Next Article in Journal
Geochemical Fingerprints: Tracing the Origin and Evolution of the Teleghma Geothermal System, Northeastern Algeria
Previous Article in Journal
The First National-Scale High-Resolution Land Use Land Cover Map of Bangladesh Using Multi-Temporal Optical and SAR Imagery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Earth
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/earth6040144
earth-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis and Characterization of the Behavior of Air Pollutants and Their Relationship with Climate Variability in the Main Industrial Zones of Hidalgo State, México

by
Fernando Salas-Martínez
1,
Aldo Márquez-Grajales
2,
José Belisario Leyva-Morales
1,*,
César Camacho-López
1,*,
Claudia Romo-Gómez
1,
Otilio Arturo Acevedo-Sandoval
1 and
César Abelardo González-Ramírez
1
1
Área Académica de Química, Instituto de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Carr. Pachuca-Tulancingo km. 4.5, Mineral de la Reforma, Pachuca 42184, Hidalgo, Mexico
2
Área Académica de Computación y Electrónica, Instituto de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Carr. Pachuca-Tulancingo km. 4.5, Mineral de la Reforma, Pachuca 42184, Hidalgo, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Earth 2025, 6(4), 144; https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6040144
Submission received: 9 October 2025 / Revised: 30 October 2025 / Accepted: 5 November 2025 / Published: 6 November 2025
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The concentration of air pollutants could be affected by climate change in industrial park zones in Hidalgo state, Mexico (IPHSs). The goals of this work were: (a) to describe the aerosols’ behavior (PM10 and PM2.5) and air pollutants (SO2, NO2, O3, and CO) in the IPHSs and (b) determine the climate variable behavior regarding the presence in IPHSs. The methodology consisted of structuring the time series of climate variables and air pollutants in six analysis regions. Afterwards, an annual average calculation, a count of days exceeding the allowed limits set by the official Mexican norms, an analysis of annual behavior by season, the Sen slope calculation, and correlation among variables were performed. Results demonstrated that Zone 2 is the most polluted, exceeding the allowed limits in the annual average (PM10 > 36 μg/m3, PM2.5 > 10 μg/m3, and NO2 > 0.021 ppm) and having more than 1000, 96, and 11 days where the daily limit was exceeded in PM10, PM2.5, and SO2, respectively. The minimum concentrations of the pollutants were observed during the summer–autumn seasons, coinciding with the highest precipitation. Regarding the correlations, the pollutants are negatively and statistically significantly correlated with precipitation (ranging from −0.81 to −0.43); meanwhile, the maximum temperature (ranging from +0.41 to +0.51) and evaporation (ranging from +0.39 to +0.54) are positively and statistically significantly correlated. In conclusion, the results could suggest that the presence of pollutants in the atmosphere may be influenced by the behavior of nearby regional climatic conditions in the IPHSs.

1. Introduction

The impacts of human activities on a region’s climate are becoming increasingly evident. In this context, some organizations, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), develop international policies for climate change research. In the Paris Agreement (2015), the relevance of keeping the world’s average temperature increase below 2° relative to the pre-industrial levels, as well as the search for low anthropogenic emissions development to reduce the risks and effects of climate change, was established [1]. Moreover, this year, the Sustainable Development Goals were established, incorporating Goal 13, known as Climate Action. This goal stipulates that the emissions contributing to climate change must be reduced by almost half by 2030 [2].
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an anthropogenic emission is composed of greenhouse gases (GHGs), atmospheric pollutants (APs), and aerosols (AEs) generated by human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, deforestation, changes in land use, livestock production, fertilization, waste management, and industrial processes, which generate considerable pollution in the atmosphere [3]. GHGs, APs, and AEs absorb and emit radiation at specific spectral wavelengths emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and the clouds. Primary GHGs and APs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). On the other hand, AEs are particulate matter (PM), such as sea salt, organic carbon, black carbon, mineral species (mainly dust), sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium [3,4,5].
Worldwide, the effects caused by GHGs, APs, and AEs in the atmosphere have been studied because they are considered air pollutants. These effects are mostly related to the health sector [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13], the environment [14,15,16] and the climate [17,18,19,20,21,22]. Recent changes in local and regional climates have been identified as potentially degrading air quality through altered wind patterns (ventilation and dispersion), temperature, and precipitation [17,18,20]. Moreover, the occurrence of extreme events, potentiated by regional climate change, such as more frequent and prolonged drought and increased temperatures, can directly affect air pollutant concentrations [23]. Similarly, the combination of changing weather patterns and altered atmospheric chemistry can promote the formation and accumulation of atmospheric air pollutants, resulting in a phenomenon known as the climate penalty [24,25,26].
The World Health Organization (WHO) establishes the permissible levels for each GHG, AP, and AE across several time scales to ensure the health of the population is not endangered [27]. In particular, in Mexico, there are various official standards (Norma Oficial Mexicana, NOM) related to the monitoring of these pollutants, that set permitted emissions levels in the country. These NOMs are NOM-025-SSA1-2021, NOM-020-SSA1-2021, NOM-022-SSA1-2019, NOM-023-SSA1-2021, and NOM-021-SSA1-2021, used for monitoring the PM10, PM2.5, O3, SO2, NO2 and CO, respectively [28,29,30,31,32].
On the other hand, in Mexico, there is the Sistema Nacional de Información de la Calidad del Aire (SINAICA), which belongs to the Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático (INECC). SINAICA is a series of computational programs for recording, transmitting, and publishing atmospheric conditions reported by monitoring stations in several states that have adequate infrastructure for these measurements [33]. The pollutants monitored are particulate matter less than or equal to 10 μg (PM10) and less than or equal to 2.5 μg (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), NO2, O3 and carbon monoxide (CO). Moreover, the Servicio Meteorológico Nacional (SMN) is the government institution responsible for monitoring weather conditions nationwide. SMN operates a meteorological monitoring network of stations across the country, reporting daily on temperature, precipitation, and evaporation, among other parameters [34].
From this, the IPCC has developed several future scenarios related to human activities, considering economic, population, and GHG emissions growth, called the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs). In the five possible scenarios (SSP1–SSP5), a worldwide increase in temperature of 1.5 °C (SSP1, zero greenhouse gas concentrations scenario) to 5 °C (SSP5, very high emissions scenario and fossil fuel-based development) is expected. In addition, rainfall patterns are also expected to be modified, with increases and decreases of up to 40% concerning their annual average. In Mexico, temperatures will rise from 2 °C to 5.5 °C across all scenarios. Precipitation is expected to decrease by up to 20% of its annual average [4].
Hidalgo state is one of Mexico’s 32 states, located in the central-eastern part of the country. The industry is the state’s primary activity, accounting for approximately 24% of the state’s Gross Domestic Product and concentrated in the southern part of the state [35,36,37]. There are approximately 12 industrial parks in Hidalgo state (IPHSs) connected to the country’s main economic sectors, located in the states of Mexico City, Queretaro, Mexico state, Puebla, and Tlaxcala. Regarding its public administration, the state seeks to develop more industrial parks in its territory [38]. Although several studies examine atmospheric pollutants in this state [35,39,40,41], none examine the behavior of climate variables in the presence of these pollutants in such locations.
Consequently, it is necessary to study climate change behavior and its relationship to air pollutant levels by analyzing spatiotemporal trends in pollutants and meteorological variables within the primary IPHS. Therefore, the goals of this research are: (1) to describe the AE (PM10 and PM2.5), AP (NO2) and GHG (SO2, O3, and CO) behavior in the main IPHS and (2) to determine the behavior of the temperature, precipitation, and evaporation variables regarding the presence of the pollutants above.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area is located between the geographic coordinates 19.8° and 20.5° N and 98.2° and 99.8° W, corresponding to the south, southeast, and southwest regions of the state of Hidalgo, Mexico (see Figure 1). This area was selected because it concentrates the 12 IPHSs grouped in six small zones. Furthermore, the study region’s topography ranges from 2000 to 2800 m above sea level (masl), providing a range of climatic conditions. Regarding its geographic location, the study area is delimited by the states of Mexico City, Queretaro, Mexico state, Puebla, and Tlaxcala, which represent one of the most relevant regions of the country due to their high economic value [38,42].

