4.7 Article

Source apportionment and a novel approach of estimating regional contributions to ambient PM2.5 in Haikou, China

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 223, Issue -, Pages 334-345

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.01.030

Keywords

CMB model; Source apportionment; PM2.5; Regional contribution

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0208500]
  2. Tianjin Science and Technology Foundation [16YFZCSF00260]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21407081]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A novel approach was developed to estimate regional contributions to ambient PM2,(5) in Haikou, China. In this paper, the investigation was divided into two main steps. The first step: analysing the characteristics of the chemical compositions of ambient PM2.5, as well as the source profiles, and then conducting source apportionments by using the CMB and CMB-Iteration models. The second step: the development of estimation approaches for regional contributions in terms of local features of Haikou and the results of source apportionment, and estimating regional contributions to ambient PM2.5 in Haikou by this new approach. The results indicate that secondary sulphate, resuspended dust and vehicle exhaust were the major sources of ambient PM2.5 in Haikou, contributing 9.9-21.4%, 10.1-19.0% and 10.5-20.2%, respectively. Regional contributions to ambient PM2.5 in Haikou in spring, autumn and winter were 22.5%, 11.6% and 32.5%, respectively. The regional contribution in summer was assumed to be zero according to the better atmospheric quality and assumptions of this new estimation approach. The higher regional contribution in winter might be mainly attributable to the transport of polluted air originating in mainland China, especially from the north, where coal is burned for heating in winter. (C) 2017 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