@article{johnson_garcia-menendez_2023, title={A comparison of smoke modelling tools used to mitigate air quality impacts from prescribed burning}, volume={5}, ISSN={["1448-5516"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1071/WF22172}, DOI={10.1071/WF22172}, abstractNote={Background Prescribed fire is a land management tool used extensively across the United States. Owing to health and safety risks, smoke emitted by burns requires appropriate management. Smoke modelling tools are often used to mitigate air pollution impacts. However, direct comparisons of tools’ predictions are lacking. Aims We compared three tools commonly used to plan prescribed burning projects: the Simple Smoke Screening Tool, VSmoke and HYSPLIT. Methods We used each tool to model smoke dispersion from prescribed burns conducted by the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation over a year. We assessed similarity among the tools’ predicted smoke fields, areas of concern and potential population impacts. Key results The total smoke area predicted by the tools differs by thousands of square kilometres and, as such, spatial agreement was low. When translated into numbers of residents potentially exposed to smoke, tool estimates can vary by an order of magnitude. Conclusions Our analysis of an operational burning program suggests that the differences among the tools are significant and inconsistent. Implications While our analysis shows that improved and more consistent smoke modelling tools could better support land management, clear guidelines on how to apply their predictions are also necessary to obtain these benefits.}, journal={INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE}, author={Johnson, Megan M. and Garcia-Menendez, Fernando}, year={2023}, month={May} } @article{johnson_garcia-menendez_2022, title={Uncertainty in Health Impact Assessments of Smoke From a Wildfire Event}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2471-1403"]}, url={https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GH000526}, DOI={10.1029/2021GH000526}, abstractNote={AbstractWildfires cause elevated air pollution that can be detrimental to human health. However, health impact assessments associated with emissions from wildfire events are subject to uncertainty arising from different sources. Here, we quantify and compare major uncertainties in mortality and morbidity outcomes of exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution estimated for a series of wildfires in the Southeastern U.S. We present an approach to compare uncertainty in estimated health impacts specifically due to two driving factors, wildfire‐related smoke PM2.5 fields and variability in concentration‐response parameters from epidemiologic studies of ambient and smoke PM2.5. This analysis, focused on the 2016 Southeastern wildfires, suggests that emissions from these fires had public health consequences in North Carolina. Using several methods based on publicly available monitor data and atmospheric models to represent wildfire‐attributable PM2.5, we estimate impacts on several health outcomes and quantify associated uncertainty. Multiple concentration‐response parameters derived from studies of ambient and wildfire‐specific PM2.5 are used to assess health‐related uncertainty. Results show large variability and uncertainty in wildfire impact estimates, with comparable uncertainties due to the smoke pollution fields and health response parameters for some outcomes, but substantially larger health‐related uncertainty for several outcomes. Consideration of these uncertainties can support efforts to improve estimates of wildfire impacts and inform fire‐related decision‐making.}, number={1}, journal={GEOHEALTH}, publisher={American Geophysical Union (AGU)}, author={Johnson, Megan M. and Garcia-Menendez, Fernando}, year={2022}, month={Jan} }