Fei Li

Prof. Fei Li

School of Information and Safety Engineering, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 January 2016 in Science of The Total Environment
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JHJinhui Huang
Jinhui Huang
Fei LiFei Li
Fei Li
Guangming ZengGuangming Zeng
Guangming Zeng
WLWenchu Liu
Wenchu Liu
XHXiaolong Huang
Xiaolong Huang
YHYan He
Yan He

22 March 2016 in Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Fei LiFei Li
Fei Li
JZJingdong Zhang
Jingdong Zhang
JHJinhui Huang
Jinhui Huang
DHDawei Huang
Dawei Huang
JYJun Yang
Jun Yang
GZGuangming Zeng
Guangming Zeng

7 March 2025 in Nature Climate Change
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ZZZhixin Zhang
Zhixin Zhang
ZQZhen Qian
Zhen Qian
MCMin Chen
Min Chen
Rui ZhuRui Zhu
Rui Zhu
Fan ZhangFan Zhang
Fan Zhang
JYJinyue Yan
Jinyue Yan
Rooftop photovoltaic (RPV) is often understood as a niche contribution to climate change mitigation. However, the global potential of RPVs to mitigate global warming is unknown. Here we map the global rooftop area at 1-km resolution, quantifying 286,393 km2 of rooftops worldwide through geospatial data mining and artificial intelligence techniques. Using nine advanced Earth system models from the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6, we reveal that RPVs could substantially contribute to reducing global temperatures by 0.05–0.13 °C before 2050. Region-specific analysis underscores the variability in RPV potential and the necessity of tailored approaches to optimize RPV deployment, considering local solar resources, existing infrastructure and grid carbon intensity. Our findings reveal that leveraging RPV systems offers a viable and impactful strategy for reducing carbon footprints and combating climate change globally, while advocating targeted interventions to enhance the benefits of RPVs, particularly in areas with high solar radiation or rapid urbanization.

18 August 2016 in Environmental Geochemistry and Health
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Fei LiFei Li
Fei Li
JZJingdong Zhang
Jingdong Zhang
WJWei Jiang
Wei Jiang
CLChaoyang Liu
Chaoyang Liu
ZZZhongmin Zhang
Zhongmin Zhang
GZGuangming Zeng
Guangming Zeng

1 January 2021 in Chemosphere
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
YLYanan Li
Yanan Li
RFRuying Fang
Ruying Fang
ZLZehua Liu
Zehua Liu
LJLuping Jiang
Luping Jiang
JZJingdong Zhang
Jingdong Zhang
Fei LiFei Li
Fei Li

Fei LiFei Li
Fei Li
ZQZhenzhen Qiu
Zhenzhen Qiu
JZJingdong Zhang
Jingdong Zhang
CLChaoyang Liu
Chaoyang Liu
CYCai Ying
Cai Ying
MXMinsi Xiao
Minsi Xiao
Previous studies revealed that Honghu Lake was polluted by trace elements due to anthropogenic activities. This study investigated the spatial distribution of trace elements in Honghu Lake, and identified the major pollutants and control areas based on the fuzzy health risk assessment at screening level. The mean total content of trace elements in surface water decreased in the order of Zn (18.04 μg/L) > Pb (3.42 μg/L) > Cu (3.09 μg/L) > Cr (1.63 μg/L) > As (0.99 μg/L) > Cd (0.14 μg/L), within limits of Drinking Water Guidelines. The results of fuzzy health risk assessment indicated that there was no obvious non-carcinogenic risk to human health, while carcinogenic risk was observed in descending order of As > Cr > Cd > Pb. As was regarded to have the highest carcinogenic risk among selected trace elements because it generally accounted for 64% of integrated carcinogenic risk. Potential carcinogenic risk of trace elements in each sampling site was approximately at medium risk level (10−5 to 10−4). The areas in the south (S4, S13, and S16) and northeast (S8, S18, and S19) of Honghu Lake were regarded as the risk priority control areas. However, the corresponding maximum memberships of integrated carcinogenic risk in S1, S3, S10–S13, S15, and S18 were of relatively low credibility (50–60%), and may mislead the decision-makers in identifying the risk priority areas. Results of fuzzy assessment presented the subordinate grade and corresponding reliability of risk, and provided more full-scale results for decision-makers, which made up for the deficiency of certainty assessment to a certain extent.