4.7 Article

Source identification and potential ecological risk assessment of heavy metals in PM2.5 from Changsha

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 493, Issue -, Pages 109-115

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.106

Keywords

PM2.5; Heavy metals; Principal component analysis; Potential ecological risk assessment; Changsha

Funding

  1. Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [11JJ2032]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-12-0169]
  3. Scientific and Technological Project of Hunan Province in China [2013FJ4040]
  4. Scientific Research Foundation for Returned Scholars

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The probable sources and potential ecological risks of Cu, Zn, Cd and Pb in PM2.5 in Changsha were analyzed. The intelligent medium-flow total suspended particle sampler was used to collect the PM2.5 samples from Yuelu (NU Kaifu (KF), and Yuhua (YH) districts of Changsha in March-April of 2013. The total concentration of heavy metals (HMs) in PM2.5 was used for source identification by correlation,coefficients and principal component analysis (PCA). Otherwise the potential ecological risks indices (RIs) were calculated based on the bioavailable fractions of HMs which were obtained through BCR sequential extraction. Almost 50% of Cu, Cd and Pb in PM2.5 of all sites were accumulated in soluble and reducible fractions by speciation analysis. The correlation coefficients and PCA analysis showed that HMs in PM2.5 of Changsha in spring were mainly from vehicular emissions, fuel combustion, resuspension of dust and other pollution sources. The average potential ecological RIs of HMs in PM2.5 of Changsha were 6193.80 which suggests that HMs in PM2.5 was extremely serious. These results would be a good reference for health studies and formulation of environmental regulations. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available