4.7 Article

Diurnal concentrations, sources, and cancer risk assessments of PM2.5-bound PAHs, NPAHs, and OPAHs in urban, marine and mountain environments

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 209, 期 -, 页码 147-155

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.06.054

关键词

PAHs; NPAHs; OPAHs; Marine and mountain sites; Diurnal variations

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21577079, 21307074]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ambient measurements of PM2.5-bounded polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitro-PAHs (NPAHs), and oxy-PAHs (OPAHs) were conducted during the summer in Jinan, China, an urban site, and at Tuoji island and Mt. Tai, two background locations. 3.5 h and 11.5 h sampling intervals in daytime and nighttime were utilized to research the diurnal variations of PAHs, NPAHs, and OPAHs. The concentrations of PAHs, NPAHs, and OPAHs were highest at the urban site and lowest at the marine site. The diurnal patterns of PAHs and NPAHs at the urban and marine sites were dissimilar to those observed at the mountain site partly due to the influence of the boundary layer. Vehicle emissions at the urban site made a large contribution to high molecular weight PAHs. 1N-PYR and 7N-BaA during morning and night sampling periods in JN were relatively high. Fossil fuel combustion and biomass burning were the main sources for all three sites during the sampling periods. The air masses at the marine and mountain sites were strongly impacted by photo-degradation, and the air masses at the marine site were the most aged. Secondary formation of NPAHs was mainly initiated by OH radicals at all the three sites and was strongest at the marine site. Secondary formation was most efficient during the daytime at the urban and mountain sites and during morning periods at the marine site. The average excess cancer risk from inhalation (ECR) for 70 years' life span at the urban site was much higher than those calculated for the background sites. (C) 2018 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