4.7 Article

Chemical characteristics of PM2.5 during haze episodes in spring 2013 in Beijing

Journal

URBAN CLIMATE
Volume 22, Issue -, Pages 51-63

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.uclim.2016.01.003

Keywords

Haze; PM2.5 characteristics; PM2.5 chemical composition; SNA; Back trajectory; Cluster analyses

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC) - PR China [41175109, 41230642, 41222033]
  2. KIT Centre for Climate and Environment - Germany [41175109, 41230642, 41222033]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China - PR China [41175109, 41230642, 41222033]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A continuous daily PM2.5 sampling campaign from 10 April till 8 June 2013, including three haze episodes, was conducted in Beijing. Chemical species, including EC, OC, water-soluble ions and inorganic elements, were analysed by a thermal/optical carbon analyser, IC and ICP-MS, respectively. A comparison of air quality during such haze episodes in relation to clear air situations, as well as the differences between the haze episodes was emphasised. The results showed that the most important fractions of PM2.5 during haze were SO42-, NO3- and NH4+ (namely, SNA) which together accounted for 54-61% of the total PM2.5 mass. Estimated secondary organic carbon (SOC) was also found to be increased during haze, but the relative increase compared to clear days was much lower than for SNA, leading to a decrease in relative contribution of SOC to PM2.5 in the observed haze events. Cluster analyses from back trajectories showed four air mass clusters during spring 2013 and air flow, which was from the south-easterly directions, might favour the accumulation of PM2.5, especially SNA and anthropogenic elements. All these results proved that the anthropogenic air pollution in the Southeast of Beijing was responsible for the formation of hazes in Beijing during spring 2013. (C) 2016 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