4.8 Article

Characterization of Primary Organic Aerosol from Domestic Wood, Peat, and Coal Burning in Ireland

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 51, 期 18, 页码 10624-10632

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b01926

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPA-Ireland (AEROSOURCE) [2016-CCRP-MS-31]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [91644219]
  3. Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC) [201506310020]
  4. Department of Environment Community and Local Government in Ireland through SAPPHIRE [2013-EH-MS.15]
  5. Environmental Protection Agency
  6. Environmental Protection Agency Ireland (EPA) [2016-CCRP-MS.31, 2013-EH-MS-15] Funding Source: Environmental Protection Agency Ireland (EPA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An aerosol chemical speciation monitor (ACSM) was deployed to study the primary nonrefractory submicron particulate matter emissions from the burning of commercially available solid fuels (peat, coal, and wood) typically used in European domestic fuel stoves. Organic mass spectra (MS) from burning wood, peat, and coal were characterized and intercompared for factor analysis against ambient data. The reference profiles characterized in this study were used to estimate the contribution of solid fuel sources, along with oil combustion, to ambient pollution in Galway, Ireland using the multilinear engine (ME-2). During periods influenced by marine air masses, local source contribution had dominant impact and nonsea-spray primary organic emissions comprised 88% of total organic aerosol mass, with peat burning found to be the greatest contributor (39%), followed by oil (21%), coal (17%), and wood (11%). In contrast, the resolved oxygenated organic aerosol (OOA) dominated the aerosol composition in continental air masses, with contributions of 50%, compared to 12% in marine air masses. The source apportionment results suggest that the use of domestic solid fuels (peat, wood, and coal) for home heating is the major source of evening and night-time particulate pollution events despite their small use.

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

4.8
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