4.7 Article

Source apportionment of PM2.5 using positive matrix factorization (PMF) at a rural site in Korea

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
卷 214, 期 -, 页码 325-334

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.03.027

关键词

Fine particulate matter; Source apportionment; Positive matrix factorization; Conditional probability function; Potential source contribution function

资金

  1. BK21 PLUS through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT [22A20130012682]
  2. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Science and ICT [NRF-2014R1A2A2A04007801, NRF-2017M3D8A1092019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sources of different pollutants contributing to ambient fine particles (PM2.5) on Daebu Island, Korea, were estimated. Twenty four hour integrated filter samples were collected from May 21-November 1, 2016, and analyzed for organic carbon, elemental carbon, ions, and trace elements. Positive matrix factorization was conducted on the PM2.5 chemical speciation data from the samples to define the pathways and sources of PM2.5 at the sampling site. A total of 80 samples and 24 chemical species were used to run the model and a total of nine sources were identified: secondary sulfate (29.0%), mobile (22.0%), secondary nitrate (13.2%), oil combustion (10.1%), coal combustion (9.4%), aged sea salt (7.9%), soil (5.6%), non-ferrous smelting (1.7%), and industrial activity (1.1%). Conditional probability and potential source contribution functions were then used to determine whether these sources were local or came from pollutants transported over long-range distances. The anthropogenic sources came from local emissions and originated from both industrialized and metropolitan areas, whereas the secondary inorganic aerosols were strongly influenced by the long-range transport of air pollutants from Shandong and Jiangsu provinces in China. (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