applied

sciences
Article
Air Quality Integrated Assessment: Environmental Impacts,
Risks and Human Health Hazards
Ioana Tanasa 1 , Marius Cazacu 2, * and Brindusa Sluser 1, *

1 Department of Environmental Engineering and Management, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and

Environmental Protection “Cristofor Simionescu”, “Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi,
Prof. Dr. Dimitrie Mangeron Street, no.73, 700050 Iasi, Romania
2 Department of Physics, “Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Romania, 700050 Iasi, Romania
* Correspondence: marius-mihai.cazacu@academic.tuiasi.ro (M.C.);
brindusa-mihaela.sluser@academic.tuiasi.ro (B.S.)

Abstract: The monitoring and evaluation of air quality is a topic of great global interest as, with the
decline of air quality, there are negative effects on human health and ecosystems. Thus, the purpose
of this paper was to evaluate the air quality over 11 years, in the period 2011–2021, in four cities in
Romania, reported as most polluted, namely, Brasov, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi, and Timisoara. Pollutants of
interest included arsenic, carbon monoxide, and PM2.5 . The measured concentrations of the selected
pollutants were collected from the National Environmental Protection Agency public reports. The
database considered the daily measurements for the selected pollutants, from three monitoring stations
in each city so that the air quality and trends for the last 11 years and impact assessment could be
developed. Therefore, the input data were statistically analyzed to identify the trends of air quality,
and then, on this basis, the environmental impacts and risks and health hazards were quantified. High
concentrations of PM2.5 were recorded for Iasi city, while for Timisoara city, significant concentrations
of arsenic were reported. The results regarding the air quality aggregate index, air pollution index,
and health hazard index were in the regular range, but in the case of sensitive, vulnerable targets such
as children, they were triple compared to adults. The results show that the alert threshold value for
PM2.5 was exceeded every year in all four cities, while in the case of Timisoara city, the arsenic air
pollution proved to be at a significant level with a major risk for human health.
Citation: Tanasa, I.; Cazacu, M.;
Sluser, B. Air Quality Integrated Keywords: air quality assessment; integrated approach; impact; risk; health hazards
Assessment: Environmental Impacts,
Risks and Human Health Hazards.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222. https://
doi.org/10.3390/app13021222 1. State of the Art
Academic Editors: Alessandro Air is an essential environmental factor, and by changing its quality, negative effects
Borgini and Wei-Ning Wang can occur in ecosystems, at the same time generating an impact on human health. Thus, air
pollution has become a pressing problem globally, and monitoring, maintaining, and even
Received: 14 October 2022 improving the air quality are topics of great interest to specialists because air can quickly
Revised: 13 January 2023
transport certain amounts of pollutants, which lead to environmental damage and negative
Accepted: 14 January 2023
effects on human health [1]. Therefore, air quality standards aim to protect health and the
Published: 16 January 2023
environment through various regulations, including threshold limits for air pollutants [2].
At the European level, there are several laws and directives regarding the quality of the
environment, targeting the monitoring presence of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
mercury, arsenic, nickel, and cadmium in the air (Directive 2004/107/EC; 2008/50/EC,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Decision 2011/850/EU), and establishing a common international framework for air quality
This article is an open access article protection [3]. Additionally, there are various strategies to protect air quality, such as the
distributed under the terms and “Clean Air Policy Package”, published in 2013, which aims to significantly reduce air
conditions of the Creative Commons pollution in Europe by 2030 and includes a set of much stricter emission standards [4]. The
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Green Deal plan, presented in 2019, comprises a set of initiatives at the European Union
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ (EU) level. The aim of this plan is to make Europe a neutral continent in terms of pollution
4.0/). and climate change by 2050 [5].

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13021222 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 2 of 19

In Romania, the basis of the air quality legislative framework is strictly in accordance
with the EU regulations, and the main legislation is Law no. 104/2011 [6]. At the interna-
tional level, one example is the Clean Air Act, a specific US law that sets several standards
for environmental quality and air pollutant emissions [7]. Comparing the EU and US air
quality legislative framework, it can be observed that the EU’s strategy is oriented to limit
methane emissions, while the US is pursuing a green economy, but both are focused on cli-
mate change limitation. The European legislative framework, unlike that of the US, is based
on the precautionary principle and pollution prevention, so that the ecological balance and
human health can be assured [8]. To properly implement the pollution prevention principle,
the air quality assessment process must include accurate information on air pollutants
type, dispersion processes, and physical and chemical reactions, and the monitoring data
used must be in accordance with the environmental standards. Thus, accurate data on air
quality and air pollution levels can be delivered. There are several definitions of air quality
monitoring activity, but the simplest indicates that this activity can be characterized by
air sampling and analysis using analyzers or sensors [9]. Air quality monitoring methods
are diverse and may include the Holo SpeckleNet tool [10], the improvement of some
sensors [11], or the use of low-cost sensors and Internet of Things systems [12,13].
Another topic of great interest in the world of research is the development of tools for
modeling the dispersion of air pollutants. In this field, specialists try to combine various
approaches to reach better results, such as combining the SINDy algorithm with Lasso
regression [14] or using the Caliope system together with principal component analysis
(PCA) [15]. Air quality modeling has evolved into a new discipline that includes various
technologies and sciences from disciplines such as mathematics, environmental statistics,
meteorology, physics, and air quality, which makes this system increasingly complex and
advanced. Over time, air quality models have been classified into global, regional, and
urban models, and knowing continuous advance, at the international level, small- and
medium-scale regulated models such as AERMOD, ADMS, ISC3, etc., are currently used.
Among the regional models are CMAQ, WRF-CHEM, CAMx, etc., and GEOS-CHEM is the
best-known global model. Among those mentioned, according to the US Environmental
Protection Agency, the most-used models belong to the following categories: photochemical,
dispersion and receptor models. Although air quality modeling has evolved rapidly, there
are still problems in its application, caused by limiting factors such as unusual emissions
or meteorological factors [16,17]. In this regard, a series of patents have been published
in Romania referring to devices for air purification and salinization [18], methods for
reducing pollutants in industrial flue gases by combining ionizing radiation with non-
ionizing radiation [19] or with fine water droplets [20], methods for determining the tritium
concentration in the air [21], or wet desulfurization of waste gases [22]. Internationally,
there are several patents in the field of air quality, and some include methods for the real-
time monitoring of suspended particle concentrations [23], removal of air pollutants [24],
or fusing of fire sensors [25], while others refer to monitoring systems based on improved
chemical spectrophotometric sensors [26] or automatic air sample analysis [27].
Based on all aspects previously mentioned, it is generally agreed that air quality
monitoring is extremely important to prevent damage to environmental quality and human
health and to improve air quality as well [28,29]. The purpose of this work was to prove
that even though the air quality indicator measurements are under the maximum allowed
concentrations, according to the environmental standards, there are remaining high risks
in the case of children’s exposure to certain pollutants. To our best knowledge, this is
the first study in Romania that considers 11 years of air quality measurements, based on
which an integrated approach to impact, risk, and health hazard assessments are developed.
Having all these aspects in mind, the objectives of this paper were (1) to evaluate, over the
last 11 years (2011–2021), the air quality of four cities in Romania, considering the daily
measurements of three monitoring stations in each city for three pollutants: PM2.5 , As,
and CO, (2) to assess the air quality using the air pollution index, and (3) to assess the
impacts, risks, and health hazards. Depending on the toxicological effects and the major
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 3 of 19

