4.7 Article

Regional transport, source apportionment and health impact of PM10 bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Singapore's atmosphere

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 229, 期 -, 页码 984-993

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.07.086

关键词

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); Particulate matter PM10; Atmospheric pollution; Health risk assessment; Source apportionment

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Singapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study of 16 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) priority listed PAHs associated with particulate matter < 10 mu m (PM10) was conducted in Singapore during the period 29th May 2015 to 28th May 2016. The sampling period coincided with an extensive, regional smoke haze episode (5th September to 25th October) that occurred as a result of forest and peat fires in neighboring Indonesia. Throughout this study, 54 atmospheric PM10 samples were collected in 24 h periods using a high volume sampler (HVS) and quarts fiber filters (QFF) as the collection medium. Hysplit software for computing 3D backward air mass trajectories, diagnostic ratio analysis and ring number distribution calculations were used to examine the sources of PAHs in the atmosphere in Singapore. Under normal conditions the total PAH concentrations were in a range from 0.68 ng m(-3) to 3.07 ng m(-3), while for the high haze period the results showed approximately double the concentrations with a maximum value of 5.97 ng Diagnostic ratio (DR) and principal component analysis (PCA) were conducted and indicated the contribution of the traffic as a dominant pyrogenic source of PAHs during normal periods, while results from the haze dataset showed relatively strong influence of smoke from peat and forest fires in Indonesia. Environmental and health risk from PAHs were assessed for both regular and hazy days. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. 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