4.7 Article

Sources of ultrafine particles in the Eastern United States

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 111, 期 -, 页码 103-112

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.03.033

关键词

Emissions; Nucleation; Chemical transport modeling; PMCAMx

资金

  1. EPA STAR program through the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER) [RD-83503501]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Source contributions to ultrafine particle number concentrations for a summertime period in the Eastern U.S. are investigated using the chemical transport model PMCAMx-UF. New source-resolved number emissions inventories are developed for biomass burning, dust, gasoline automobiles, industrial sources, non-road and on-road diesel. According to the inventory for this summertime period in the Eastern U.S., gasoline automobiles are responsible for 40% of the ultrafine particle number emissions, followed by industrial sources (33%), non-road diesel (16%), on-road diesel (10%), and 1% from biomass burning and dust. With these emissions as input, the chemical transport model PMCAMx-UF reproduces observed ultrafine particle number concentrations (N3-100) in Pittsburgh with an error of 12%. For this summertime period in the Eastern U.S., nucleation is predicted to be the source of more than 90% of the total particle number concentrations. The source contributions to primary particle number concentrations are on average similar to those of their source emissions contributions: gasoline is predicted to contribute 36% of the total particle number concentrations, followed by industrial sources (31%), non-road diesel (18%), on-road diesel (10%), biomass burning (1%), and long-range transport (4%). For this summertime period in Pittsburgh, number source apportionment predictions for particles larger than 3 nm in diameter (traffic 65%, other combustion sources 35%) are consistent with measurement-based source apportionment (traffic 60%, combustion sources 40%). (C) 2015 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