impacts on human health, three different pollutants were selected, namely, one in the form
of gas (CO), one in the form of dust (PM2.5 ), and one heavy metal (As), all of them with
high toxicity. Suspended particles are very dangerous (especially PM2.5 ), managing to
penetrate deep into the respiratory system, thus causing major health problems, such as
cancer and cardiovascular or neurodegenerative diseases, as well as playing a role in viral
infections. Current data claim that there are approximately four million deaths caused by
cardiopulmonary diseases, with the inhalation of PM2.5 as the triggering factor. One of the
most recent studies published in 2022 describes the mechanisms and pathways of PM2.5 ,
as well as the toxic effects of this pollutant, along with the causal associations between
health and suspended particles [30]. Arsenic, an inorganic priority pollutant with high
toxicity, can be found among the finest particles of PM2.5 and has carcinogenic effects.
At the same time, heavy metals can bioaccumulate in the human body, and they have a
low degradation potential and a high degree of toxicity. One of the latest studies draws
attention to the high potential of this pollutant to cause cancer and highlights the negative
effects on the digestive and cardiovascular systems, as well as DNA [31]. In the case of
carbon monoxide, among other negative aspects, it is well-known for its destructive effects
on the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. The toxicity of this pollutant consists in
its reaction with hemoglobin, which results in carboxyhemoglobin, causing serious health
problems, including poisoning and even death from hypoxia [32].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Boundaries and Brief Description
The National Air Quality Monitoring Network performs continuous measurements of
sulfur dioxide (SO2 ), nitrogen oxides (NOx ), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3 ), particulate
matter (PM10 and PM2.5 ), benzene (C6 H6 ), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), nickel
(Ni), and benzo(a)pyrene, and it includes 148 automatic air quality monitoring stations
and 11 mobile stations distributed as follows: 30 traffic-type stations, 58 industrial stations,
37 urban background-type stations, 13 suburban-type stations, 7 stations of the regional
background type, and 3 EMEP-type stations. By region, the monitoring stations cover
20 automatic stations in the North-East Region, 21 in the South-East Region, 27 in the
South-Muntenia Region, 12 in the South-West Oltenia Region, 21 in the West Region, 18 in
the North-West Region, 21 in the Central Region, and 8 in the Bucharest-Ilfov region [6].
In the last two years, several charts have been produced for the most polluted cities in
Romania, and each time, among other cities, Iasi, Brasov, Cluj-Napoca, and Timisoara were
found to be the most polluted. Table 1 presents the similarities of the four selected cities for
this study.

Table 1. Similarities between the evaluated cities [33,34].

Number of Water Number of Wastewater Number of Air Quality

City Population
Treatment Plants Treatment Plants Monitoring Stations
Brasov 275,514 2 5 7
Cluj-Napoca 303,047 1 8 5
Iasi 318,871 8 4 6
Timisoara 306,462 3 1 7

The monitoring stations considered for this study are presented in Figure 1.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 4 of 19

Figure 1. Location of air quality monitoring stations.

Brasov is a tourist city in the center of the country and has 7 air quality monitoring
stations, of which we chose to take the data recorded by 3 since they have the most complete
set of measurements. BV-2 is an urban-type station and BV-4 is a suburban-type station,
meaning that they aim to monitor the influence generated by pollutants within a radius of
1–5 km. The third station is EM-1, an EMEP-type station that deals with monitoring long-
distance air quality in a cross-border context, and it is located at 1231 m elevation [6,34].
Cluj-Napoca, in the northwest of the country, is also called the “heart of Transylvania” and
is also a tourist city. Air quality monitoring is carried out through 5 stations. For this area,
we chose the CJ-1 station (traffic type), which, as its name suggests, registers the influences
generated by traffic on air quality, and CJ-2 and CJ-3, which are urban and suburban types,
respectively [6,34]. The city of the 7 hills, or the city of Iasi, is in the northeast of the country,
and within its territory, there are 6 air quality monitoring stations. IS-2 and IS-5 are urban
and suburban types, respectively, and IS-6 is a rural-type station [6,34]. To the west of
the country is Timisoara, a city known for its commercial, industrial, cultural, medical,
and university activities. There are 7 stations here, of which TM-1 is a traffic-type station,
TM-2 is an urban-type station, and TM-3 is a suburban-type station [6,34].
All monitoring stations are equipped with high-performance analyzers that contin-
uously monitor selected air pollutants, including PM2.5 , As, and CO. The measurement
methods used to determine pollutant concentrations are the reference methods, accord-
ing to the EU environmental standards, as follows: for CO, the determination method is
non-dispersive infrared spectrometry, and for PM2.5 , it is gravimetric and nephelometric
determination. The reference method for measuring arsenic is in accordance with the SR EN
14902 standard, specifying absorption spectrometry with atomic or coupled plasma [34].

