4.6 Article

Regional pollution and its formation mechanism over North China Plain: A case study with ceilometer observations and model simulations

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES
卷 121, 期 24, 页码 14574-14588

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016JD025730

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAS Strategic Priority Research Program grant [XDB05020000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41230642]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To investigate regional haze formation, ceilometer observations at the Beijing (BJ), Shijiazhuang (SJZ), Tianjin (TJ), and Qinhuangdao (QHD) stations were conducted from 12 October to 10 November 2014, to obtain the boundary layer height (BLH) and the attenuated backscattering coefficients (ABC). Particles at the four stations were highly correlated, whereas precursors of particles exhibited weaker correlations. By analyzing the typical haze episode between 21 and 26 October 2014, we found that warm advection at a height of 850 hPa from the Loess Plateau caused a gradual decline in the regional BLH. Moreover, water vapor transported from the southern NCP caused the column water vapor amount to increase from 0.015 kg m(-2) to 0.042 kg m(-2) in the boundary layer in BJ. As southerly transport prevailed during the transition period, ABC profiles in the BJ, TJ, and QHD stations showed a bilayer pattern, and the second layer was between 500 and 1000 m. As a result, the ABC integrations of BJ and TJ increased by 74.2 and 139.7%, respectively. During the polluted period, due to the weakened transport effect, the ABC integrations of the four stations decreased by 7.9, 18.2, 16.2, and 28.2%, respectively. Contributions of the secondary inorganic species (sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium) at BJ increased from 37.3% to 56.9%, and the mean particle size increased from 107.8 nm to 140.8 nm. Emissions in southern NCP should be mitigated during the transition period, whereas the inorganic precursors are the most important air pollutants during the polluted period.

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

4.6
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