2.2. Data

2.2.1. Air Pollutant Information

The monitoring information of the six air pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, O3, and CO) was provided by nine distributed stations in the south of Hidalgo state, Mexico (see Table A1). These stations belong to the INECC’s monitoring network of air quality (see Figure 1). The analysis includes the years from 2016 to 2023. The information used for PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 was the 24 h average; meanwhile, the one-hour maximum daily was used for NO2 and O3. Finally, the maximum daily eight-hour moving averages were employed for CO [33]. These criteria were selected due to time-scale constraints of the time series and the limits stipulated by the different NOMs for monitoring each pollutant. Table 1 presents the time scale description and the allowed limits set by the NOMs. Moreover, pollutant stations with at least 80% of recorded data were considered.

2.2.2. Climate Information

Monthly values of maximum, average, and minimum temperatures, and evaporation from the SMN monitoring network were employed [34]. This decision was made because these variables are considered as reference by the IPCC to determine the presence of pollutants in the atmosphere [3,4]. The period selected for this study spans from 1990 to 2023, as a minimum of 30 years is required for describing a place’s climate [43]. Moreover, meteorological stations with the following conditions were considered:
(a)
The distance between the meteorological station and the pollutant monitoring station must be less than 10 km.
(b)
The meteorological station supplied at least 80% of the data for the monthly averages of the selected variables. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) suggests this percentage value [43].
(c)
The variables’ time series must pass a homogeneous test and quality control [44].
A total of 16 meteorological stations with the requirements mentioned above were obtained. The distribution of each station is illustrated in Figure 1. For more details about the stations, see Table A2.

2.3. Zone Distribution and Structuration

Six small regions were structured in the study area. At least one meteorological station and one pollutant monitoring station must be located in a region to be considered. Moreover, the zones must include at least one IPHS or be strategic and economically relevant regions for the Hidalgo state. In Table 2, the zone distribution, the contamination monitoring stations, and the meteorological stations are described.

2.4. Time Series Configuration

Once the pollutant and meteorological stations were identified in each analysis zone, the time series was structured. For the pollutant stations, daily data were obtained, so monthly averages were calculated for each pollutant. In regions with multiple stations, the average of all stations is calculated to create the time series representing the zone. Moreover, the pollutants were grouped by the season in which they were recorded. This grouping was performed because the data showed a clear trend. For example, the summer months have higher precipitation and greater temperature increases, while the winter months have lower precipitation and greater temperature decreases [45]. Therefore, the monthly average for spring comprises March, April, and May. For summer, June, July, and August were considered. For the autumn case, the months of September, October, and November were used. Finally, for winter, December, January, and February were employed. At the meteorological stations, the data were already available daily, and the same structure for the pollutants data was used.
A normality test was performed on the time series to analyze its behavior. The test results indicate that the time series does not follow a normal distribution at the 5% significance level. The Shapiro–Wilk test, conducted using SigmaStat version 3.5, was used to assess normality.

2.5. Analysis of the Pollutant and Climate Variables

To describe the behavior of the pollutants across multiple time scales, analyses were performed using annual and aggregated data by climate station, as well as the number of days exceeding the NOM-allowed limits [28,29,30,31,32]. On the other hand, to describe the behavior of climate variables, climographs for each region were constructed according to the WMO [43].

2.6. Trend and Correlation Analysis

For the trend analysis, the nonparametric Mann–Kendall test was applied to all time series, without assuming a data distribution. This test compares segment pairs from both time series using the S statistic, calculated by Equation (1) [46], where Ti and Tj are the two time series, and n is the number of time series in the sample.
S = ∑ i = 0 n ∑ j = 0 i − 1 s i g n T i − T j s i g n D = 1 ,   D > 0 0 , D = 0 − 1 ,   D < 0 ,
Positive values of S indicate an upward trend in the time series. On the contrary, negative values indicate a trend toward low values. Meanwhile, values equal to zero indicate a lack of trend.
For n > 10, the Mann–Kendall test is calculated through an approximation using the Gaussian statistic Z [47]. Equation (2) shows the statistic calculation, where δ2 is the S statistic variance.
Z = S − 1 δ 2 S ,     S > 0         0 ,     S = 0 S + 1 δ 2 S ,     S < 0
The value of δ2 depends on the presence of tied groups. A tied group is one in which all S statistic values are equal. Equation (3) is used to calculate δ2 when there are no ties for Ti. On the contrary, Equation (4) is employed, where τr is the frequency of rank r.
δ 2 S = n n − 1 2 n + 5 18
δ 2 S = n n − 1 2 n + 1 − ∑ τ r ( τ r − 1 ) ( 2 τ r + 5 ) 18 ,
The null hypothesis of this test is that there is no trend in the data, while the alternative hypothesis is that there is a monotonic trend.
Subsequently, the Sen Slope method is employed to quantify the trend magnitude. This method is used to identify trends in hydrometeorological or non-normal distribution data and is calculated as the change in measurements over time [48]. Equation (5) illustrates the slope calculation, where Δ is the yi and yj point slope in the time segment delimited by ti and tj, respectively.
Δ = y i − y j t i − t j
Finally, the Sen Slope estimation is determined by Equation (6), which is the median of the obtained slopes, where m is the number of computed slopes.
β = f x =       ∆ m + 1 2 ,     m   i s   o d d 1 2 ( Δ m 2 + Δ m + 2 2 ) ,     m   i s   e v e n ,
Positive values of β indicate a trend increase; on the contrary, negative values indicate a trend decrease in the time series [48].
In this analysis, the Python library pyMannKendal (Version v1.4.3) was used to compute the Mann–Kendall statistic and the Sen Slope [49]. These tests were performed at a 95% confidence level.
The correlation analysis was performed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient at the 95% confidence level to evaluate the relationship between the pollutant and climate variables, given non-normal data distributions. This coefficient was computed using SigmaStat version 3.5. Finally, the period employed for the trend and correlation analysis was from 2016 to 2023, as this timeframe coincided with all the time series.

3. Results

3.1. Pollutant Behavior

Figure 2 shows the annual average concentrations of pollutants in several regions. For PM10 (Figure 2a), Zones 2 and 3 show the highest values across all time series, with levels above 60 μg/m3 in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Zone 5 showed a significant increase in 2020, recording the highest PM10 levels (54 μg/m3). On the other hand, the lowest average concentrations in 2022 were in Zones 1 and 4, while Zone 6 showed an upward trend between 2017 and 2022. It is important to mention that Zones 2, 3, and 5 recorded values exceeding the allowed limit stipulated by the NOM, reaching 62 μg/m3. Moreover, all zones exceed the WHO-defined limit, and the average values of all the time series exceed the NOM limit.
Regarding PM2.5 (Figure 2b), the average values across all time series exceeded the NOM and WHO limits. Zones 2 and 4 reached the highest values, although the latter presents a considerable decrease of almost 50% from 2020. Meanwhile, for SO2 (Figure 2c), Zone 2 had the highest values (>0.006 ppm), whereas Zone 4 had the lowest values in more than 60% of the years.
In the case of NO2 (Figure 2d), all the zones exceeded the WHO limit, recording values up to 200% above the stated limit. Additionally, Zones 2, 3, 4, and 5 exceeded the NOM limit, although Zone 5 showed a decrease in concentration from 2020. It is worth noting that Zone 1 had values close to the NOM limit, but it was never exceeded (<0.021 ppm).
For O3 (Figure 2e), Zones 2, 3, and 4 present increases from 2020, while Zone 5 showed a considerable reduction of almost 50% respect to its highest value. This behavior is similar to NO2, with the lowest concentrations recorded in Zone 5. Finally, regarding CO (Figure 2f), Zone 3 recorded the highest annual average (>1.0 ppm); in contrast, Zone 4 recorded the lowest annual average (<0.65 ppm), with a downward trend. In summary, Zones 2 and 3 exhibit the highest contamination levels, while Zones 1 and 5 show the lowest.
Figure 3 describes the number of days during which the pollutant concentrations exceeded the allowed limits for several NOMs. PM10 is the pollutant with most days in which NOM-allowed limits were exceeded across all zones. In particular, Zone 2 had the most exceeded days during the analysis period (1000 days), followed by Zone 3 with approximately 450 days. Zones 4 and 5 exceeded between 180 and 210 days, respectively.
For PM2.5, Zone 2 recorded the highest number of exceeded days, totaling approximately 96, followed by Zones 6 and 4, with 84 and 47 exceeded days, respectively. Notably, O3 had the highest number of exceedance days in Zone 4, totaling 158 days, exceeding both PM10 and PM2.5.
Regarding SO2, Zone 2 had the highest number of days exceeding the NOM limits (11 days) while Zone 5 reported only 1. For this component, these zones were the only ones where the limit was exceeded. In contrast, Zone 2 had the highest number of days with NO2 levels exceeding the daily NOM, with 2 days exceeding it. Zones 1 and 6 only exceeded the NOM on one day each. Finally, CO did not report days exceeding the stipulated limits in any analysis zone.
Consequently, the findings suggest that PM10, PM2.5, and O3 are the pollutants with the highest number of exceedance days relative to the NOM-stated limits. Zone 2 recorded 1300 days exceeding the limit, more than any other zone.
Furthermore, Figure 4 describes the behavior of data grouped by seasons. The minimum concentrations of pollutants are observed in summer and autumn, while the maximum values are observed in spring and winter. Zone 1 showed different behavior for PM2.5 (Figure 4b), with the minimum occurring in winter. On the other hand, Zone 2 recorded the highest levels of PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and NO2. Likewise, Zone 3 shows the same behavior as Zone 2, except in CO (Figure 4f), where a constant change is observed, with the highest values. Nonetheless, Zone 6 recorded the lowest levels of PM10, PM2.5, and O3, while Zone 4 recorded the lowest levels of SO2 and CO. Moreover, Zone 1 recorded the lowest NO2 levels. Finally, Zone 5 showed the lowest PM2.5 level in autumn across all time series, around 10 μg/m3.
Table 3 presents the trend in pollutant concentrations across the study zones. For PM10, an upward trend is observed in Zones 2, 3, 5, and 6, with the most significant increase in Zone 5 (+1.01 μg/m3 per year). In contrast, Zones 1 and 4 showed negative trends, with Zone 1 showing the lowest (−1.32 μg/m3). The statistically significant differences are presented in Zones 1 and 6. Regarding PM2.5, increases are observed in Zones 3 and 6, with Zone 3 showing the largest increase and a statistically significant difference (1.74 μg/m3). Moreover, significant reductions were identified in Zones 2 and 4, with the lowest value (−0.99 μg/m3) in Zone 4. SO2 shows a negative trend across all zones, with statistical significance in all but Zone 3. The lowest reduction is presented in Zone 2 (−12.3 × 10−4 ppm per year), and the highest reduction is presented in Zone 3 (−1.71 × 10−4 ppm per year). In For NO2, the trend is downward across all zones, with Zones 5 and 6 showing the largest statistically significant reductions (−8.77 × 10−4 ppm and −7.83 × 10−4 ppm, respectively). On the other hand, O3 shows reductions across all zones, except Zone 2, where an increase is observed (+12.7 × 10−4 ppm). The statistical test shows a significant difference in Zones 1 and 5 for this pollutant. Finally, CO shows positive trends in Zones 1 and 6, with Zone 1 showing the largest significant increase (0.02 ppm per year), while statistically significant reductions are observed in Zones 2 and 3.

