4.4 Article

Tracing the Relative Significance of Primary versus Secondary Organic Aerosols from Biomass Burning Plumes over Coastal Ocean Using Sugar Compounds and Stable Carbon Isotopes

期刊

ACS EARTH AND SPACE CHEMISTRY
卷 3, 期 8, 页码 1471-1484

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.9b00140

关键词

anhydrosugars; sugars; sugar alcohols; Bay of Bengal; stable carbon isotopes; organic aerosols; biomass burning; oxalic acid

资金

  1. ISRO-GBP
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [24221001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomass burning (BB), a pivotal source of both primary and secondary organic aerosols (POA and SOA, respectively), affects the regional and global climate. We have used stable carbon isotopic composition (delta C-13(TC)) of total carbon (TC) and BB tracers (anhydrosugars, sugars, and sugar alcohols) to elucidate the relative significance of POA and SOA over the Bay of Bengal, influenced by the long-range transport from the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP-outflow) and Southeast Asia (SEA-outflow) during a winter cruise. The molecular distributions of anhydrosugars (levoglucosan, Lev; galactosan, Gal; mannosan, Man) are different between IGP- (Lev > Gal > Man) and SEA-outflows (Lev > Man > Gal). The positive linear/nonlinear relationships of delta C-13(TC) with total sugar-C, K+, water-soluble organic carbon (WSOC), and TC in BBOA from the SEA-outflow are in sharp contrast to those from Mt. Tai, China and Rondonia, Brazil in summer; mainly because of the prevailing differences in ambient photochemical processing. The Keeling plots (delta C-13(TC) versus 1/TC, 1/WSOC, and 1/Lev) in the SEA-outflow revealed a mixing of C-13-enriched POA and C-13-depleted fresh-SOA of BB origin. Because the sugar compounds are mostly water-soluble and become bioavailable in the surface waters, we estimate the air-to-sea depositions of sugar-C and WSOC over the Bay of Bengal to contribute to no more than 0.1% and 13%, respectively, of their supply via peninsular rivers.

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

4.4
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