4.7 Article

Impact of different transport mechanisms of Asian dust and anthropogenic pollutants to Taiwan

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 60, Issue -, Pages 403-418

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.06.049

Keywords

Asian dust; Anthropogenic pollutants; Long-range transport; Modeling

Funding

  1. National Science Council [NSC-99-2111-M-001-007-MY3, NSC-100-2621-M-001-001]
  2. Academia Sinica

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The impacts of long-range transport of Asian dust and anthropogenic air pollutants to Taiwan are strongly associated with the atmospheric conditions and paths of transport. In this study, we identified 16 significant dust events (daily mean mass concentration >= 120 mu g m(-3)) to Taiwan from 2002 to 2008. To investigate transport characteristics associated with long-range transport of Asian dust and anthropogenic air pollutants to Taiwan, significant dust events were further classified into dry (12 cases) and wet (4 cases) types according to atmospheric conditions. We found that the major transport paths for the dry type (DT) dust cases passed through anthropogenic source areas in the low boundary while the major paths for the wet type (WT) dust cases passed over the ocean. After mineral dust, which occupied around 32% of total PM10 mass concentration, anthropogenic ionic pollutants was the second major contributor and occupied 19-22% at three sampling stations in Taiwan for DT cases. In the fine particle, the anthropogenic ionic pollutants contributed from 29 to 36% to PM2.5, making it the major contributor. The two most significant cases, one from the DT and one from the WT cases, were selected to study transport mechanisms with the NAQPMS air quality model. Simulation results also suggest that transport paths and boundary atmospheric conditions play important roles in aerosol compositions. (c) 2012 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