2.2. Experimental Data

The air quality assessment was performed based on the data from the last 11 years,
considering 3 pollutants: arsenic, PM2.5 , and carbon monoxide. Arsenic, which is part
of the heavy metal category, can be found in PM2.5 fractions that are known to be very
dangerous and can enter the respiratory tract. Carbon monoxide, a toxic gas, can be
lethal in high concentrations, reducing the ability to carry oxygen in the blood [6]. Their
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 5 of 19

measured concentrations for the last 11 years (2011–2021) in the 4 cities were obtained from
the EPA public reports. For each of these cities, we considered the daily data recorded
by 3 monitoring stations. To better observe the evolution of the air quality and its trend
during the 11 years, statistical analyses were run, considering the minimum and maximum
concentrations measured within each year. Where there are no data presented in the figures
for a specific pollutant, year, or monitoring station, there were no measurements included
in the report.
After a deep analysis of the information reported, the data were organized into tables,
for each monitoring station, year, and pollutant, for each city, resulting in 4 complex tables.
For each pollutant, the annual averages measurements, and the maximum and minimum
concentrations were considered as well. Based on these tables, we also produced the
first set of graphs that show the average concentration for each year, station, and pollutant.
The errors could not be calculated for this dataset because the values were taken from the
reports validated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Figure 2 shows the evolution of air quality in the four cities during the 11 years
(2011–2021), depending on the average annual concentration of PM2.5 . Through this
representation, the evolution and variability of the values can be clearly visualized. For
each city, there were concentrations recorded by only one monitoring station, as can be seen
in Figure 2. Thus, in the case of Brasov, a downward trend of the concentrations recorded
in recent years can be observed, reaching a maximum of 25.89 [µg/m3 ] in 2017, exceeding
the legal limit for this year. This value was registered by the BV-2 station. The evolution
of air quality in terms of particulate matter pollution for Cluj-Napoca was monitored by
the CJ-2 station. Thus, a maximum annual average was reached in 2011, of 28.32 [µg/m3 ],
also exceeding the legal limit calculated for one year. Regarding the city of Iasi, the trend of
decreasing concentrations in recent years has been absent for PM2.5 , with variation in the
values between 20 and 25 [µg/m3 ], and with the highest concentration recorded for this
pollutant among the four cities (28.70 µg/m3 ) in the 11 years. The lowest values among the
4 cities were registered in Timisoara, being between 9.94 and 21.50 [µg/m3 ], in 2016. All
four monitoring stations that recorded PM2.5 concentrations are urban types and are in the
vicinity of residential areas.

Figure 2. Average annual concentration of PM2.5 in the four cities (Brasov, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi, and Timisoara).

Regarding the average annual concentrations of carbon monoxide in the case of

Brasov, Timisoara, and Cluj-Napoca (Figure 3), the values did not remain in a constant
range, varying depending on the location of the stations, but within normal limits. For Iasi,
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 6 of 19

the data from the IS-6 monitoring station were highlighted, which were higher than those
from the other two stations. Even if there were some variations, the values were within
normal limits for this city as well, with a maximum of 1.32 [mg/m3 ] in 2014.

Figure 3. Average annual concentration of CO in the four cities (Brasov, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi, and Timisoara).

The representation of the average annual concentration for arsenic (Figure 4) shows
that in Brasov, the stations recorded concentrations within normal limits starting in 2020;
until then, there were no reported values. The same situation applies to Iasi, but here,
the first year concentrations were reported was 2017, increasing slightly every year, and
in 2021, there were no significant data. Moving on to Cluj-Napoca, as can be seen in
Figure 4, no significant values were highlighted until 2016. After this interval, variations in
concentrations were recorded, suddenly rising to 2.59 [ng/m3 ] in 2020, and in 2021, the
values became insignificant again. A more special situation is presented by the report on
arsenic pollution in Timisoara because, unlike the other 3 cities, arsenic concentrations were
recorded here every year, between 0.34 and 1.45 [ng/m3 ].

Figure 4. Average annual concentration of As in the four cities (Brasov, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi, and Timisoara).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 7 of 19

Furthermore, the maximum and minimum concentrations of each year, for each city
and pollutant, depending on the alert threshold, are represented. Figure 5 shows the values
for PM2.5 , the threshold value being 17 [µg/m3 ]. As can be seen, in the case of all 4 cities, the
maximum values for each year exceeded the alert threshold. A constant trend can be noticed
for Cluj-Napoca, Iasi, and Timisoara, but for Brasov, there are variations from 49.87 [µg/m3 ]
to 198.31 [µg/m3 ]. For Cluj-Napoca and Timisoara, the concentrations were lower, unlike
in Iasi, where PM2.5 pollution ranged between 80 and 120 [µg/m3 ]. The minimum annual
measured concentrations were below the alert threshold value for each case.

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. (a) Maximum concentrations of PM2.5 mean daily values depending on the alert threshold;
(b) minimum concentrations of PM2.5 mean daily values depending on the alert threshold.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 8 of 19

The carbon monoxide alert threshold sets a value of 7 [mg/m3 ], which was not ex-
ceeded in any of the four cities during the last 11 years (2011–2021). The concentrations
remained in a constant line, with there being several variations in Brasov and Cluj-Napoca,
the maximum concentrations being 3.45 [mg/m3 ] and 3.56 [mg/m3 ], respectively. Addi-
tionally, in the case of the cities of Iasi and Timisoara, the trend of decreasing values in
recent years can be best observed (Figure 6).

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. (a) Maximum concentrations of CO mean daily values depending on the alert threshold;
(b) minimum concentrations of CO mean daily values depending on the alert threshold.

