Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 353–362 | Cite as

How healthy will be the air quality in 2050?

  • A. Monteiro
  • E. Sá
  • A. Fernandes
  • C. Gama
  • S. Sorte
  • C. Borrego
  • M. Lopes
  • M. A. Russo


The air quality standards defined by the World Health Organization (WHO), and updated in 2005, continue to be much more exigent than current EU legislation, namely regarding the most critical pollutants over Europe: ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). This work intends to evaluate the fulfilment of these WHO standards in the present and in the future, including climate change effects. This study will be focused on Portugal, where each year, the O3 and PM10 concentrations exceed the legislated limit values. For this, regional air quality simulations for present and future periods were conducted, with CAMx version 6.0, to investigate the impacts of climate change and anthropogenic emission projections on air quality over Portugal in 2050. The climate and emission projections for 2050 were derived from the Representative Concentrations Pathway 8.5 scenario. Modelling results show that, over Portugal, the WHO standards are already not being fulfilled and will continue to be surpassed in the future. When considering climate change and projected anthropogenic emissions and comparing them to the actual scenario, a reduction in the maximum 8-h daily O3 concentration is expected. For PM, the results indicate serious problems regarding the health impact expected for both long-term and short-term exposure. The annual averages for both PM10 and PM2.5 exceed the AQG over the country. The PM short-term exposure is already very high for current conditions and higher impacts are expected for future scenario, in particular regarding the PM10 values. This air quality degradation is caused by the warmer and dryer conditions and the increase of background concentrations of pollutants expected for the 2050 climate. The results evidence that human health protection will be even more critical in the future, particularly for particulate matter. Furthermore, urgent air quality management strategies need to be designed, with transboundary cooperation and implementation.


Air quality WHO guidelines Human health effects Future scenarios Emission projection Climate projections 



The authors wish to thank the financial support of FEDER through the COMPETE Programme and the national funds from FCT–Science and Technology Portuguese Foundation for financing the AIRSHIP project (PTDC/AAG-MAA/1581/2014; POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016708), DOUROZONE project (PTDC/AAG-MAA/3335/2014; POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016778) and the Ph.D. grants of A. Fernandes (SFRH/BD/86307/2012) and C. Gama (SFRH/BD/87468/2012). Thanks are also due, for the financial support to CESAM (UID/AMB/50017), to FCT/MEC through national funds, and the co-funding by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020.


