4.7 Article

Mobile sources of atmospheric polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in a roadway tunnel

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 35, Issue 28, Pages 4819-4827

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00262-X

Keywords

PAH; atmosphere; auto exhaust; particulate; traffic; tunnel

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Amounts of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and oxygenated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (oxy-PAHs) in samples collected from the air, from the dust on a guardrail, and from the soils on a tunnel roadway at five sampling sites in a regular roadway tunnel were chemically analyzed in order to determine their sources. Among the 23 PAHs found in the air samples, pyrene was found in the highest concentration (43 +/- 7.2 ng/m(3)), followed by fluoranthene (26 +/- 4.3 ng/m(3)). Among 20 oxy-PAHs found in the air samples, anthraquinone was found in the greatest amount (56 +/- 3.9ng/m(3)). The average concentration of the major PAHs found in the guardrail dust samples were 6.9 +/- 0.77 mug/g for pyrene, 5.5 +/- 0.76 mug/g for fluoranthene, and 2.6 +/- 0.30 mug/g for phenanthrene. The average concentration of the major oxy-PAHs found in the guardrail dust samples were 9.2 +/- 3.5 mug/g for anthraquinone and 1.4 +/- 0.50 mug/g for 2-methylanthraquinone. The average concentration of the major PAHs found in the soil samples were 1.1 +/- 0.31 mug/g for fluoranthene, 0.92 +/- 0.21 mug/g for pyrene, and 0.72 +/- 0.16 mug/g for phenanthrene. The average concentration of the major oxy-PAHs found in the soil samples were 1.2 +/- 0.88 mug/g for anthraquinone, 0.18 +/- 0.04 mug/g for 4-biphenylcarboxaldehyde, and 0.13 +/- 0.08 mug/g for 2-methylanthraquinone. The BeP ratios calculated from the results suggest that most PAHs found in the samples collected from the roadway tunnel were from automobile exhaust gases. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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