Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36448048›Full record

ArticleScientific African2023

An assessment of aerosol optical depth over three AERONET sites in South Africa during the year 2020.

Newton R Matandirotya, C M Anoruo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific African, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Newton R MatandirotyaDerpatment of Geosciences, Faculty of Science, Nelson Mandela University, Port Elizabeth, 6000, South Africa.
C M AnoruoUniversity of Nigeria, Nsukka.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is important to notice that the world health organization (WHO) on  the 11th of March 2020,  declared COVID-19 a global pandemic and in response governments around the world introduced lockdowns that restricted human and traffic movements including South Africa. This pandemic resulted in a total lockdown from 26 March until 16 April 2020 in South Africa with expected  decrease in atmospheric aerosols. In this present study,  the aerosol optical depth (AOD) over Southern Africa based on ground-based remotely sensed data derived from three AERONET sites (Durban, Skukuza and Upington) during 2020 were used to detrermine the restriction resopnse on atmospheric aerosol pollution  The study used data from 2019, 2018 and 2017  as base years. The AERONET derived data was complemented with the HYSPLIT Model and NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis data. The study findings show that peak increase of AOD corresponds to Angstrom exponent (AE) enhancement for two sites Durban and Skukuza during winter (JJA) while the Upington site showed a different trend where peak AOD were observed in spring (SON). The study also observed the influence of long transport airmasses particularly those originating from the Atlantic and Indian ocean moreso for the Durban and Skukuza sites (summer and autumn) thus these sites received fresh marine aerosols however this was not the case for Upington which fell under the influence of short-range inland airmasses and was likely to receive anthropogenic and dust aerosols. The major results  suggest that the lockdowns did not translate into a significant decrease in AOD levels compared to previous immediate years. The results has presented restriction response of AOD over South Africa but additional analysis is required using more locations to compare results.

Indexed as

AERONETAerosolsAir pollutionÅngstrom exponentAODCOVID-19

Identifiers

PMID36448048
PMCPMC9683855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.