UC Riverside

Wildfires are a significant threat to human health, in part through degraded air quality. Prescribed burning can reduce wildfire severity but can also lead to an increase in air pollution. The complexities of fires and atmospheric processes lead to uncertainties when predicting the air quality impacts of fire and make it difficult to fully assess the costs and benefits of an expansion of prescribed fire. By modeling differences in emissions, surface conditions, and meteorology between wildfire and prescribed burns, we present a novel comparison of the air quality impacts of these fire types under specific scenarios. One wildfire and two prescribed burn scenarios were considered, with one prescribed burn scenario optimized for potential smoke exposure. We found that PM_2.5 emissions were reduced by 52%, from 0.27 to 0.14 Tg, when fires burned under prescribed burn conditions, considerably reducing PM_2.5 concentrations. Excess short-term mortality from PM_2.5 exposure was 40 deaths for fires under wildfire conditions and 39 and 15 deaths for fires under the default and optimized prescribed burn scenarios, respectively. Our findings suggest prescribed burns, particularly when planned during conditions that minimize smoke exposure, could be a net benefit for the impacts of wildfires on air quality and health.