4.7 Article

Characterizing the level, photochemical reactivity, emission, and source contribution of the volatile organic compounds based on PTR-TOF-MS during winter haze period in Beijing, China

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
Volume 212, Issue -, Pages 54-63

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.05.005

Keywords

VOCs; Haze; Winter; Emission; Reactivity

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFA0602001, 2016YFC0203302, 2016YFA0601704]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2015DFA20870]
  3. Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation [8154048, 8174068]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The atmospheric volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the key participators in the formation of secondary organic aerosol and other atmospheric photochemical processes. However, it is still far from clear understanding of the VOCs in Northern China. In this study, VOCs were measured using a proton transfer reaction-time of flight mass spectrometer (PTR-TOF-MS) in the downtown area of Beijing during a winter haze period in December 2016. The average mixing ratios of VOCs on the haze days were (ppb): methanol (51.75), formaldehyde (41.65), acetaldehyde (15.81), acetone (7.92), C8-aromatics (7.35), toluene (6.11), benzene (4.30), MEK (2.53), acetonitrile (2.05), C9-aromatics (1.54), benzaldehyde (1.12), isoprene (1.00), styrene (0.62). These concentrations represented the largest values among the cities around the world. VOC concentrations varied dramatically, with the largest value mainly appeared on days having the weakest diffusion condition. Due to the different solar radiation in this period, the photochemical reactivity of the VOCs showed the minimum and maximum values on haze and dear days, respectively. The primary anthropogenic emissions contributed more than half of the mixing ratios of most VOCs. However, formaldehyde received 56.6% contribution from the secondary or biogenic sources, and this contribution mainly increased at the noon hours when sunlight was stronger.

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