Regarding arsenic, a pollutant whose alert threshold is 4.2 [ng/m3 ], there were only
two situations in which this number was exceeded, namely, in Cluj-Napoca in 2017 and 2020,
with concentrations of 5.76 [ng/m3 ] and 4.91 [ng/m3 ], respectively. In the other 3 cities,
the alert threshold limit was not exceeded. As can be seen in Figure 7, a special situation
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 9 of 19

was highlighted in Timisoara, where arsenic was present every year and the concentrations
recorded varied, increasing to 2.54 [ng/m3 ] in 2021, compared to 1.58 [ng/m3 ] in 2020.

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. (a) Maximum concentrations of As mean daily values depending on the alert threshold;
(b) minimum concentrations of As mean daily values depending on the alert threshold.

The last type of graph was aimed at highlighting the predominant pollutant for each
city by calculating the aggregate index, which represents the average of the concentrations
for all 11 years (2011–2021), considering all the values from the previously mentioned
monitoring stations [29,35]. According to Figure 8, for Iasi, the most significant values of
PM2.5 were reported, the index level being 22.81 ± 0.83 [µg/m3 ]. This value is higher than
that obtained in the other 3 cities because higher concentrations of the annual values were
highlighted in 2017 (28.7 µg/m3 ) and 2018 (27 µg/m3 ); at the same time, there were also
exceedances of the alert threshold value for PM2.5 , as observed in Figure 5. In the case of
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 10 of 19

carbon monoxide, the values were close, with a maximum of 0.28 ± 0.06 [mg/m3 ] in Iasi
and Timisoara and a minimum of 0.26 ± 0.03 [mg/m3 ] in Cluj-Napoca. For this pollutant,
the values were normal, without sudden variations or exceedances of the alert threshold
value. As in the graphs presented above, in the evolution of air quality in terms of arsenic
pollution, Timisoara stands out, with 0.93 ± 0.05 [ng/m3 ] for the aggregate index. In this
city, unlike the other cities, significant concentrations were recorded every year, with a
maximum value of the average annual concentration of 1.2 [ng/m3 ] in 2016, all values
being close to the alert threshold value, but without exceeding this level. We cannot say
the same about Cluj-Napoca, where the largest error for arsenic can be observed, with an
aggregate index of 0.54 ± 0.38 [ng/m3 ], a fact caused by the variation in the maximum
concentrations obtained on certain days during 2017 (5.76 ng/m3 ) and 2020 (4.91 ng/m3 ),
exceeding the alert threshold value for this pollutant, as can be seen in Figure 7a. No
significant concentrations were recorded for the rest of the analyzed period.

(a)

(b)

Figure 8. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 11 of 19

(c)

Figure 8. (a) Air quality aggregate index for PM2.5 with standard error (2011–2021); (b) air quality
aggregate index for CO with standard error (2011–2021); (c) air quality aggregate index for As with
standard error (2011–2021).

3. Air Quality Assessment Methodology

In order to evaluate the impact generated by the 3 pollutants (PM2.5 , CO, and As) on
air quality and human health, the air pollution index (PI) and the health risk index for the
period 2011–2021 (11 years) were calculated.

3.1. Air Pollution Index

The calculation formula for the air pollution index (PI) is represented by the ratio between
the concentration of a pollutant in the air and the maximum value allowed by legislation for
that pollutant. Further, Equation (1) represents the calculation formula for PI [36]:

Ci
PI = (1)
MACi
=
Equation (1). Air pollution index formula.
where:
– Ci: the determined concentration of a pollutant in the air, in this case, the annual
average concentration (mg/Nm3 );
– MACi: the maximum allowed concentration of a pollutant (mg/Nm3 ).
The next step is to calculate the pollution load index (PLI) in order to estimate the air
quality in a certain area. The calculation method is presented in Equation (2) [36]:

PLI = (PI1 × PI2 × PI3 × . . . × PIn)1/n (2)

PLI = PI1 × PI2 × PI3 × … × PIn ⁄
Equation (2). Air pollution load index formula.
where:
– PI1, PI2, PI3: air pollution indices for each pollutant, with the calculations conducted
according to the formula presented above;
– N: number of pollutants analyzed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 12 of 19

Furthermore, the framing of the values in one of the possible scenarios can be carried
out according to Table 2 [36].

Table 2. Classification of the pollution load index.

PLI Scale Classification

PLI < 1 Unpolluted air
1 ≤ PLI < 2 Unpolluted to moderately polluted
2 ≤ PLI < 3 Moderately polluted
3 ≤ PLI < 4 Moderately to highly polluted
4 ≤ PLI < 5 Highly polluted
PLI ≥ 5 Very highly polluted (excessive)

3.2. Human Health Risk Index

The health risk generated by the effects of pollutants is realized by assessing the
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks, following several stages presented below. The
applicability of the formulas and the scenario used can be found in Section 4. There was
another formula used for this index, which also included the PEF parameter (pollution
emission rate) but according to the EPA the use of that equation is no longer recommended.
Thus, the new formula does not consider this factor anymore. The first step is to determine
the daily inhaled dose according to the updated Equation (3) [37,38]:

Ci × InhR × ET × EF × ED
ADDinh = (3)
BW × AT
Equation (3). Average daily inhaled dose formula.
where:  
mg 1
– ADDinh kg · day : average daily inhaled dose;
 
mg
– Ci m3 : air concentration of a pollutant—in our case, we used the value of the
aggregate index for each individual pollutant, after converting all units of measure
into mg/m 3
 , in order to have the same measurement unit, according to the formula;
3
m
– InhR hour : volume of inhaled air;
 
– ET hours : exposure time;
 day 
days
– EF year : frequency of exposure;
– ED (years): duration of exposure;
– BW (kg): body weight;
– AT (days): ED × 365 (days)—average exposure time.
Furthermore, in order to characterize the non-carcinogenic risks, the hazard coefficient
(HQ) was determined, the calculation formula of which is represented by Equation (4) [39]:

ADDinh
HQ = (4)
RfD
Equation (4). Hazard coefficient formula.
where:
– HQ: hazard coefficient;
– ADDinh : daily dose that can be inhaled;
– RfD: daily reference dose (as shown in Table 3)—the values were taken from the IRIS
and RAIS databases [40,41].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 13 of 19

Table 3. Calculation of the average daily dose (ADDinh ) and the hazard coefficient (HQ).