  1. APA (Portuguese Environmental Agency) (2014) Portuguese informative inventory report 1990–2012. Submitted under the UNECE convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente (Ed.), Amadora, Portugal, March 2014Google Scholar
  2. Bachmann J (2008) WHO…and why. Air Qual Atmos Health 1:15–16. doi: 10.1007/s11869-008-0011-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brands S, Herrera S, Fernandez J, Gutierrez JM (2013) How well do CMIP5 earth system models simulate present climate conditions in Europe and Africa? A performance comparison for the downscaling community. Clim Dynam 41:803–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho A, Monteiro A, Solman S, Miranda AI, Borrego C (2010) Climate-driven changes in air quality over Europe by the end of the twenty-first century, with special reference to Portugal. Environ Sci Pol 13:445–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coleman L, Martin D, Varghese S, Jennings SG, O’Dowd CD (2013) Assessment of changing meteorology and emissions on air quality using a regional climate model: impact on ozone. Atmos Environ 69:198–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dentener F, Stevenson D, Cofala J, Mechler R, Amann M, Bergamaschi P, Raes F, Derwent R (2005) The impact of air pollutant and methane emission controls on tropospheric ozone and radiative forcing: CTM calculations for the period 1990–2030. Atmos Chem Phys 5:1731–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doherty RM, Wild O, Shindell DT, Zeng G, MacKenzie IA, Collins WJ, Fiore AM, Stevenson DS, Dentener FJ, Schultz MG, Hess P, Derwent RG, Keating TJ (2013) Impacts of climate change on surface ozone and intercontinental ozone pollution: a multi-model study. J Geophys Res 118:3744–3763Google Scholar
  8. Emmons LK, Walters S, Hess PG, Lamarque J-F, Pfister GG, Fillmore D, Granier C, Guenther A, Kinnison D, Laepple T, Orlando J, Tie X, Tyndall G, Wiedinmyer C, Baughcum SL, Kloster S (2010) Description and evaluation of the model for ozone and related chemical tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4). Geosci Model Dev 3:43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferreira J, Martins H, Monteiro A, Miranda AI, Borrego C (2006) Air quality modelling application to evaluate effects of PM air concentrations on urban population exposure. Epidemiology 17:S252–S253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gao Y, Fu JS, Drake JB, Lamarque JF, Liu Y (2013) The impact of emission and climate change on ozone in the United States under representative concentration pathways (RCPs). Atmos Chem Phys 13:9607–9621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacob DJ, Winner DA (2009) Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmos Environ 43:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jiang H, Liao H, Pye HOT, Wu S, Mickley L, Seinfeld JH, Zhang X (2013) Projected effect of 2000–2050 changes in climate and emissions on aerosol levels in China and associated transboundary transport. Atmos Chem Phys 13:7937–7960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krzyzanowski M, Cohen A (2008) Update of WHO air quality guidelines. Air Qual Atmos Health 1:7–13. doi: 10.1007/s11869-008-0008-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lacressonnière G, Peuch VH, Vautard R, Arteta J, Déqué M, Joly M, Josse B, Marécal V, Saint-Martin D (2014) European air quality in the 2030s and 2050s: impacts of global and regional emission trends and of climate change. Atmos Environ 92:348–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langner L, Bergstrom R, Foltescu V (2005) Impact of climate change on surface ozone and deposition of sulphur and nitrogen in Europe. Atmos Environ 39:1129–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manders A, van Meijgaard E, Mues A, Kranenburg R, van Ulft L, Schaap M (2012) The impact of differences in large-scale circulation output from climate models on the regional modeling of ozone and PM. Atmos Chem Phys 12:9441–9458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marta-Almeida M, Teixeira JC, Carvalho MJ, Melo-Gonçalves P, Rocha AM (2016) High resolution WRF climatic simulations for the Iberian Peninsula: model validation. Phys Chem Earth 94:94–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martins H (2012) Urban compaction or dispersion? An air quality modelling study. Atmos Environ 54:60–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Martins H, Miranda A, Borrego C (2010) Atmospheric modelling under urban land use changes: meteorological and air quality consequences. 31st NATO/SPS International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modelling and its Application, 27 Sept -1 Oct, Torino, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  20. Monteiro A, Fernandes AP, Gama C, Borrego C, Tchepel O (2015) Assessing the mineral dust from North Africa over Portugal region. Atmospheric Pollution Research 6:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monteiro A, Vieira M, Gama C, Miranda AI (2016) Towards an improved air quality index. Air Qual Atmos Health. doi: 10.1007/s11869-016-0435-y (in press) Google Scholar
  22. Morris RE, Yarwood G, Emery C, Koo B (2004) Development and application of the CAMx regional one-atmosphere model to treat ozone, particulate matter, visibility, air toxics and mercury. 97th Annual Conference and Exhibition of the A&WMA, June 2004, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  23. Nolte CG, Gilliland A, Hogrefe C, Mickley L (2008) Linking global to regional models to assess future climate impacts on surface ozone levels in the United States. J Geophys Res 113:D14307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Penrod A, Zhang Y, Wang K, Wu SY, Leung L (2014) Impacts of future climate and emission changes on U.S. air quality. Atmos Environ 89:533–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Riahi K, Rao S, Krey V, Cho C, Chirkov V, Fisher G, Kindermann G, Nakicenovic N, Rafaj P (2011) RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim Chang 109:33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sá E, Ferreira J, Carvalho A, Borrego C (2015) Development of current and future pollutant emissions for Portugal. Atmos Pollut Res 6:849–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sá E, Martins H, Ferreira J, Marta-Almeida M, Rocha A, Carvalho A, Freitas S, Borrego C (2016) Climate change and pollutant emissions impacts on air quality in 2050 over Portugal. Atmos Environ 131:209–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stevenson D, Dentener F, Schultz M, Ellingsen K, van Noije T, Wild O, Zeng G, Amann M, Atherton C, Bell N, Bergmann D, Bey I, Butler T, Cofala J, Collins W, Derwent R, Doherty R, Drevet J, Eskes H, Fiore A, Gauss M, Hauglustaine D, Horowitz L, Isaksen I, Krol M, Lamarque J-F, Lawrence M, Montanaro V, Müller J-F, Pitari G, Prather M, Pyle J, Rast S, Rodriguez J, Sanderson M, Savage N, Shindell D, Strahan S, Sudo K, Szopa S (2006) Multimodel ensemble simulations of present-day and near-future tropospheric ozone. J Geophys Res 111:D08301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Szopa S, Balkanski Y, Schulz M, Bekki S, Cugnet D, Fortems-Cheiney A, Turquety S, Cozic A, Déandreis C, Hauglustaine D, Idelkadi A, Lathière J, Lefevre F, Marchand M, Vuolo R, Yan N, Dufresne J-L (2013) Aerosol and ozone changes as forcing for climate evolution between 1850 and 2100. Clim Dynam 40:2223–2250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tagaris E, Manomaiphiboon K, Liao K, Leung LR, Woo J, He S, Amar P, Russell AG (2007) Impacts of global climate change and emissions on regional ozone and fine particulate matter concentrations over the United States. J Geophys Res 112:D14312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thunis P, Pederzoli A, Pernigotti D (2012) Performance criteria to evaluate air quality modelling applications. Atmos Environ 59:476–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trail M, Tsimpidi AP, Liu P, Tsigaridis K, Rudokas J, Miller P, Nenes A, Hu Y, Russel AG (2014) Sensitivity of air quality to potential future climate change and emissions in the United States and major cities. Atmos Environ 94:552–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vahlsing C, Smith KR (2012) Global review of national ambient air quality standards for PM10 and SO2 (24 h). Air Qual Atmos Health 5:393–399. doi: 10.1007/s11869-010-0131-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. WHO (World Health Organization) (2006) Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide: global update 2005, Copenhagen, 484 pagesGoogle Scholar
  35. Yarwood G, Rao S, Yocke M, Whitten G (2005) Updates to the carbon bond chemical mechanism: CB05. Final Report to the US EPA, RT-0400675Google Scholar
  36. Zlatev Z, Moseholm L (2008) Impact of climate change on pollution levels in Denmark. Ecol Model 217:305–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CESAM, Department of Environment and PlanningUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations