4.7 Article

Potential threat of heavy metals and PAHs in PM2.5 in different urban functional areas of Beijing

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
卷 178, 期 -, 页码 6-16

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.03.015

关键词

PM2.5; Chemical composition; Health risk; Heavy metal; PAHs; Beijing

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41173113]
  2. Hundred Talents Programs of Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Beijing, as the capital of China, is one of the most populous cities in the world. With the fine particulate matter pollution being increasingly serious, daily exposure to hazardous ingredients caused more and more attention. Current research concerning risk evaluation in Beijing was relative less. In November, 2013, samples were collected in seven different functional areas of Beijing, so as to better understand the risk to human health caused by particle matter pollution in this region. PM2.5 pollution in rural and urban Beijing was relative high under haze-fog days in comparison with non haze-fog value. Zn and Ba showed the highest concentration levels among non-carcinogenic metals. The non-carcinogenic metal concentration at all the sites ranged in the same order: Ce, Pb, Cu, V and Sb. Higher ring PAHs (with four to six rings) were the dominant species and constituted more than 90% of the Sigma(14)PAHs. Pb (4.34 x 10(-4) for men, 3.73 x 10(-4) for women) presented the maximum risk level for non-carcinogenic heavy metals in the whole study area. While, risk levels of Cr at residential areas, schools, Olympic Park and rural countryside exceeded the limit for adults. In haze-fog days, the carcinogenic PAH risk level in each functional area ranged in the order: rural countryside > inner suburban district > Olympic Park > city central > schools > ecological reserve > residential areas. To some extent, benzo(a)pyrene may had a potential risk to adults, and other carcinogenic PAHs were all under average risk acceptance. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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