ATAdults ATChildren ADDInh Adults ADDInh Children

City Indicator RfD HQAdults HQChildren
(Days) (Days) (mg/kg/Day) (mg/kg/Day)
0.035
PM2.5 0.00112 0.00415 0.03200 0.11857
(RAIS)
Brasov 8760 2190
CO 0.01720 0.06351 9 (RAIS) 0.00191 0.00705
0.0003
As 0.22942 × 10−7 0.84690 × 10−7 0.00007 0.00028
(IRIS)
0.035
PM2.5 0.00114 0.00421 0.03257 0.12028
(RAIS)
Cluj-Napoca 8760 2190
CO 0.01656 0.06116 9 (RAIS) 0.00184 0.00679
0.0003
As 0.34414 × 10−7 1.27035 × 10−7 0.00011 0.00042
(IRIS)
0.035
PM2.5 0.00145 0.00536 0.04142 0.15314
(RAIS)
Iasi 8760 2190
CO 0.01784 0.06587 9 (RAIS) 0.00198 0.00731
0.0003
As 0.50984 × 10−7 1.88200 × 10−7 0.00016 0.00062
(IRIS)
0.035
PM2.5 0.00093 0.00346 0.02657 0.09885
(RAIS)
Timisoara 8760 2190
CO 0.01784 0.06587 9 (RAIS) 0.00198 0.00731
0.0003
As 0.59269 × 10−7 2.18783 × 10−7 0.00019 0.00072
(IRIS)

Equation (5) presents the calculation formula for the hazard index (HI), with the help
of which the impact generated by the non-carcinogenic effects can be estimated [39]:
i
HI = ∑n=1 HQn (5)

Equation (5). Hazard index formula.

Thus, the hazard index is characterized as follows:
– If HI < 1, there are no health risks;
– If HI > 1, there are possible health risks, depending on the value of the index—the
higher it is, the higher the risk [39].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Air Pollution Index
The results of the air pollution index calculated for the last 11 years, for four cities in
Romania, are presented in Table 4.
According to Table 2 and the results on the air pollution load index in Table 3, the air
quality in the four cities falls into the “unpolluted” scenario. This is possible because all values
for this index are less than 1, even if the alert threshold was exceeded in some situations. At
the same time, it is important to mention that in this paper, only three pollutants (PM2.5 , As,
CO) were considered, but in one city, they are much more diversified. Therefore, the highest
value calculated for the air pollution load index was found in Iasi, while Brasov, has the lowest
value. The value of the pollution load index depends a lot on the specifics of the area under
analysis. This is also supported by a 2022 study on the risk assessment of potentially toxic
elements in the Indonesia region. Thus, in this case, values higher than 1 were obtained for
PLI, this value increasing more and more with the proximity to industrial areas, being also
influenced by winds, which transport the dust to populated areas [42].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 14 of 19

Table 4. Calculation of the air pollution load index in Brasov, Cluj-Napoca, Iasi, and Timisoara.

City Indicator MAC Ci PI PLI

PM2.5 20 17.65 0.88
0.117
Brasov CO 10 0.27 0.03
(<1)
As 6 0.36 0.06
PM2.5 20 17.90 0.90
0.134
Cluj-Napoca CO 10 0.26 0.03
(<1)
As 6 0.54 0.09
PM2.5 20 22.81 1.14
0.164
Iasi CO 10 0.28 0.03
(<1)
As 6 0.80 0.13
PM2.5 20 14.74 0.74
0.153
Timisoara CO 10 0.28 0.03
(<1)
As 6 0.93 0.16

The pollution sources in the case of PM2.5 , can be mentioned as the incomplete burning
of fuels by car engines, combustion processes (such as waste burning or residential heating),
some industrial processes, and also road wear or construction sites. The incomplete
combustion of fossil fuels, as well as traffic or some industrial processes, is also a source of
carbon monoxide and arsenic emissions [34].

4.2. Human Health Risk Index

In this paper, the determination of the health risk index was carried out following the
method presented by USEPA [38,43]. The specific parameters (InhR and ED) used to quantify
the health hazards are in accordance with the literature. According to the previous studies, the
EF was considered 350 days/year and ET 8 h/day [44–46]. For this purpose, two scenarios
were considered: the first corresponded to adults weighing 65 kg (BWAdults ), and the second
to children weighing 15 kg (BWChildren ). The results are presented in Tables 3 and 5.

Table 5. Specific values for the calculation of the health risk index.

InhRAdults InhRChildren EF EDAdults EDChildren

City Indicator Ci (mg/m3 ) ET (h/Day)
(m3 /h) (m3 /h) (Days/Year) (Years) (Years)
PM2.5 0.01765
Brasov CO 0.27 0.54 0.46 350 24 6 8
As 3.6 × 10−7
PM2.5 0.01790
Cluj-Napoca CO 0.26 0.54 0.46 350 24 6 8
As 5.4 × 10−7
PM2.5 0.02281
Iasi CO 0.28 0.54 0.46 350 24 6 8
As 8 × 10−7
PM2.5 0.01474
Timisoara CO 0.28 0.54 0.46 350 24 6 8
As 9.3 × 10−7

After calculating the indices presented in the previous tables, the determination of the
hazard index followed, the results of which can be found in Table 6.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 15 of 19

Table 6. Health risk index calculated for each city.

