Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 307

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Future Fire Impacts on Smoke Concentrations, Visibility, and Health in the Contiguous United States

Open access
Ford, B., Val Martin, M., Zelasky, S. E., Fischer, E. V., Anenberg, S. C., Heald, C. L., Pierce, J. R.·2018·GeoHealth

Abstract

Fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) from U.S. anthropogenic sources is decreasing. However, previous studies have predicted that PM 2.5 emissions from wildfires will increase in the midcentury to next century, potentially offsetting improvements gained by continued reductions in anthropogenic emissions. Therefore, some regions could experience worse air quality, degraded visibility, and increases in population‐level exposure. We use global climate model simulations to estimate the impacts of changing fire emissions on air quality, visibility, and premature deaths in the middle and late 21st century. We find that PM 2.5 concentrations will decrease overall in the contiguous United States (CONUS) due to decreasing anthropogenic emissions (total PM 2.5 decreases by 3% in Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 8.5 and 34% in RCP4.5 by 2100), but increasing fire‐related PM 2.5 (fire‐related PM 2.5 increases by 55% in RCP4.5 and 190% in RCP8.5 by 2100) offsets these benefits and causes increases in total PM 2.5 in some regions. We predict that the average visibility will improve across the CONUS, but fire‐related PM 2.5 will reduce visibility on the worst days in western and southeastern U.S. regions. We estimate that the number of deaths attributable to total PM 2.5 will decrease in both the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios (from 6% to 4–5%), but the absolute number of premature deaths attributable to fire‐related PM 2.5 will double compared to early 21st century. We provide the first estimates of future smoke health and visibility impacts using a prognostic land‐fire model. Our results suggest the importance of using realistic fire emissions in future air quality projections.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2018gh000144

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ford, B., Val Martin, M., Zelasky, S. E., Fischer, E. V., Anenberg, S. C., Heald, C. L., & Pierce, J. R.
Venue
GeoHealth
Published
2018-08
Volume
2
Issue
8
Pages
229-247
ISSN
2471-1403 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2853075952
Cited by
307
References
8
FWCI
14.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.