4.5 Article

Atmospheric concentrations and gas-particle partitioning of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and nitro-PAHs at Indo-Gangetic sites

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 1051-1060

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7em00168a

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, DST project, New Delhi, India [SB/S4/AS-150/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aerosol samples in the dual-phase (gaseous and particulate) were collected simultaneously for the first time in Agra at a rural and a traffic dominated site during post-monsoon and winter seasons to investigate the gas-particle partitioning of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The samples were collected using a high volume sampler on quartz micro-fiber filter papers and polyurethane foam plugs for particulate and gas phases respectively. The samples were extracted in a mixture of DCM and n-hexane. 16 priority PAHs and two nitro-PAHs were analyzed using gas chromatograph-mass spectrometry. The total concentration of PAHs (gas + particulate) was 4015 and 624 ng m(-3) at the traffic and rural sites respectively. Two and three ring PAHs were dominant in the gas phase while four, five and six ring PAHs were abundant in the particle phase. A statistically significant correlation (r(2) = 0.69-0.98, p < 0.001) for log K-p vs. log P-l(degrees) was obtained for individual PAHs at both sites where slopes varied between -2.83 and -0.04 at the traffic site and from -3.15 to -0.06 at the rural site. Regression statistics of Clausius-Clapeyron plots suggest that the concentration of highly volatile PAHs in the atmosphere is influenced by temperature. The gas-particle partitioning coefficient K-p in its logarithmic form correlated with 1/T (r(2) = 0.5-0.95, p < 0.001) and a positive slope for individual PAHs was found. In health risk assessment DbA was found to be the most carcinogenic and mutagenic as compared to other PAHs followed by BaP. 1-NPyr had a larger contribution to BaP-TEQ than 3-NFla.

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

4.5
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