City HIAdults HIChildren

Brasov 0.03398 0.12590
Cluj-Napoca 0.03452 0.12749
Iasi 0.04356 0.16107
Timisoara 0.02874 0.10688

The graphical representation for the health risk index can be found in Figure 9 for all
four cities, both for adults and children. We noticed that all values were below 1, which
means that there are no health risks [47]. One difference is that in the case of children, the
index is higher than that obtained for adults, which means that they are more exposed to
the negative effects generated by air pollution [47]. This is also supported by the results
of other studies with the same theme, with varying results, but always obtaining higher
values of the index for children compared to adults, indicating children’s vulnerability to the
negative effects of pollution [48,49]. Previous studies reported similar results in the case of
HI, also highlighting the cumulative effect of heavy metals (arsenic, lead) and the low degree
of tolerance to pollutants of children, as well as the variation of the index depending on the
activities carried out in the area or the difference between the urban and rural environment [50].
Evaluations carried out in 2021 show higher values of the index in the urban environment
compared to the rural area [51]. According to the graph, the index had the highest value
in Iasi, both for adults and children, of 0.04356 and 0.16107, respectively. For Timisoara, the
lowest values were determined, with 0.02874 for adults and 0.10688 for children. The results of
this work are also supported by other international publications. Even though the air quality
indicators measurements are under the maximum allowed concentrations, according to the
environmental standards, there are no completely safe limits, especially for children, who are
much more vulnerable than adults [52–54].

Figure 9. Health risk index for adults and children for the main four cities of Romania.

As future work, from an immediate perspective, the results of this study will be the
basis of a new calculation and the correlation of health indices considering various mete-
orological parameters as well. For example, the planetary boundary layer (PBL) majorly
influences the cumulation and dispersion of pollutants at ground level and the interpreta-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 16 of 19

tion of the PBL behavior is obtained through its characterization as a mathematical object
of multifractal type [55]. Therefore, the theoretical parameters of the PBL characterization
validated by the experimental data will contribute to the realization of the correlations men-
tioned above, using the machine learning concept. Also, recent studies regarding the air
quality in Romania have shown that due to the circulation of air masses that can transport,
for example, dust over long distances, a pattern of optical characterization of aerosols has
been created, over time, through modern monitoring remote sensing techniques such as
Aerosol, Clouds and Trace gases Research InfraStructure—Romania (ACTRIS—RO) [56,57].
Accordingly, considering the specific aerosol type at different scales (local, regional), the
health indices presented in this paper will thus better emphasize the specific situations and
vulnerability as similar studies applied in the case of water health hazards assessments [58].

5. Conclusions
The air quality index and health hazards were determined based on data provided by
the EPA reports for the last 11 years (period of 2011–2021), for three pollutants (PM2.5 , CO,
and As). For each city, three monitoring stations for daily measurements were considered.
Statistical analyses were performed using the minimum and maximum concentrations
measured within each year for each city, while the air quality index and health hazards
considered the annual average measured concentrations. The results prove that Iasi is the
most polluted city in the case of fine particulate matter, with the highest measured value
in 2017, 44% higher compared to 2016. Carbon monoxide concentrations remained below
the alert threshold, registering variations with a maximum increase in 2017, increasing
by 75% compared to 2016. The arsenic concentrations were recorded close to the alert
threshold value in Timisoara, for each year. In this case, the highest increase was observed
in 2020, increasing by 90% compared to 2019. The air quality situation in Brasov indicates a
decreasing trend of the concentrations of the three pollutants starting in 2018. Regarding
the city of Cluj-Napoca, for PM2.5 and carbon monoxide, a decreasing trend of pollutant
concentrations was recorded. A more unusual situation was reported for arsenic because no
concentrations, or insignificant ones, were measured until 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic
year, when a value of 2.59 [ng/m3 ] was recorded, but in 2021, it decreased to 0 again.
Regarding the variation in the maximum concentrations recorded on certain days of each
year, compared to the value of the alert threshold, it was found that the threshold was
exceeded for PM2.5 in the case of all four cities.
Since the values of the air pollution index and health hazard index are within the
regular range, the immediate perspective of this study includes a more complex statistical
analysis. This also includes data from low-cost sensors for intercomparison and to create a
degree of confidence that could be considered, for instance, in smart city applications. The
results of the aggregate index in the case of the four cities considering the three pollutants
for the period 2011–2021 show that the most polluted city is Iasi, followed by Cluj-Napoca,
Brasov, and Timisoara. The air pollution index and the health hazard index showed that,
even though their values are within normal limits, there is still a risk for human health
since the values are almost triple for children compared to adults. This work offers certain
perspectives, being a starting point for a much more detailed future analysis of the data
and the correlation of possible increases or exceedances of the normal limits depending
on the season, or even other parameters, because it is known that one of the factors that
influence pollutant concentration variations is the clime of each season.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.S. and I.T.; methodology, B.S.; software, I.T. and M.C.;
validation, M.C. and B.S.; formal analysis, I.T.; investigation, I.T.; resources, I.T.; data curation, I.T
and M.C.; writing—original draft preparation, I.T.; writing—review and editing, B.S. and M.C.;
visualization, M.C.; supervision and project administration, B.S. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by a grant from the Romanian Ministry of Education and
Research, CNCS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P1-1.1-TE-2019-1921, within PNCDI III.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 17 of 19