3.2. Climate Variables’ Behavior

Figure 5 shows the climograph behavior in each study variable in the analysis zones. In the case of precipitation, the maximum values are presented in summer (around 100 mm). In contrast, the minimum values are presented in all winters in all analysis zones (values above 20 mm). Regarding evaporation, the maximum values are presented in spring (over 150 mm) and the minimum values in autumn (around 100 mm). It is important to mention that Zone 3 recorded values for all variables except evaporation. For maximum temperature, the highest values are reached in spring (above 25 °C), and the lowest values occur between autumn and winter (around 20 °C). On the other hand, for the average temperature, the maximum values oscillate between spring and summer, surpassing 15 °C, while the minimum values are presented around 10 °C in winter. Finally, the minimum temperature shows a behavior similar to the average temperature, with the highest values in summer and the lowest in winter.
Table 4 shows trends in the climate variables. For precipitation, all zones exhibit a negative trend, suggesting future reductions. The most statistically significant negative trends were observed in Zones 4, 5, and 6, with values fluctuating around −10 mm per year. In the evaporation case, trend increases are observed in Zones 1, 2, and 4, with values around +0.63 and +3.28 mm per year, while Zones 5 and 6 show negative, statistically significant trends of −1.43 mm and −2.22 mm, respectively. Regarding maximum temperature, an upward trend is observed in all zones except Zone 5, with values ranging from +0.1 °C to +0.57 °C per year. Statistically significant differences were observed in Zones 2 and 3. Likewise, the average temperature followed a pattern similar to the maximum temperature, except in Zone 4, where a negative trend was observed, close to zero. Finally, the minimum temperature recorded shows an increasing trend in Zones 1 and 2, whereas in the other zones the values were negative (between −0.01 and −0.39 °C per year). Statistically significant differences were observed in Zones 3 and 5.
The observed behavior may suggest that the maximum and minimum temperature values are diverging, leading to increasingly extreme temperatures. Conversely, the potential reductions in precipitation across all zones are exhibited.

3.3. Correlations’ Behavior

Figure 6 illustrates the correlation coefficient behavior between the analysis variables and the study zones. Regarding precipitation, negative values were observed for all pollutants and zones, except in Zone 1, where PM2.5 and SO2 showed positive values close to zero (+0.09 and +0.03, respectively). Furthermore, PM10, NO2, and CO exhibited significant inverse correlations across all zones, with correlation values ranging from −0.43 to −0.81. PM2.5 showed statistically significant inverse correlations in four zones, ranging from −0.70 to −0.46. O3 showed similar correlations in Zones 4 and 6. SO2 had the fewest correlation values, with no statistically significant differences. For maximum temperature, positive correlations were observed in most zones, with the highest and statistically significant values in Zones 2, 4, 5, and 6 (ranging from +0.41 to +0.51). Moreover, the maximum temperatures are positively correlated with PM10, PM2.5, and O3, and negatively correlated with CO and NO2, achieving negative, statistically significant correlation values in Zones 2, 3, and 6 (ranging from −0.45 to −0.61). On the other hand, the average temperature showed positive correlations with PM10, PM2.5, and O3 in Zones 1, 4, and 6, although these differences were not statistically significant. Conversely, SO2, NO2, and CO showed negative, statistically significant correlations with the average temperature, ranging from −0.73 to −0.49. Regarding minimum temperature, negative values were observed in all analysis zones and across all pollutants, but NO2 and CO showed statistically significant values in all zones. It is important to mention that, in Zones 2, 3, 4, and 6, the correlation values were negative. Finally, evaporation showed positive values in Zones 1, 4, 5, and 6 for most pollutants, and statistically significant differences in PM10, PM2.5, and O3, with values ranging from +0.39 to +0.54. The only significant negative value was found in Zone 2 for CO (−0.46). This behavior is also evident in maximum temperature, indicating that these variables exhibit similar patterns.

