4.7 Article

Contributions of pollutants from north china plain to surface ozone at the shangdianzi GAW station

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
Volume 8, Issue 19, Pages 5889-5898

Publisher

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-8-5889-2008

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2005CB4222002]
  2. Chinese Natural Science Foundation [20407001, 40775074]
  3. CMA project [CCSF2007-15]
  4. Ministry of Personnel of the Peoples Republic of China

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regional ozone pollution has become one of the top environmental concerns in China, especially in those economically vibrant and densely populated regions, such as North China region including Beijing. To address this issue, surface ozone and ancillary data over the period 2004-2006 from the Shangdianzi Regional Background Station in north China were analyzed. Due to the suitable location and valley topography of the site, transport of pollutants from the North China Plain was easily observed and quantified according to surface wind directions. Regional (polluted) and background (clean) ozone concentrations were obtained by detailed statistic analysis. Contribution of pollutants from North China Plain to surface ozone at SDZ was estimated by comparing ozone concentrations observed under SW wind conditions and that under NE wind conditions. The average daily accumulated ozone contribution was estimated to be 240 ppb.hr. The average regional contributions to surface ozone at SDZ from the North China Plain were 21.8 ppb for the whole year, and 19.2, 28.9, 25.0, and 10.0 ppb for spring, summer, autumn, and winter, respectively. The strong ozone contribution in summer led to disappearance of the spring ozone maximum phenomenon at SDZ under winds other than from the NNW to E sectors. The emissions of nitrogen oxide in the North China plain cause a decrease in ozone concentrations in winter.

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