %–80 %) to the shipping impact on urban air quality. Given the proximity of inland-water ships to the urban populations of Shanghai, the emissions of inland-water ships contributed more to population-weighted concentrations. These research results provide scientific evidence to inform policies for controlling future shipping emissions; in particular, in the YRD region, expanding the boundary of 12 NM from shore in China's current DECA policy to around 100 NM from shore would include most of shipping emissions affecting air pollutant exposure, and stricter fuel standards could be considered for the ships on inland rivers and other waterways close to residential regions.

This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM_2.5 levels in a high-rise residential green building in the Northeastern US and compared performance of those instruments. PM_2.5 24-hr average concentrations were determined using a Personal Modular Impactor (PMI) with 2.5 µm cut (SKC Inc., Eighty Four, PA) and a direct reading pDR-1500 (Thermo Scientific, Franklin, MA) as well as its filter. 1-hr average PM_2.5 concentrations were measured in the same apartments with an Aerotrak Optical Particle Counter (OPC) (model 8220, TSI, Inc., Shoreview, MN) and a DustTrak DRX mass monitor (model 8534, TSI, Inc., Shoreview, MN). OPC and DRX measurements were compared with concurrent 1-hr mass concentration from the pDR-1500. The pDR-1500 direct reading showed approximately 40% higher particle mass concentration compared to its own filter (n = 41), and 25% higher PM_2.5 mass concentration compared to the PMI_2.5 filter. The pDR-1500 direct reading and PMI_2.5 in non-smoking homes (self-reported) were not significantly different (n = 10, R² = 0.937), while the difference between measurements for smoking homes was 44% (n = 31, R² = 0.773). Both OPC and DRX data had substantial and significant systematic and proportional biases compared with pDR-1500 readings. However, these methods were highly correlated: R² = 0.936 for OPC versus pDR-1500 reading and R² = 0.863 for DRX versus pDR-1500 reading. The data suggest that accuracy of aerosol mass concentrations from direct-reading instruments in indoor environments depends on the instrument, and that correction factors can be used to reduce biases of these real-time monitors in residential green buildings with similar aerosol properties. Implications: This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM_2.5 levels in a high-rise residential green building in the northeastern United States and compared performance of those instruments. The data show that while the use of real-time monitors is convenient for measurement of airborne PM at short time scales, the accuracy of those monitors depends on a particular instrument. Bias correction factors identified in this paper could provide guidance for other studies using direct-reading instruments to measure PM concentrations.