4.3 Article

Characteristics of PM2.5-Bound Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Nitro-Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons at A Roadside Air Pollution Monitoring Station in Kanazawa, Japan

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17030805

关键词

polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; nitro-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; roadside sampling; traffic emission; diagnostic ratios

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan [17K08388, 24406020]
  2. Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan [5-1951]
  3. Sumitomo Foundation, Japan [183115]
  4. Bilateral Open Partnership Joint Research Projects of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan
  5. CHOZEN Project of Kanazawa University, Japan
  6. Institute of Nature and Environmental Technology, Kanazawa University, Japan [19005, 19006, 19007, 19008]
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K08388, 24406020] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and nitro-PAHs (NPAHs) in PM2.5 samples were collected at a roadside monitoring station in Kanazawa, Japan, in every season from 2017 to 2018. Nine PAHs and five NPAHs were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection and chemiluminescence detection, respectively. The mean concentrations of PAHs and NPAHs were highest in winter and lowest in summer. Fluoranthene and pyrene were the dominant PAHs and 1-nitropyrene was the dominant NPAH in all seasons, and these compounds were mainly emitted by diesel vehicles. The concentration ratio of benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) to benzo(ghi)perylene (BgPe) ((BaP)/(BgPe)) and of indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene (IDP) to the sum of IDP and benzo(ghi)perylene (BgPe) ((IDP)/((IDP)+(BgPe0) might still be useful indicators for identifying traffic emission sources today. Moreover, our results showed that the carcinogenic risk in all seasons was below the acceptable limit set by the WHO.

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

4.3
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