4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

Multivariate statistics as means of tracking atmospheric pollution trends in Western Poland

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10934520701792852

关键词

atmospheric pollution; bulk precipitation; chemical composition; environmetrics; source apportioning model; time series analysis; transboundary pollutants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was carried out over a period of 4 years (2002-2005) at 2 sites located in western Poland differing as regards to human impact by analysis of chemical composition of bulk precipitation. The aim of the study was to determine the sources of pollutions and assess their quantitative contribution to the bulk precipitation composition and to analyse long term-changes in the chemical quality of precipitation. Based on this information the possible transboundary impacts of pollution were also determined. The samples were characterized by determining the values of pH, electrolytic conductivity and concentration levels of Cl-, F-, SO42-, NO3-, Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+ and NH4+. Analytical measurements were connected with application of principal component regression (PCR) and time series analysis (TS). Based on PCR results three major sources of pollutants in central part of Poland have been identified and quantitatively assessed as follows: combined (Poznan - 31%, WNP - 32%), soil-particulates (Poznan - 2%, WNP - 26%), anthropogenic-fossil fuels (Poznan - 43%, WNP - 23%). Time series analysis enabled discovering 12-month time cycle for NO3-, NH4+, Cl-, F- and SO42- in average monthly concentration values in bulk precipitation collected in Wielkopolski National Park. Seasonal variation in the emission of precursors of NO3- and NH4+ was caused by changes in intensity of fertilizer application in agriculture and automobile exhaust emissions. Decreasing trend was visible for sulphates, nitrates, chlorides and fluorides which is an important indication of the acid rain reduction in the ecologically protected area and in Poznan.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据