4. Discussion

Results demonstrate that pollutant behavior is constantly changing. Zones 2 and 3 showed values exceeding the annual limits established by the NOM and WHO (PM10, PM2.5, and NO2) and reported higher values for pollutants for which no annual reference is available (SO2, O3, and CO) (see Figure 2). Moreover, these zones present a higher number of days surpassing the daily values allowed by the NOM for all pollutants (see Figure 3). This behavior is due to the presence of industrial parks for the railway, automotive, chemical, energy, and metal–mechanical sectors. Meanwhile, for Zone 3, industrial parks for logistics, paper, food, and beverage are identified [38]. Moreover, the thermal power station “Francisco Pérez Ríos” of the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) and the refinery “Miguel Hidalgo” of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) are located in Zone 2. The thermal power station has been operating since 1975 and has a capacity of 2095 GW. Furthermore, it is the fifth-largest thermal power station in Mexico and the leading electricity supplier in central Mexico. This thermal power station produces electricity using conventional steam and utilizes both natural gas and fuel oil. The refinery, which opened in 1976, is the second largest in the country, with a capacity to process approximately 612,000 barrels of fuel per day [35,50,51,52]. Both industries can generate the highest pollutant concentrations, accounting for approximately 90% of the total atmospheric emissions in the Hidalgo state [53]. These emissions concentrations are primarily due to the use of fossil fuels with high sulfur content, which generate significant sources of PM10, PM2.5, and various oxide emissions in the country [51,54]. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate this behavior, showing that PM10, PM2.5, SO2, NO2, and CO reached the highest annual values, and the highest number of days exceeding the NOM limits, compared to other zones.
Regarding O3, a significant decrease has been observed in Zone 5 since 2020. This trend is observed in the same zone with NO2 (Figure 2d,e). The reason is that tropospheric ozone (O3) concentrations depend on a photochemical process involving reactions with certain precursor pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides (NO2 and NO), meaning that reductions in NO2 lead to reductions in O3 [55].According to the Gaceta Oficial de la Ciudad de México, a government initiative to regulate air quality in Mexico City, called Programa para Prevenir y Responder a Contingencias Ambientales, was created in 2019 [56]. This initiative establishes that the thermal power station would reduce fuel oil consumption by 30%, a goal achieved by the CFE in 2021, when it reduced this fuel by 80% [57]. These actions are observed in SO2 and CO, with a downward trend. Nonetheless, this initiative does not decrease the concentrations of the other four air pollutants, which have significantly increased since 2020.
Another factor contributing to air contamination in the study zones is mobile sources (internal combustion vehicles), which use fossil fuels as their primary energy source [16,58,59,60,61,62]. Furthermore, sandstorms and strong wind currents are known to increase PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations by transporting dust and other particulate matter [35,63]. On the other hand, future annual trends indicate a decrease in the concentrations of most pollutants across all zones (see Table 3). This situation suggests that the companies and industrial parks may be complying with the limits set by various NOMs [28,29,30,31,32] or international standards [1,2].
Regarding air pollutants, some studies have demonstrated that exposure to PM10 above 35 μg/m3 can lead to health effects such as hospitalizations [64], cardiopulmonary disorders [65,66], and respiratory mortality [67]. Moreover, exposure to PM2.5, above or similar to 10 ppm (10 μg/m3) can produce diseases such as diabetes [68], lung cancer [69], cardiovascular diseases [70] and chronic hospitalizations [64]. On the other hand, prolonged exposure to low concentrations of SO2 < 0.00136 ppm (<1.36 μg/m3) is associated with a higher risk of mental illness, depressive disorders, and anxiety disorders [71]. Also, SO2 values around 0.0038 ppm (10 μg/m3) increase the cardiovascular and respiratory mortality [66]. In the case of NO2, exposure to approximately 0.0053 ppm (10 μg/m3) is associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma [72,73]. In conclusion, pollutant concentrations could cause health effects in the population, with Zone 2 posing the highest risk.
For climate variables, results suggest a strong correlation with the pollutant concentrations. Precipitation is negatively correlated across all study zones, indicating an inverse relationship with pollutants, with statistically significant differences in 72% of the time series (Figure 6). This behavior is observed in Figure 4 and Figure 5, where the maximum pollutant concentrations occur in spring and winter, and the minimum concentrations occur in summer and autumn. These behaviors have been described in the literature, where authors affirm that the maximum pollutant concentration occurs in winter [74,75,76], because precipitation is important for the dissipation, transport, and deposition of pollutants in the atmosphere [13,77,78]. In tropical regions, such as Mexico, most precipitation occurs in summer and autumn due to increased humidity from the two ocean basins, cyclogenesis zones, convective instability, low pressures, and other factors that help create climate phenomena such as tropical cyclones [45,79,80]. Higher humidity is associated with more intense precipitation events, which reduce atmospheric particle concentrations through aerosol scavenging. As a result, there is an inverse relationship between precipitation and particulate matter in ambient air [75]. However, results suggest a negative trend of this variable in several study zones, indicating a decrease in precipitation in the future. This behavior has been highlighted by authors, who point out that rainfall across the country will decrease due to various anthropogenic activities, intensifying drought [81,82,83,84,85] and hindering the dissipation of pollutant concentrations across all zones.
For maximum temperature and evaporation, a pattern similar to its maximum and minimum was observed, driven by higher tropospheric water vapor availability and higher temperatures, which increase sensible and latent heat flux at the surface, leading to greater evaporation of available moisture [86,87,88,89]. Regarding pollutant concentrations, the maximum and minimum temperatures show statistically significant differences with O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Several authors report a direct, positive relationship between tropospheric O3 and maximum temperature, because the ozone layer forms through photochemical reactions involving solar radiation and high temperatures, which may lead to higher ozone concentrations [90,91,92,93]. In the case of PM10 and PM2.5, maximum temperature and humidity are related because warm weather conditions also result in stagnant air masses, which reduce dispersion and dilution of pollutants, thereby exacerbating their concentrations [94]. In contrast, the minimum temperature shows statistically significant negative correlations with several pollutants (PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and CO), consistent with [13], who found lower temperatures are associated with higher pollutant concentrations in ambient air, highlighting a significant relationship between these factors. Finally, temperature trends are positive, indicating that they could increase in the future. This behavior has been reported in other studies, indicating that in Mexico, temperature increases due to anthropogenic activities are expected [50,95,96], which could increase concentrations of various pollutants. The main limitations when studying air pollutants and climate variability using monitoring stations are limited spatial coverage, limited data availability, and difficulty in capturing complex processes due to the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of the data, which could limit the accuracy of methodologies for assessing the relationships between pollutants and climate variables.

5. Conclusions

Air pollutants can exacerbate climate change in specific areas. In this work, we concluded that air pollutants are closely related to the behavior of climatic variables in several IPHSs. Zones 3 and 4 reported the highest annual average values compared to the allowed limits established by the NOMs (PM10 > 36 μg/m3, PM2.5 > 10 μg/m3, and NO2 > 0.021 ppm). In terms of the number of days exceeding these limits, Zone 3 and 4 recorded over 1000 and 500 days for PM10, more than 90 and 8 days for PM2.5, 11 days and 1 day for SO2, and over 140 and 100 days for O3, respectively. Regarding the annual distribution, pollutant concentrations follow a well-defined pattern, with the maximum values in spring and winter and the minimum values in summer and autumn. This behavior indicates an inverse relationship with precipitation, with 72% of the pollutants showing statistically significant differences (ranging from −0.81 to −0.43) across several zones.
On the other hand, statistically significant, positive relations were reported for maximum temperature (+0.41 to +0.51) and evaporation (+0.39 to +0.54). In the context of future trends, the Sen Slope method indicates a possible decrease in pollutant concentrations across several study regions, suggesting that decision-makers are taking action to control these pollutants. However, industrial zones are not the only human activities that affect pollution; vehicle presence and population growth also significantly contribute. For future trends in climate variables, a decrease in precipitation (−10 mm per year) is projected, leading to lower pollutant dispersion and higher concentrations. In contrast, temperatures show substantial increases (ranging from +0.1 °C to +0.57 °C), which could lead to higher pollutant concentrations due to atmospheric stability. As a result, climate conditions can alter the presence of several pollutants, suggesting that potential climate change could affect pollutant concentrations or dissipation in regions with industrial areas in the state of Hidalgo.
As future research, we suggest using multispectral images to monitor air pollutant concentrations, thereby reducing limitations in the distribution for the existing monitoring network in Mexico, missing data, and the periodicity of the information.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.S.-M. and A.M.-G.; methodology, F.S.-M., A.M.-G. and J.B.L.-M.; software, F.S.-M. and A.M.-G.; validation, F.S.-M., A.M.-G., J.B.L.-M., C.C.-L., C.R.-G., O.A.A.-S. and C.A.G.-R.; formal analysis, F.S.-M., A.M.-G., J.B.L.-M., C.C.-L., C.R.-G., O.A.A.-S. and C.A.G.-R.; investigation, F.S.-M., A.M.-G. and J.B.L.-M.; data curation, F.S.-M. and A.M.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, F.S.-M.; writing—review and editing, F.S.-M., A.M.-G., J.B.L.-M., C.C.-L., C.R.-G., O.A.A.-S. and C.A.G.-R.; visualization, F.S.-M. and A.M.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. List of selected pollutant monitoring stations.
Table A1. List of selected pollutant monitoring stations.
StationMunicipalityLatitudeLongitude
Centro de Salud, Atitalaquia (ATI)Atitalaquia20.06°−99.22°
Primaria Revolución, Atotonilco (ATO)Atotonilco de Tula20.01°−99.22°
Hospital, Huichapan (HUI)Huichapan20.38°−99.65°
Museo del Rehilete, Pachuca (PAC)Pachuca de Soto20.08°−98.78°
Estación de Bomberos de Cd. Sahagún, Tepeapulco (TEP)Tepeapulco19.77°−98.58°
Primaria Melchor Ocampo, Tepeji (TPJ)Tepeji del Río de Ocampo19.90°−99.34°
Biblioteca, Tizayuca (TIZ)Tizayuca19.84°−98.98°
Universidad Tecnológica de Tula-Tepeji, Tula (TUL)Tula de Allende20.01°−99.34°
Tulancingo, Tulancingo (TLN)Tulancingo de Bravo20.09°−98.37°

Appendix B

Table A2. List of selected weather monitoring stations belonging to the SMN.
Table A2. List of selected weather monitoring stations belonging to the SMN.
IDStationMunicipalityLatitudeLongitudeAltitude *
13156TlaxcalillaHuichapan20.3747°−99.8088°2194
13083Presa Madero20.3094°−99.7225°2206
13080Presa EndhoTepetitlán20.1550°−99.3550°2035
13149El BancoTepeji Del Río de Ocampo19.9602°−99.4572°2369
13084Presa Requena 19.9638°−99.3119°2123
13111Ajacuba (DGE) Ajacuba20.0988°−99.1219°2139
13022Pachuca (OBS)Pachuca de Soto20.0877°−98.7497°2425
13150El Cerezo20.1583°−98.7286°2673
13079Presa El GirónSinguilucan20.0725°−98.6533°2589
13115Real Del MonteMineral del Monte20.1330°−98.6691°2766
13008El manantialTizayuca19.8516°−98.9363°2290
13027San JerónimoTepeapulco19.8152°−98.4841°2535
13138Emiliano ZapataEmiliano Zapata19.6583°−98.5500°2490
13041Tulancingo (OBS)Tulancingo de Bravo20.0841°−98.3575°2207
13082Presa La Esperanza20.0561°−98.3344°2218
13031Santiago TulantepecSantiago Tulantepec de Lugo Guerrero 20.0444°−98.3683°2179
* Altitude in meters above sea level.

