4.7 Article

Source apportionment of organic aerosol and ozone and the effects of emission reductions

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 198, 期 -, 页码 89-101

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.10.042

关键词

Houston; Secondary organic aerosol; Ozone; Source apportionment; Volatility basis set; CAMx

资金

  1. Atmospheric Impacts Committee of the Coordinating Research Council, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Formation of organic aerosol (OA) and ozone were simulated for the greater Houston area in September 2013 and 2028 (summer conditions) using the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx). We also simulated the background concentrations in the absence of US anthropogenic emissions. The 1.5-dimensional volatility basis set scheme was used to represent formation of primary and secondary OA (POA and SOA). The path-integral method for source apportionment was successfully extended to OA formation using the same numerical approach previously used for ozone and then applied to apportion the anthropogenic increment of OA and ozone to six emission source categories. The anthropogenic increment is the difference between the 2013 or 2028 simulation and the background simulation. Averaged over 21 air monitoring sites in Houston, point sources make the largest contribution to monthly average SOA and OA (25%-37%, depending on year) and to monthly maximum 8-h ozone (21%-26%). Onroad and then nonroad sources are the next most important in 2013, but their contributions diminish by 2028. The sources' contributions to SOA correlate much more strongly with their NOx emissions than with their emissions of organic precursor species. Anthropogenic emissions enhance OA formation from biogenic emissions, and this enhancement is 46% and 48% of the total OA concentration in Houston in 2013 and 2028, respectively. Point sources make the largest contribution to the enhancement. Additional results for a larger regional area covering Texas and nearby states are also presented.

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