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All monitoring data were collected from EPA public official reports—
e.g., https://calitateaer.ro/public/monitoring-page/reports-reports-page/?__locale=ro (accessed on
20 July 2022).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mariel, P.; Khan, M.A.; Meyerhoff, J. Valuing individuals’ preferences for air quality improvement: Evidence from a discrete
choice experiment in South Delhi. Econ. Anal. 2022, 74, 432–447. [CrossRef]
2. European Environmental Agency. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ro/themes/air (accessed on 20 May 2022).
3. European Commission. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/existing_leg.htm (accessed on 20 May 2022).
4. European Environmental Agency. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/a-clean-air-programme-for-
europe (accessed on 20 May 2022).
5. European Commission. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_ro
(accessed on 20 May 2022).
6. Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests. Available online: http://www.mmediu.ro/categorie/calitatea-aerului/56 (accessed
on 20 May 2022).
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-
act (accessed on 20 May 2022).
8. Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies. Available online: https://www.iass-potsdam.de/en/blog/2021/01/world-
difference-comparing-us-and-eu-air-quality-legislation (accessed on 20 April 2022).
9. Nguyen, V.D.; Nguyen, P.L.; Do, P.T. Constant approximation for opportunistic sensing in mobile air quality monitoring system.
Comput. Netw. 2022, 202, 108646. [CrossRef]
10. Kim, J.; Go, T.; Lee, S.J. Accurate real-time monitoring of high particulate matter concentration based on holographic speckles and
deep learning. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 409, 124637. [CrossRef]
11. Giuliano, G.; Lu, Y.; Habre, R. Estimating hourly PM2.5 concentrations at the neighborhood scale using a low-cost air sensor
network: A Los Angeles case study. Environ. Res. 2021, 195, 110653.
12. Kortoci, P.; Motlagh, N.H.; Zaidan, M.A.; Fung, P.L.; Varjonen, S.; Hargrave, A.R.; Niemi, J.V.; Nurmi, P.; Hussein, T.; Petaja, T.;
et al. Air pollution exposure monitoring using portable low-cost air quality sensors. Smart Health 2022, 23, 100241. [CrossRef]
13. Baos, J.A.M.; Benitez, L.R.; Rodenas, R.G.; Liu, J. IoT based monitoring of air quality and traffic using regression analysis.
Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 115, 108282. [CrossRef]
14. Herrero, J.R.; Marrero, C.O.; Fan, W.T. Modeling atmospheric data and identifying dynamics. Temporal data-driven modeling of
air pollutants. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 333, 129863. [CrossRef]
15. Platikanov, S.; Terrado, M.; Pay, M.T.; Soret, A.; Tauler, R. Understanding temporal and spatial changes of O3 or NO2 concentrations
combining multivariate data analysis methods and air quality transport models. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150923. [CrossRef]
16. Baklanov, A.; Zhang, Y. Advances in air quality modeling and forecasting. Glob. Transit. 2020, 2, 261–270. [CrossRef]
17. Li, X.; Hussain, S.A.; Sobri, S.; Md Said, M.S. Overviewing the air quality models on air pollution in Sichuan Basin, China.
Chemosphere 2021, 271, 129502. [CrossRef]
18. Pascu, C. Procedure for Obtaining Filtering Materials and Filtering Elements for Air Saline Purification. BOPI no. 2/2017.
WO2013172727A2, 6 April 2012.
19. Ighigeanu, D.P.; Martin, D.; Calinescu, I.; Matei, C.; Manaila, E.; Craciun, G. Procedure and Installation for Increasing the
Conversion Performance of Gas Pollutants in Industrial Waste Gases. BOPI no. 10/2017. RO126841/2017, 18 May 2016.
20. Ighigeanu, D.P.; Martin, D.; Calinescu, I.; Matei, C. Procedure for Removal of SO2 and NOx from Industrial Combustion Gases by
Accelerated Electron Treatment. BOPI no. 6/2018. RO 129069 B1, 29 June 2018.
21. Dulama, C.N.; Toma, A.; Paunoiu, C. Method and Device for Determining Tritium Concentration from the Air. BOPI no. 10/2017.
RO 128555 B1, 28 August 2014.
22. Pop, A.; Puscas, I.; Negrea, P.; Stoian, A.V.; Filipescu, L. Process for Wet Desulfuring of Acid Waste Gases with the Valuation of
the Resulting Suspension. BOPI no. 6/2017. RO 130748 B1, 30 June 2017.
23. Wang, J.; Wang, L. Particulate Matter Monitoring. U.S. Patent 10914716 B2, 9 February 2021.
24. Tanielian, M.H. Airborne System and Method for Removing Pollutants from a Volume of Air. U.S. Patent 9555882B2, 31 January 2017.
25. Deutsch, E.R.; Huehnerhoff, J.W.; Booth, J. Sensor Fusion for Fire Detection and Air Quality Monitoring. U.S. Patent 11340097, 24 May 2022.
26. Scott, A.A.; Azdoud, Y.; Kelley, K.D. Air Quality Monitoring System and Enhanced Spectrophotometric Chemical Sensor. Justia
Patent 20200149965, 29 December 2020.
27. Gallagher-Gruber, J.; Szijarto, G. System and Method for Performing Automated Analysis of Air Samples. U.S. Patent 11079585,
11 September 2018.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 18 of 19