References

  1. Naciones Unidas. Acuerdo de París. Available online: https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_spanish.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2025).
  2. Naciones Unidas. Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/objetivos-de-desarrollo-sostenible/ (accessed on 16 May 2025).
  3. Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pirani, S.; Connors, C.; Péan, S.; Berger, N.; Caud, Y.; Chen, L.; Goldfarb, M.; Scheel Monteiro, P.M. Ipcc, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  4. Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pörtner, H.-O.; Roberts, D.; Skea, J.; Shukla, P.R. Global Warming of 1.5 °C: IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5° C above Pre-Industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sun, Y.; Yin, H.; Wang, W.; Shan, C.; Notholt, J.; Palm, M.; Liu, K.; Chen, Z.; Liu, C. Monitoring greenhouse gases (GHGs) in China: Status and perspective. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2022, 15, 4819–4834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aslam, R.; Sharif, F.; Baqar, M.; Nizami, A.-S.; Ashraf, U. Role of ambient air pollution in asthma spread among various population groups of Lahore City: A case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 8682–8697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, C.; Liu, X.; Wang, X.; Qu, W.; Li, W.; Dong, L. Effect of air pollution on hospitalization for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 3384–3400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. de Oliveira Alves, N.; Brito, J.; Caumo, S.; Arana, A.; de Souza Hacon, S.; Artaxo, P.; Hillamo, R.; Teinilä, K.; Batistuzzo de Medeiros, S.R.; de Castro Vasconcellos, P. Biomass burning in the Amazon region: Aerosol source apportionment and associated health risk assessment. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 120, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gruszecka-Kosowska, A. Assessment of the Kraków inhabitants’ health risk caused by the exposure to inhalation of outdoor air contaminants. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2018, 32, 485–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ma, Y.; Wang, W.; Li, Z.; Si, Y.; Wang, J.; Chen, L.; Wei, C.; Lin, H.; Deng, F.; Guo, X.; et al. Short-term exposure to ambient air pollution and risk of daily hospital admissions for anxiety in China: A multicity study. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 424, 127535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sughis, M.; Nawrot, T.S.; Ihsan-ul-Haque, S.; Amjad, A.; Nemery, B. Blood pressure and particulate air pollution in schoolchildren of Lahore, Pakistan. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tang, K.T.J.; Lin, C.; Wang, Z.; Pang, S.W.; Wong, T.-W.; Yu, I.T.S.; Fung, W.W.Y.; Hossain, M.S.; Lau, A.K.H. Update of Air Quality Health Index (AQHI) and harmonization of health protection and climate mitigation. Atmos. Environ. 2024, 326, 120473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Waheed, F.; Ehsan, N.; Nasir, R.; Khan, W.A.; Khokhar, M.F.; Shahzad, L.; Tariq, A.; Afzal, H.; Zaman, Q.U. Geo-spatial distribution of air pollutants in urban area and its potential health risk analysis solutions. Urban Clim. 2025, 61, 102380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Karmakar, D.; Padhy, P.K. Air pollution tolerance, anticipated performance, and metal accumulation indices of plant species for greenbelt development in urban industrial area. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kousehlar, M.; Widom, E. Identifying the sources of air pollution in an urban-industrial setting by lichen biomonitoring—A multi-tracer approach. Appl. Geochem. 2020, 121, 104695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Shakeel, T.; Hussain, M.; Shah, G.M.; Gul, I. Impact of vehicular emissions on anatomical and morphological characteristics of vascular plants: A comparative study. Chemosphere 2022, 287, 131937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Chia, R.W.; Lee, J.-Y.; Lee, M.; Lee, G.-S.; Jeong, C.-D. Role of soil microplastic pollution in climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 887, 164112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Fiore, A.M.; Naik, V.; Leibensperger, E.M. Air Quality and Climate Connections. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2015, 65, 645–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Islam, M.M.; Afrin, S.; Ahmed, T.; Ali, M.A. Meteorological and seasonal influences in ambient air quality parameters of Dhaka city. J. Civ. Eng. 2015, 43, 67–77. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kinney, P.L. Interactions of Climate Change, Air Pollution, and Human Health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2018, 5, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mkoma, S.L.; Mjemah, I.C. Influence of Meteorology on Ambient Air Quality in Morogoro, Tanzania. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 1, 1107–1115. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tai, A.P.K.; Mickley, L.J.; Jacob, D.J. Correlations between fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and meteorological variables in the United States: Implications for the sensitivity of PM2.5 to climate change. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 3976–3984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shahzad, U.; Miao, C. Assessing the impact of digitalization, geography, and digital mobility on air pollution in Europe & Central Asia: A climate change perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2025, 1001, 180507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alahmad, B.; Khraishah, H.; Althalji, K.; Borchert, W.; Al-Mulla, F.; Koutrakis, P. Connections Between Air Pollution, Climate Change, and Cardiovascular Health. Can. J. Cardiol. 2023, 39, 1182–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jia, C.; Zhang, H.; Batbaatar, N.; Naser, A.M.; Li, Y.; Kavouras, I. Clean Air Benefits and Climate Penalty: A Health Impact Analysis of Mortality Trends in the Mid-South Region, USA. Climate 2025, 13, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yin, L.; Bai, B.; Zhang, B.; Zhu, Q.; Di, Q.; Requia, W.J.; Schwartz, J.D.; Shi, L.; Liu, P. Climate Penalty on Air Pollution Abated by Anthropogenic Emission Reductions in the United States. Res. Sq. 2023, 16, rs-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. World Health Organization. Directrices Mundiales de la OMS Sobre la Calidad del Aire; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  28. Diario Oficial de la Federación. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-022-SSA1-2019, Salud Ambiental. Criterio Para Evaluar la Calidad del Aire Ambiente, con Respecto al Dióxido de Azufre (SO2). Valores Normados Para la Concentración de dióxido de Azufre (SO2) en el Aire Ambiente, Como Medida de Protección a la Salud de la Población. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5568395&fecha=20/08/2019#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 15 March 2025).
  29. Diario Oficial de la Federación. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-025-SSA1-2021, Salud Ambiental. Criterio Para Evaluar la Calidad del Aire Ambiente, con Respecto a las Partículas Suspendidas PM10 y PM2.5. Valores Normados Para la Concentración de Partículas Suspendidas PM10 y PM2.5 en el Aire Ambiente, Como Medida de Protección a la Salud de la Población. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5633855&fecha=27/10/2021#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 15 March 2025).
  30. Diario Oficial de la Federación. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-023-SSA1-2021, Salud Ambiental. Criterio Para Evaluar la Calidad del Aire Ambiente, con Respecto al Dióxido de Nitrógeno (NO2). Valores Normados Para la Concentración de Dióxido de Nitrógeno (NO2) en el Aire Ambiente, Como Medida de Protección a la Salud de la Población. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5633854&fecha=27/10/2021#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 15 March 2025).
  31. Diario Oficial de la Federación. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-021-SSA1-2021, Salud Ambiental. Criterio Para Evaluar la Calidad del Aire Ambiente, con Respecto al Monóxido de Carbono (CO). Valores Normados Para la Concentración de Monóxido de Carbono (CO) en el Aire Ambiente, Como Medida de Protección a la Salud de la Población. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5634084&fecha=29/10/2021#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 15 March 2025).
