4.7 Article

Characteristics and sources of carbonaceous aerosols from Shanghai, China

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 803-817

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-803-2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40925009, 41230641]
  2. Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA05100401]
  3. National Gongyi Project [201209007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An intensive investigation of carbonaceous PM2.5 and TSP (total suspended particles) from Pudong (China) was conducted as part of the MIRAGE-Shanghai (Megacities Impact on Regional and Global Environment) experiment in 2009. Data for organic and elemental carbon (OC and EC), organic species, including C17 to C40 n-alkanes and 17 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and stable carbon isotopes OC (delta C-13(OC)) and EC (delta C-13(EC)) were used to evaluate the aerosols' temporal variations and identify presumptive sources. High OC/EC ratios indicated a large fraction of secondary organic aerosol (SOA); high char/soot ratios indicated stronger contributions to EC from motor vehicles and coal combustion than biomass burning. Diagnostic ratios of PAHs indicated that much of the SOA was produced via coal combustion. Isotope abundances (delta C-13(OC) = -24.5 +/- 0.8 parts per thousand and delta C-13(EC) = -25.1 +/- 0.6 parts per thousand) indicated that fossil fuels were the most important source for carbonaceous PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter), with lesser impacts from biomass burning and natural sources. An EC tracer system and isotope mass balance calculations showed that the relative contributions to total carbon from coal combustion, motor vehicle exhaust, and SOA were 41%, 21%, and 31%; other primary sources such as marine, soil and biogenic emissions contributed 7%. Combined analyses of OC and EC, n-alkanes and PAHs, and stable carbon isotopes provide a new way to apportion the sources of carbonaceous particles.

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