28. Grecu, S.P.; Mihailescu, B.C.; Sluser, B.M. Statistical approach of environmental quality management and political decision-making
at local level: Case study Iasi city, Romania. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2020, 19, 517–530. [CrossRef]
29. Sluser, B.; Plavan, O.; Teodosiu, C. Environmental Impact and Risk Assessment. In Assessing Progress Towards Sustainability;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 189–217.
30. Thangavel, P.; Park, D.; Lee, Y.-C. Recent insights into particulate matter (PM2.5)-Mediated toxicity in humans: An overview.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7511. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Tashakor, M.; Behrooz, R.D.; Asvad, S.R.; Kaskaoutis, D.G. Tracing of Heavy Metals Embedded in Indoor Dust Particles from the
Industrial City of Asaluyeh, South of Iran. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7905. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Sgobba, F.; Sampaolo, A.; Patimisco, P.; Giglio, M.; Menduni, G.; Ranieri, A.C.; Hoelzl, C.; Rossmadl, H.; Brehm, C.; Mackowiak, V.;
et al. Compact and portable quartz-enhanced photoacoustic spectroscopy sensor for carbon monoxide environmental monitoring
in urban areas. Photoacoustics 2022, 25, 100318. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Statista. Available online: https://www.statista.com/ (accessed on 20 April 2022).
34. National Air Quality Monitoring Network. Available online: https://www.calitateaer.ro/public/home-page/?__locale=ro
(accessed on 20 March 2022).
35. Neamtu, R.; Sluser, B.; Plavan, O.; Teodosiu, C. Environmental Monitoring and Impact Assessment of Prut River Cross-Border
Pollution. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 340. [CrossRef]
36. Wu, W.; Wu, P.; Yang, F.; Sun, D.I.; Zhang, D.X.; Zhou, Y.K. Assessment of heavy metal pollution and human health risks in urban
soils around an electronics manufacturing facility. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 53–61. [CrossRef]
37. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. In Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual (Part A); Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1989.
38. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/expobox/exposure-assessment-tools-
routes-inhalation (accessed on 20 March 2022).
39. Manmohit, S.; Thind, S.P.; John, S. Health risk assessment of the workers exposed to the heavy metals in e-waste recycling sites of
Chandigarh and Ludhiana, Punjab, India. Chemosphere 2018, 203, 426–433.
40. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available online: https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/search/index.cfm (accessed
on 20 March 2022).
41. The Risk Assessment Information System. Available online: https://rais.ornl.gov/tools/tox_profiles.html (accessed on 20 March 2022).
42. Rauf, A.U.; Mallongi, A.; Daud, A.; Hatta, M.; Amiruddin, R.; Stang, S.; Wahyu, A.; Astuti, R.D.P. Spatial distribution and ecological
risk of potentially toxic elements in Maros Regency, Indonesia. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 17, 93–100. [CrossRef]
43. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund; Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk
Assessment). US EPA; 2011. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/fera/risk-assessment-and-modeling-air-toxics-risk-
assessment-reference-library (accessed on 20 March 2022).
44. Huang, C.; Zhang, L.; Meng, J.; Yu, Y.; Qi, J.; Shen, P.; Li, X.; Ding, P.; Chen, M.; Hu, G. Characteristics, source apportionment and
health risk assessment of heavy metals in urban road dust of the Pearl River Delta, South China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022,
236, 113490. [CrossRef]
45. Liang, Q.; Tian, K.; Li, L.; He, Y.; Zhao, T.; Liu, B.; Wu, Q.; Huang, B.; Zhao, L.; Teng, Y. Ecological and human health risk
assessment of heavy metals based on their source apportionment in cropland soils around an e-waste dismantling site, Southeast
China. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2022, 242, 113929. [CrossRef]
46. Nargis, A.; Habib, A.; Islam, M.N.; Chen, K.; Sarker, M.S.I.; Al-Razee, A.; Liu, W.; Liu, G.; Cai, M. Source identification,
contamination status and health risk assessment of heavy metals from road dusts in Dhaka, Bangladesh. J. Environ. Sci. 2022,
121, 159–174. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. EFSA Scientific Committee; More, S.J.; Bampidis, V.; Benford, D.; Bennekou, H.S.; Bragard, C.; Halldorsson, T.I.; Hernandez-Jerez,
A.F.; Koutsoumanis, K.; Naegeli, H.; et al. Guidance on harmonised methodologies for human health, animal health and ecological
risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e05634. [PubMed]
48. Pabroa, P.C.B.; Racho, J.M.D.; Jagonoy, A.M.; Valdez, J.D.G.; Bautista VII, A.T.; Yee, J.R.; Pineda, R.; Manlapaz, J.; Atanacio, A.J.;
Coronel, I.C.V.; et al. Characterization, source apportionment and associated health risk assessment of respirable air particulates
in Metro Manila, Philippines. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2022, 13, 101379. [CrossRef]
49. Aguilera, A.; Bautista, F.; Gutiérrez-Ruiz, M.; Ceniceros-Goméz, A.E.; Cejudo, R.; Goguitchaichvili, A. Heavy metal pollution of street
dust in the largest city of Mexico, sources and health risk assessment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Jung, C.C.; Wang, J.H.; Chang, W.H.; Chen, C.Y. Metal concentration, source, and health risk assessment of PM2.5 in children’s
bedrooms: Rural versus urban areas. Atmos. Environ. 2021, 264, 118701. [CrossRef]
51. Zhao, X.; Li, Z.; Wang, D.; Tao, Y.; Qiao, F.; Lei, L.; Huang, J.; Ting, Z. Characteristics, source apportionment and health risk
assessment of heavy metals exposure via household dust from six cities in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 762, 143126. [CrossRef]
52. Müller, L.; Ramires, P.F.; Santos, M.; Coronas, M.V.; Lima, J.V.; Dias, D.; Muccillo-Baisch, A.L.; Baisch, P.R.M.; Silva Júnior, F.M.R.
Human health risk assessment of arsenic in a region influenced by a large coal-fired power plant. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022,
19, 281–288. [CrossRef]
53. Li, L.; Meng, R.; Lei, Y.; Wu, S.; Jiang, Y. Human health risk assessment of heavy metals from PM2.5 in China’s 29 provincial
capital cities. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 63028–63040. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 1222 19 of 19

54. Yadav, A.K. Human health risk assessment in opencast coal mines and coal-fired thermal power plants surrounding area due to
inhalation. Environ. Chall. 2021, 3, 100074. [CrossRef]
55. Cazacu, M.M.; Ros, u, I.-A.; Bibire, L.; Vasincu, D.; Rotundu, A.M.; Agop, M. Theoretical and Experimental Designs of the Planetary
Boundary Layer Dynamics through a Multifractal Theory of Motion. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 747. [CrossRef]
56. T, împu, S.; Sfîcă, L.; Dobri, R.V.; Cazacu, M.M.; Nita, A.I.; Birsan, M.V. Tropospheric Dust and Associated Atmospheric Circulations
over the Mediterranean Region with Focus on Romania’s Territory. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 349. [CrossRef]
57. Stebel, K.; Stachlewska, I.S.; Nemuc, A.; Horalek, J.; Schneider, P.; Ajtai, N.; Diamandi, A.; Benesova, N.; Boldeanu, M.; Botezan,
C.; et al. SAMIRA-SAtellite Based Monitoring Initiative for Regional Air Quality. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 2219. [CrossRef]
58. Zait, R.; Fighir, D.; Sluser, B.; Plavan, O.; Teodosiu, C. Priority Pollutants Effects on Aquatic Ecosystems Evaluated through
Ecotoxicity, Impact, and Risk Assessments. Water 2022, 14, 3237. [CrossRef]

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.