  32. Diario Oficial de la Federación. NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-020-SSA1-2021, Salud Ambiental. Criterio Para Evaluar la Calidad del Aire Ambiente, con Respecto al Ozono (O3). Valores Normados Para la Concentración de Ozono (O3) en el Aire Ambiente, Como Medida de Protección a la Salud de la Población. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5633956&fecha=28/10/2021#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 15 March 2025).
  33. Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático. Sistema Nacional de Información de la Calidad del Aire, SINAICA. Available online: https://sinaica.inecc.gob.mx/index.php (accessed on 20 March 2025).
  34. Servicio Meteorológico Nacional. Información Estadística Climatológica. Available online: https://smn.conagua.gob.mx/es/climatologia/informacion-climatologica/informacion-estadistica-climatologica (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  35. García Escalante, J.S.; García-Reynoso, J.A.; Jazcilevich-Diamant, A.; Ruiz Suárez, L.G. La influencia del complejo Tula, Hidalgo en la calidad del aire de la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México. Atmósferasfera 2014, 27, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gaytan Alfaro, E.D.; Vargas Sánchez, J.R. Agrupamientos industriales de la economía del estado de Hidalgo, México: Un enfoque de insumo-producto. Econ. Soc. Territ. 2019, 19, 47–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático. Informe Nacional de la Calidad del Aire 2021, 2024th ed.; Insituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climpatico: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2024; p. 381.
  38. Gobierno del Estado de Hidalgo. Plan Estatal de Desarrollo 2022–2028, 2023rd ed.; Gobierno del Estado de Hidalgo: Pachuca, Mexico, 2023; p. 173.
  39. Martínez-Carrillo, M.A.; Andrade, E.; Beltrán-Hernández, R.I.; Isaac-Olivé, K.; Lucho-Constantino, C.A.; López Reyes, M.C.; Longoria, L.C. Atmospheric Pollution in the Tula Industrial Corridor studied using a biomonitor and nuclear analytical techniques. Rev. Mex. Física 2011, 57, 75–79. [Google Scholar]
  40. Montelongo-Reyes, M.M.; Otazo-Sánchez, E.M.; Romo-Gómez, C.; Gordillo-Martínez, A.J.; Galindo-Castillo, E. GHG and black carbon emission inventories from Mezquital Valley: The main energy provider for Mexico Megacity. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 527–528, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vega-Ortiz, C.; Avendaño-Petronilo, F.; Richards, B.; Sorkhabi, R.; Torres-Barragán, L.; Martínez-Romero, N.; McLennan, J. Assessment of carbon geological storage at Tula de Allende as a potential solution for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in central Mexico. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 2021, 109, 103362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Mapas. Available online: https://www.inegi.org.mx/temas/ (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  43. World Meteorological Organization. Guide to Climatological Practices; WMO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  44. Villa-Falfán, C.; Valdés-Rodríguez, O.A.; Vázquez-Aguirre, J.L.; Salas-Martínez, F. Climate Indices and Their Impact on Maize Yield in Veracruz, Mexico. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. García, E. Modificaciones al Sistema de Clasificación Climática de Köppen; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México: Ciudad de México, Mexico, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  46. Aditya, F.; Gusmayanti, E.; Sudrajat, J. Rainfall trend analysis using Mann-Kendall and Sen’s slope estimator test in West Kalimantan. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 893, 012006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. García-Cueto, O.R.; Santillán-Soto, N.; López-Velázquez, E.; Reyes-López, J.; Cruz-Sotelo, S.; Ojeda-Benítez, S. Trends of climate change indices in some Mexican cities from 1980 to 2010. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2019, 137, 775–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bhuyan, M.; Islam, M.; Bhuiyan, M. A Trend Analysis of Temperature and Rainfall to Predict Climate Change for Northwestern Region of Bangladesh. Am. J. Clim. Change 2018, 7, 115–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hussain, M.M.; Mahmud, I. pyMannKendall: A python package for non parametric Mann Kendall family of trend tests. J. Open Source Softw. 2019, 4, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. García-Cueto, O.R.; Cavazos, M.T.; de Grau, P.; Santillán-Soto, N. Analysis and modeling of extreme temperatures in several cities in northwestern Mexico under climate change conditions. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2014, 116, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Inicitiva Climática de México. Estudio Sobre la Influencia de la Central Termoelétrica de Tula Y la Calidad de Aire Regional. Available online: https://www.iniciativaclimatica.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Central-Termoeléctrica-Tula.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
  52. Rivera-Cárdenas, C.I.; Arellano, T. The Tula Industrial Area Field Experiment: Quantitative Measurements of Formaldehyde, Sulfur Dioxide, and Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions Using Mobile Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy Instruments. Pollutants 2024, 4, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rivera, C.; Sosa, G.; Wöhrnschimmel, H.; de Foy, B.; Johansson, M.; Galle, B. Tula industrial complex (Mexico) emissions of SO2 and NO2 during the MCMA 2006 field campaign using a mobile mini-DOAS system. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009, 9, 6351–6361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sosa, G.; Vega, E.; González-Avalos, E.; Mora, V.; López-Veneroni, D. Air Pollutant Characterization in Tula Industrial Corridor, Central Mexico, during the MILAGRO Study. BioMed Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 521728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ramírez-Aldaba, H.; López-Serrano, P.M.; García-Montiel, E.; Morones-Esquivel, M.M.; Bocanegra-Salazar, M.; Borrego-Núñez, C.; Loera-Sánchez, J.M. Prediction of Tropospheric Ozone Levels from Land Surface Temperature in the Urban Area of Durango, Dgo., Mexico. Pollutants 2025, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gaceta Oficial de la Ciudad de México. Programa para Prevenir y Responder a la Contingencias Ambientales Atmosféricas en la Ciudad de México; Gobierno de la Ciudad de México: Ciudad de México, México, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  57. Comisión Federal de Electricidad. La Cfe Informa Que la Central Termoeléctrica “Tula” Opera Al 40% de Su Capacidad Y Con Una Reducción de 80% de Combustóleo. Available online: https://app.cfe.mx/Aplicaciones/OTROS/Boletines/boletin?i=2149 (accessed on 31 May 2025).
  58. Das, S.; Chellam, S. Estimating light-duty vehicles’ contributions to ambient PM2.5 and PM10 at a near-highway urban elementary school via elemental characterization emphasizing rhodium, palladium, and platinum. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 747, 141268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fan, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, C.; Yang, Y.; Yang, X.; Sun, Y.; Jiang, S. The Role of Primary Emission and Transboundary Transport in the Air Quality Changes During and After the COVID-19 Lockdown in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2021, 48, e2020GL091065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kamal, A.; Qamar, K.; Gulfraz, M.; Anwar, M.A.; Malik, R.N. PAH exposure and oxidative stress indicators of human cohorts exposed to traffic pollution in Lahore city (Pakistan). Chemosphere 2015, 120, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kashi, S.U.R.; Hanif, A. Assessment of volatile organic compounds at gasoline filling stations and possible impacts on human health in Lahore, Pakistan. Pak. J. Sci. Ind. Res. Ser. A Phys. Sci. 2019, 62, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Qiang, W.; Lin, Z.; Zhu, P.; Wu, K.; Lee, H.F. Shrinking cities, urban expansion, and air pollution in China: A spatial econometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 324, 129308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ma, Y.; Cheng, B.; Li, H.; Feng, F.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, W.; Qin, P. Air pollution and its associated health risks before and after COVID-19 in Shaanxi Province, China. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 320, 121090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Sosa, B.S.; Porta, A.; Colman Lerner, J.E.; Banda Noriega, R.; Massolo, L. Human health risk due to variations in PM10-PM2.5 and associated PAHs levels. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 160, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bodor, K.; Szép, R.; Bodor, Z. The human health risk assessment of particulate air pollution (PM2.5 and PM10) in Romania. Toxicol. Rep. 2022, 9, 556–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Khaniabadi, Y.O.; Polosa, R.; Chuturkova, R.Z.; Daryanoosh, M.; Goudarzi, G.; Borgini, A.; Tittarelli, A.; Basiri, H.; Armin, H.; Nourmoradi, H.; et al. Human health risk assessment due to ambient PM10 and SO2 by an air quality modeling technique. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 111, 346–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Azadeh Del, F.; Dindarloo Inaloo, K.; Alipur, V.; Ghaffari, H.R.; Dehghani, S. Assessment of health risk and mortality caused by exposure to suspended particles (PM10, PM2.5) in industrial and non-industrial areas of Bandar Abbas city, Iran, 2023: A cross sectional study. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2025, 35, 1916–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chen, H.; Burnett, R.T.; Kwong, J.C.; Villeneuve, P.J.; Goldberg, M.S.; Brook, R.D.; van Donkelaar, A.; Jerrett, M.; Martin, R.V.; Brook, J.R.; et al. Risk of Incident Diabetes in Relation to Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Matter in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Health Perspect. 2013, 121, 804–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Guo, Y.; Zeng, H.; Zheng, R.; Li, S.; Barnett, A.G.; Zhang, S.; Zou, X.; Huxley, R.; Chen, W.; Williams, G. The association between lung cancer incidence and ambient air pollution in China: A spatiotemporal analysis. Environ. Res. 2016, 144, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bell, M.L.; Ebisu, K.; Leaderer, B.P.; Gent, J.F.; Joo Lee, H.; Koutrakis, P.; Wang, Y.; Dominici, F.; Peng, R.D. Associations of PM2.5 Constituents and Sources with Hospital Admissions: Analysis of Four Counties in Connecticut and Massachusetts (USA) for Persons >65 Years of Age. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yuan, S.; Bao, Y.; Li, Y.; Ran, Q.; Zhou, Y.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Han, L.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Long-term exposure to low-concentration sulfur dioxide and mental disorders in middle-aged and older urban adults. Environ. Pollut. 2025, 366, 125402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Huang, J.; Yang, X.; Fan, F.; Hu, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhu, S.; Ren, G.; Wang, G. Outdoor air pollution and the risk of asthma exacerbations in single lag0 and lag1 exposure patterns: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Asthma 2022, 59, 2322–2339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mebrahtu, T.F.; Santorelli, G.; Yang, T.C.; Wright, J.; Tate, J.; McEachan, R.R.C. The effects of exposure to NO2, PM2.5 and PM10 on health service attendances with respiratory illnesses: A time-series analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 333, 122123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Luo, Y.; Xu, L.; Li, Z.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, F.; Peng, J.; Cao, C.; Chen, Z.; Yu, H. Air pollution in heavy industrial cities along the northern slope of the Tianshan Mountains, Xinjiang: Characteristics, meteorological influence, and sources. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 55092–55111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Nakyai, T.; Santasnachok, M.; Thetkathuek, A.; Phatrabuddha, N. Influence of meteorological factors on air pollution and health risks: A comparative analysis of industrial and urban areas in Chonburi Province, Thailand. Environ. Adv. 2025, 19, 100608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Hu, J.; Ying, Q.; Hu, X.-M. Relationships between meteorological parameters and criteria air pollutants in three megacities in China. Environ. Res. 2015, 140, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Feng, H.; Zou, B.; Wang, J.; Gu, X. Dominant variables of global air pollution-climate interaction: Geographic insight. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 99, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Liu, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Lu, J. Exploring the relationship between air pollution and meteorological conditions in China under environmental governance. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 14518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Agustín Breña-Naranjo, J.; Pedrozo-Acuña, A.; Pozos-Estrada, O.; Jiménez-López, S.A.; López-López, M.R. The contribution of tropical cyclones to rainfall in Mexico. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2015, 83–84, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Khouakhi, A.; Villarini, G.; Vecchi, G.A. Contribution of Tropical Cyclones to Rainfall at the Global Scale. J. Clim. 2017, 30, 359–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cook, B.I.; Ault, T.R.; Smerdon, J.E. Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Sci. Adv. 2015, 1, e1400082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Del-Toro-Guerrero, F.J.; Kretzschmar, T. Precipitation-temperature variability and drought episodes in northwest Baja California, México. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2020, 27, 100653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Salas-Martínez, F.; Márquez-Grajales, A.; Valdés-Rodríguez, O.-A.; Palacios-Wassenaar, O.-M.; Pérez-Castro, N. Prediction of agricultural drought behavior using the Long Short-Term Memory Network (LSTM) in the central area of the Gulf of Mexico. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2024, 155, 7887–7907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Seager, R.; Ting, M.; Davis, M.; Cane, M.; Naik, N.; Nakamura, J.; Li, C.; Cook, E.; Stahle, D.W. Mexican drought: An observational modeling and tree ring study of variability and climate change. Atmósfera 2009, 22, 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  85. Spinoni, J.; Barbosa, P.; Bucchignani, E.; Cassano, J.; Cavazos, T.; Christensen, J.H.; Christensen, O.B.; Coppola, E.; Evans, J.; Geyer, B.; et al. Future Global Meteorological Drought Hot Spots: A Study Based on CORDEX Data. J. Clim. 2020, 33, 3635–3661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Englehart, P.J.; Douglas, A.V. Changing behavior in the diurnal range of surface air temperatures over Mexico. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2005, 32, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mendoza-Aguilar, B.Y.; Carbajal, N.; Pineda-Martínez, L.F.; León-Cruz, J.F. Evapotranspiration, land cover, and climatic factors in southeastern Mexico and Central America. Environ. Res. Commun. 2025, 7, 021007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Salas-Martínez, F.; Valdés-Rodríguez, O.A.; Palacios-Wassenaar, O.M.; Márquez-Grajales, A.; Rodríguez-Hernández, L.D. Methodological estimation to quantify drought intensity based on the NDDI index with Landsat 8 multispectral images in the central zone of the Gulf of Mexico. Front. Earth Sci. 2023, 11, 1027483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Stahle, D.W.; Cook, E.R.; Díaz, J.V.; Fye, F.K.; Burnette, D.J.; Griffin, D.; Soto, R.A.; Seager, R.; Heim, R.R., Jr. Early 21st-Century Drought in Mexico. Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 2009, 90, 89–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Abdullah, A.M.; Ismail, M.; Yuen, F.S.; Abdullah, S.; Elhadi, R.E. The Relationship between Daily Maximum Temperature and Daily Maximum Ground Level Ozone Concentration. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2017, 26, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Analitis, A.; De’ Donato, F.; Scortichini, M.; Lanki, T.; Basagana, X.; Ballester, F.; Astrom, C.; Paldy, A.; Pascal, M.; Gasparrini, A.; et al. Synergistic Effects of Ambient Temperature and Air Pollution on Health in Europe: Results from the PHASE Project. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ebi, K.L.; McGregor, G. Climate Change, Tropospheric Ozone and Particulate Matter, and Health Impacts. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, 116, 1449–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Gao, J.; Wood, D.; Katsouyanni, K.; Benmarhnia, T.; Evangelopoulos, D. The synergistic and mediating effects of ozone on associations between high temperature, heatwaves and mortality in the Greater London area between 2010 and 2018. Environ. Res. 2025, 277, 121577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zender-Świercz, E.; Galiszewska, B.; Telejko, M.; Starzomska, M. The effect of temperature and humidity of air on the concentration of particulate matter—PM2.5 and PM10. Atmos. Res. 2024, 312, 107733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Cuervo-Robayo, A.P.; Ureta, C.; Gómez-Albores, M.A.; Meneses-Mosquera, A.K.; Téllez-Valdés, O.; Martínez-Meyer, E. One hundred years of climate change in Mexico. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0209808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Navarro-Estupiñan, J.; Robles-Morua, A.; Vivoni, E.R.; Zepeda, J.E.; Montoya, J.A.; Verduzco, V.S. Observed trends and future projections of extreme heat events in Sonora, Mexico. Int. J. Climatol. 2018, 38, 5168–5181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Earth 06 00144 g001
