4.7 Article

Particulate matter deposited on leaf of five evergreen species in Beijing, China: Source identification and size distribution

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 105, Issue -, Pages 53-60

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.032

Keywords

Particulate matter; Evergreen species; Particle number; Particle composition; Particle mass concentrations

Funding

  1. China Special Fund for Forestry Research in the Public Interest [201304301]
  2. National Science Foundation of China [41030744, 71273254]
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010010] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Airborne particulate matter (PM) has become a serious problem, and urban plants can play important roles in reducing PM concentrations in the air. The morphology, size, and elemental composition of PM on tree leaves (five evergreen species) from Beijing, China, were obtained, together with number density of PM size fraction, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-rays (EDX). The rinse and weigh method was used to characterize PM in three size categories (0.2-2.5 mu m, 2.5 10 gm, and 10-100 mu m). The results showed that PM up to 2 gm can get into the stomatal cavity, and the most furrowed areas of the leaf surfaces Were sites of maximum PM deposition. The leaf-deposited PM mainly comprised C, O, Si, and Fe. The number of particles per leaf per cm(2) was 1.95 x 10(7), and 96% of the particles were less than 2.5 gm. The mass concentration was 148.44 mu g/cm(2), and PM2.5 comprised only 2.09% by weight while PM larger than 10 mu m comprised 79%. Juniperus formosana was most effective at mitigating airborne PM on the leaf scale. Pinus bun geana accumulated the most PM on the tree scale. The results showed that urban plants can play important roles in mitigating urban airborne PM. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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