4.7 Article

Solid fuel combustion as a major contributor of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in rural China: Evidence from emission inventory and congener profiles in tree bark

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 246, Issue -, Pages 621-629

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.12.068

Keywords

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon; Solid fuel combustion; Tree bark; Air pollution; Rural area

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21607128, 21427815, 21320102007]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M601941, 2018M630668]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) remain a focal concern of the air pollution in China. To discriminate the sources of airborne PAHs in Chinese rural regions, a national-scale tree bark sampling campaign and emission inventory estimation were conducted. The concentrations of the sum of 16 U.S. EPA priority PAHs in rural bark ranged from 6.30 to 3803 ng/g, with the dominance of 3- and 4-ring PAHs. Bark residual PAH concentration correlated significantly with emission flux rate, bark lipid content, ambient PM2.5, precipitation and sampling location. Based on the information of emission data, bark PAH congener profiles, principal component analysis, diagnostic ratios and compound-specific isotope analysis, solid fuel combustion was identified as the major source and could explain 40.3%-46.4% of bark PAH residues in rural China. The delta C-13 values of most individual PAHs were more negative at sites with lower longitude and latitude, suggesting a greater contribution of biomass combustion to PAH residues. Our results suggest the importance of regulating solid fuel combustion to significantly improve the air quality in China, and bark samples can provide a wealth of information on effectively monitoring and controlling the sources of PAH emission in rural China. (C) 2018 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