4.7 Article

Natural stable isotopic compositions of mercury in aerosols and wet precipitations around a coal-fired power plant in Xiamen, southeast China

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 173, 期 -, 页码 72-80

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.11.003

关键词

Wet precipitation; Aerosol; Mercury isotopes; Coal-fired power plant

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [21277112]
  2. State Oceanic Administration of China Special Fund Project [SOA201303]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, samples of 18 wet precipitations (WPs) and 38 aerosols were collected around a coal-fired power plant (CFPP) located in Xiamen, southeast China, which was equipped with a seawater flue gas desulfurization system. Total particulate mercury (TPM) in aerosol samples, and total mercury (WP-TM), dissolved mercury (WP-DM) and particulate mercury (WP-PM) in WP samples were analyzed for the natural isotopic compositions of mercury. For the first time, both mass dependent fractionation (MDF) and mass independent fractionation of odd (odd-MIF) and even (even-MIF) isotopes of WP-DM and WP-PM were reported and discussed. Both WP-TM and TPM displayed negative MDF and slightly positive even-MIF. Negative odd-MIF was observed in TPM and WP-PM, whereas positive odd-MIF was observed in WP-TM and WP-DM. It was found that the mercury budget in WP-PM samples was mainly controlled by atmospheric particles. Potential sources of mercury in samples were identified via analysis of mercury isotopic signatures and meteorological data with the NOAA HYSPLIT model. The results showed that TPM and WP-PM in solid samples were homologous and the isotopic compositions of WP-TM depended on those of WP-DM. The ratios of Delta Hg-199/Delta Hg-201 resulting from photochemical reactions and positive Delta Hg-200 values (from -0.06%o to 0.27%o) in all samples indicated that the mercury coming from local emission of the CFPP together with long-distance transportation were the two main contributing sources.

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