4.7 Article

Characteristics of peroxyacetyl nitrate pollution during a 2015 winter haze episode in Beijing

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 244, 期 -, 页码 379-387

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.078

关键词

Peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN); Haze episode; Photochemical pollution; Formation mechanism; PAN/O3

资金

  1. State Key RD Program [2017YFC0212400, 2016YFC0202200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) are effective indicators of photochemical pollution, and also play an important role in regional oxidant balance. Surprisingly, in recent years, PAN have also been detected under conditions that do not favor the photochemical processes. To obtain a better understanding of the mechanisms of formation of atmospheric compound pollution, this study examined the relationships between concentrations of PAN and other pollutants (e.g., ozone [O-3] and PM2.5) during a winter haze episode. The observation periods were from December 31, 2015, to February 2, 2016, and from February 19, 2016, to March 4, 2016. The maximum daily concentration of PAN during haze episodes was 4-10 times higher than that during non-haze episodes. The continuous cumulative increase in PAN concentrations was the result of a combination of photochemical production during the daytime and production based on free radical chemical reactions during the nighttime. During the haze episode, the correlation between concentrations of PAN and O-3 was weak, while a significant correlation was observed between PAN and PM2.5 concentrations (R-2 = 0.82). This may have been due to higher concentrations of particulate matter impairing illumination, which can then inhibit the photochemical reactions that produce PAN and O-3. OH radicals can replace the role of light in PAN formation, which can cause concentrations of PAN and O-3 to vary independently. During the haze episode, the ratio of PAN/O-3 was around 0.3, which was much higher than that during the clean period. (C) 2018 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