4.7 Article

Source apportionment of atmospheric PAHs and their toxicity using PMF: Impact of gas/particle partitioning

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 114-120

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.12.006

关键词

PAHs; PM2.5; Source apportionment; Toxicity; Partitioning

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [50110000180, 41025012/41121063/41403093]
  2. Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDB05010200]
  3. Bureau of Science, Technology and Information of Guangzhou [201300000130]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

24-h PM2.5 samples were simultaneously collected at six sites in a subtropical city of South China during November December, 2009. Particle-phase concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and organic tracers such as hopanes for vehicular emissions (VE), levoglucosan for biomass burning (BB) and picene for coal combustion (CC) were determined. Meanwhile, their gas-phase concentrations were calculated from gas/particle (G/P) partitioning theory using the particle-phase concentrations. The 4 ring PAHs (fluoranthene to chrysene) had lower particle-phase fractions (10%-79%) than other species. Estimated BaPeq and lifetime cancer risk for particle-only (P-only) vs gas + particle (G + P) data sets showed similar values, indicating PAHs with 5-7 rings dominated the carcinogenicity of PAHs. Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) was applied on both P-only and G + P data sets to estimate the source contributions to PAHs and their toxicity. Three common sources were identified: VE, BB and CC, with CC as the most significant source for both particulate (58%) and total (G + P, 40%) PAHs. While CC exhibited consistent contributions to BaPeq for P-only (66%) vs G + P (62%) solutions, VE and BB contributions were under- and overestimated by 68% and 47%, respectively by the P-only solution, as compared to the G + P solution. The results provide an insight on the impact of G/P partitioning on the source apportionment of PAHs and their toxicity. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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