Atmosphere 2026, 17(5), 474; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos17050474 (registering DOI) - 6 May 2026
Abstract
In urban environments, large buildings influence air quality in their surroundings by altering natural wind patterns, obstructing airflow or creating high-velocity wind tunnels, often resulting in stagnant zones that trap pollutants. Furthermore, the extensive shadows cast by these structures reduce ground-level temperatures. For
[...] Read more.
In urban environments, large buildings influence air quality in their surroundings by altering natural wind patterns, obstructing airflow or creating high-velocity wind tunnels, often resulting in stagnant zones that trap pollutants. Furthermore, the extensive shadows cast by these structures reduce ground-level temperatures. For urban planners, accounting for these aerodynamic, thermal and air quality effects is important to fostering healthier, more livable cities. In this work, measurements assessing how shadow and micrometeorological conditions—driven by the proximity of large buildings—influence PM2.5 levels were conducted in an urban commune of Santiago, Chile, during the winter and spring seasons. This commune is characterized by a mixture of one-story houses and high-rise buildings. PM2.5 and meteorological parameters were measured outside three pairs of houses in winter of 2021, one of which received shadow from a nearby building and the other was under the sun. In one pair of houses, PM2.5 concentrations were elevated in the shaded site exclusively during the winter months. This was attributed to shadow-induced temperature reductions, which likely increased local atmospheric stability and inhibited pollutant dispersion. However, this effect was limited to periods of low wind speed; during the spring, the transition to a higher wind speed regime facilitated sufficient mechanical mixing to neutralize the thermal influence of the shadow, resulting in no detectable difference between the sites. In another pair of houses, the result was attributed to the difference in wind speed in one of the houses, because the building acts as a windbreak, no shading effect were observed. Regarding the third pair of houses, no significant impact on PM2.5 concentrations was observed in the whole period. This lack of variation is likely attributable to the absence of substantial micrometeorological differences between the two sites.
Full article
(This article belongs to the Topic Air Quality and the Built Environment, 2nd Edition)
►
Show Figures
Figure 1
