4.7 Article

Aerosol black carbon quantification in the central Indo-Gangetic Plain: Seasonal heterogeneity and source apportionment

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
卷 185, 期 -, 页码 13-21

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosres.2016.10.001

关键词

Indo-Gangetic Plain; Black carbon; Biomass burning; Fossil fuel; Absorption Angstrom exponent

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India
  2. ISRO-GBP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two years of aerosol spectral light absorption measurements, using filter based technique, from the central Indo-Gangetic plain (IGP), Gorakhpur (26.75 N-circle, 8338 E-circle, 85 m amsl), are analyzed to study their seasonal behavior and to quantify their magnitude in terms of absorbing aerosols loading and source speciation. Spectral absorption analysis reveals a four-fold enhancement in absorption in winter (W) and post-monsoon (PoM) seasons at UV wavelengths as compared to IR wavelengths on account of increased biomass burning aerosol contribution to total absorbing aerosol load. Aerosols from the biomass sources contribute similar to 28% during W and PoM seasons as against similar to 16% in pre-monsoon (PM) and monsoon (M) seasons to the total absorbing aerosol content. A Mode shift in the distribution of the Absorption Angstrom exponent (a) from 13 to 1.6 from PM-M seasons to PoM-W seasons signifies change in source type of absorbing aerosols from fossil fuel to biomass burning and their relative source strength. Due to near stagnant wind conditions combined with shallow boundary layer height, where air masses travelling to the central IGP are confined to a smaller volume, in W and PoM seasons, local sources assume more prominence rather than long-range transport of aerosols. Long-term measurements of aerosols physicochemical and radiative properties from this measurement location will enhance our understanding of the complex aerosol system over the IGP and its climatic implications. (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