STUDY OF DISPERSION OF CARBON MONOXIDE EMITTED BY BIOMASS BURNING IN THE AMAZON ON AUGUST 19, 2010 BASED ON WRF-CHEM SIMULATION AND REMOTE SENSING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16230Keywords:
Queimadas, Região Amazônica, Modelagem Atmosférica, Poluição Atmosférica, Sensoriamento RemotoAbstract
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5902/2179460X16230
The Amazon region has a unique tropical ecosystem that still preserves much of its native forest, however, has undergone extensive changes due to the constant presence of fire in the region. The chemical module of the atmospheric model WRF (WRF/CHEM – Weather Reaserch Forecasting/CHEMistry), allowed analysis of the concentration and dispersion of the trace gas Carbon Monoxide (CO), arising from burning source detected operationally in the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), by AVHRR sensors of the NOAA-15, NOAA16, NOAA-17, NOAA-18 and NOAA-19 polar satellites; images of MODIS sensor on NASA’s polar satellites TERRA and AQUA, and the images of the geostationary satellites GOES-12 and MSG-2, on August 19, 2010. To evaluate the dispersion wind direction and was used at 10 meters high, in order to estimate the destination of the gas plume emitted by the forest fire, is also an analysis of the transport of atmospheric trace gas column through remote sensing with instrument information AIRS (Atmospheric Infrared Sounder) aboard the AQUA satellite. It was seen CO can affect local air quality by taking high concentrations within a few kilometers of the emission source ( approximately 2000 ppbv), but with the dispersion of the gas due to the wind, it is possible to see concentrations close to 500 ppbv at least 300 km from the emission source, with transport of pollutant reaching other countries of South America.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