Figure 1. Study area. Colors indicate the six small regions where the 12 IPHSs are distributed. Green circles represent the location of the SINAICA monitoring stations [33]. Black triangles indicate the location of the SMN meteorological stations [34].The color red represents the state of Hidalgo, Mexico.
Figure 1. Study area. Colors indicate the six small regions where the 12 IPHSs are distributed. Green circles represent the location of the SINAICA monitoring stations [33]. Black triangles indicate the location of the SMN meteorological stations [34].The color red represents the state of Hidalgo, Mexico.
Earth 06 00144 g001
Earth 06 00144 g002
Figure 2. Behavior of the annual average concentration of six air pollutants in several analysis zones from 2016 to 2023. (a) PM10, (b) PM2.5, (c) SO2, (d) NO2, (e) O3, and (f) CO. The purple dotted line shows the average behavior of all the time series. The gray dotted line indicates the allowed annual limits by the NOM [29,30]. The green dotted line denotes the WHO-allowed limits [27].
Figure 2. Behavior of the annual average concentration of six air pollutants in several analysis zones from 2016 to 2023. (a) PM10, (b) PM2.5, (c) SO2, (d) NO2, (e) O3, and (f) CO. The purple dotted line shows the average behavior of all the time series. The gray dotted line indicates the allowed annual limits by the NOM [29,30]. The green dotted line denotes the WHO-allowed limits [27].
Earth 06 00144 g002
Earth 06 00144 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of the number of exceeded days regarding the NOM allowed limits for each pollutant in (a) Zone 1, (b) Zone 2, (c) Zone 3, (d) Zone 4, (e) Zone 5, and (f) Zone 6.
Figure 3. Distribution of the number of exceeded days regarding the NOM allowed limits for each pollutant in (a) Zone 1, (b) Zone 2, (c) Zone 3, (d) Zone 4, (e) Zone 5, and (f) Zone 6.
Earth 06 00144 g003
Earth 06 00144 g004
Figure 4. Average behavior per season in six air pollutants for several study zones. (a) PM10, (b) PM2.5, (c) SO2, (d) NO2, (e) O3, and (f) CO. The analysis period comprises 2016 to 2023.
Figure 4. Average behavior per season in six air pollutants for several study zones. (a) PM10, (b) PM2.5, (c) SO2, (d) NO2, (e) O3, and (f) CO. The analysis period comprises 2016 to 2023.
Earth 06 00144 g004
Earth 06 00144 g005
Figure 5. Climate variables climographs for each study zone. (a) Zone 1, (b) Zone 2, (c) Zone 3, (d) Zone 4, (e) Zone 5, and (f) Zone 6. The analysis period comprises 1990 to 2023. In Zone 3, no information on evaporation was provided, but data on the other variables were included.
Figure 5. Climate variables climographs for each study zone. (a) Zone 1, (b) Zone 2, (c) Zone 3, (d) Zone 4, (e) Zone 5, and (f) Zone 6. The analysis period comprises 1990 to 2023. In Zone 3, no information on evaporation was provided, but data on the other variables were included.
Earth 06 00144 g005
Earth 06 00144 g006
Figure 6. Behavior of the rho correlation coefficient between climate and pollutant variables in the study regions. The black-dotted square indicates a statistically significant difference at the 95% confidence level. (a) Zone 1, (b) Zone 2, (c) Zone 3, (d) Zone 4, (e) Zone 5, and (f) Zone 6. Blue indicates negative correlation, and red indicates positive correlation.
Figure 6. Behavior of the rho correlation coefficient between climate and pollutant variables in the study regions. The black-dotted square indicates a statistically significant difference at the 95% confidence level. (a) Zone 1, (b) Zone 2, (c) Zone 3, (d) Zone 4, (e) Zone 5, and (f) Zone 6. Blue indicates negative correlation, and red indicates positive correlation.
Earth 06 00144 g006
Table 1. Description of the different time series scales and the allowed limits for the six pollutants regarding several NOMs.
Table 1. Description of the different time series scales and the allowed limits for the six pollutants regarding several NOMs.
PollutantNOMStipulated Limit
PM10NOM-025-SSA1-202124 h: 70 μg/m3
Annual: 36 μg/m3
PM2.524 h: 41 μg/m3
Annual: 10 μg/m3
SO2NOM-022-SSA1-20191 h: 0.075 ppm
24 h: 0.04 ppm
NO2NOM-023-SSA1-20211 h: 0.106 ppm
Annual: 0.021 ppm
O3NOM-020-SSA1-20211 h: 0.090 ppm
8 h: 0.065 ppm
CONOM-021-SSA1-20211 h: 26 ppm
8 h: 9 ppm
Table 2. Description of the integration of the six analysis zones regarding pollutant and meteorological stations.
Table 2. Description of the integration of the six analysis zones regarding pollutant and meteorological stations.
ZonePollutant StationMeteorological Station
1Hospital, Huichapan (HUI)Tlaxcalilla
Presa Madero
2Universidad Tecnológica de Tula-Tepeji, Tula (TUL)
Primaria Melchor Ocampo, Tepeji (TPJ)
Centro de Salud, Atitalaquia (ATI)
Primaria Revolución, Atotonilco (ATO)		Ajacuba (DGE)
El Banco
Presa Endho
Presa Requena
3Biblioteca, Tizayuca (TIZ)El manantial
4Museo del Rehilete, Pachuca (PAC)Pachuca (OBS)
El Cerezo
Presa El Girón
Real Del Monte
5Estación de Bomberos de Cd. Sahagún, Tepeapulco (TEP)San Jerónimo
Emiliano Zapata
6Tulancingo, Tulancingo (TLN)Santiago Tulantepec
Presa La Esperanza
Tulancingo (OBS)
Table 3. Behavior of the annual trend of the pollutant concentrations in the study zones.
Table 3. Behavior of the annual trend of the pollutant concentrations in the study zones.
PollutantsZone 1Zone 2Zone 3Zone 4Zone 5Zone 6
Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope
PM10−33.34 *−1.322.330.245.470.87−3.69−0.465.301.0111.97 *0.81
PM2.5−6.66−0.51−8.96 *−0.389.57 *1.74−25.72 *−0.99−1.63−0.052.750.18
SO2−18.58 *−6.2−15.26 *−12.3−4.70−1.71−14.42 *−6.04−9.43 *−6.12−10.42 *−2.47
NO2−5.03−1.61−1.28−1.37−7.24−2.83−3.88−3.72−12.90 *−8.77−19.30 *−7.83
O3−10.58 *−15.20.0012.7−1.41−1.65−3.83−5.74−16.07 *−36.6−6.96−8.56
CO8.07 *0.02−41.26 *−0.03−17.25 *−0.04−21.94 *−0.03−0.34 − 1.73 × 10 − 3 1.04 5.04 × 10 − 3
The values of SO2, NO2, and O3 are multiplied by 10 − 4 . The asterisk indicates a statistically significant trend based on the Mann–Kendall test at the 95% confidence level.
Table 4. Trend behavior of the climatic variables in the different analysis areas.
Table 4. Trend behavior of the climatic variables in the different analysis areas.
PollutantsZone 1Zone 2Zone 3Zone 4Zone 5Zone 6
Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope		Z ValueSen
Slope
Precipitation−4.43−2.93−4.70−5.35−0.01−7.00−11.31 *−10.72−7.90 *−9.85−10.21 *−10.13
Evaporation0.430.634.291.94NANA5.383.28−9.61 *−1.43−9.08 *−2.22
Maximum
Temperature		2.950.1311.22 *0.4912.52 *0.575.890.15−0.71−0.022.100.10
Average
Temperature		2.270.0813.76 *0.309.81 *0.26−0.70−0.04−4.98−0.190.870.04
Minimum
Temperature		1.200.021.360.05−12.73 *−0.28−0.15−0.01−12.00 *−0.39−0.99−0.02
The asterisk indicates a statistically significant trend based on the Mann–Kendall test at the 95% confidence level. NA indicates that no information is available for the variable.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salas-Martínez, F.; Márquez-Grajales, A.; Leyva-Morales, J.B.; Camacho-López, C.; Romo-Gómez, C.; Acevedo-Sandoval, O.A.; González-Ramírez, C.A. Analysis and Characterization of the Behavior of Air Pollutants and Their Relationship with Climate Variability in the Main Industrial Zones of Hidalgo State, México. Earth 2025, 6, 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6040144

AMA Style

Salas-Martínez F, Márquez-Grajales A, Leyva-Morales JB, Camacho-López C, Romo-Gómez C, Acevedo-Sandoval OA, González-Ramírez CA. Analysis and Characterization of the Behavior of Air Pollutants and Their Relationship with Climate Variability in the Main Industrial Zones of Hidalgo State, México. Earth. 2025; 6(4):144. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6040144

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salas-Martínez, Fernando, Aldo Márquez-Grajales, José Belisario Leyva-Morales, César Camacho-López, Claudia Romo-Gómez, Otilio Arturo Acevedo-Sandoval, and César Abelardo González-Ramírez. 2025. "Analysis and Characterization of the Behavior of Air Pollutants and Their Relationship with Climate Variability in the Main Industrial Zones of Hidalgo State, México" Earth 6, no. 4: 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6040144

APA Style

Salas-Martínez, F., Márquez-Grajales, A., Leyva-Morales, J. B., Camacho-López, C., Romo-Gómez, C., Acevedo-Sandoval, O. A., & González-Ramírez, C. A. (2025). Analysis and Characterization of the Behavior of Air Pollutants and Their Relationship with Climate Variability in the Main Industrial Zones of Hidalgo State, México. Earth, 6(4), 144. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6040144

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop