4.5 Article

Study of urban atmospheric pollution in Navarre (Northern Spain)

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
卷 134, 期 1-3, 页码 137-151

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-007-9605-6

关键词

PM10; SO2; NO2; O-3; Saharan dust; air quality; Spain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An ambient air quality study was undertaken in two cities (Pamplona and Alsasua) of the Province of Navarre in northern Spain from July 2001 to June 2004. The data were obtained from two urban monitoring sites. At both monitoring sites, ambient levels of ozone, NOx, and SO2 were measured. Simultaneously with levels of PM10 measured at Alsasua (using a laser particle counter), PM10 levels were also determined at Pamplona (using a beta attenuation monitor). Mean annual PM10 concentrations in Pamplona and Alsasua reached 30 and 28 mu g m(-3), respectively. These concentrations are typical for urban background sites in Northern Spain. By using meteorological information and back trajectories, it was found that the number of exceedances of the daily PM10 limit as well as the PM10 temporal variation was highly influenced by air masses from North Africa. Although North African transport was observed on only 9% of the days, it contributed the highest observed PM10 levels. Transport from the Atlantic Ocean was observed on 68% of the days; transport from Europe on 13%; low transport and local influences on 7%; and transport from the Mediterranean region on 3% of the days. The mean O-3 concentrations were 45 and 55 mu g m(-3) in Pamplona and Alsasua, respectively, which were above the values reported for the main Spanish cities. The mean NO and NO2 levels were very similar in both sites (12 and 26 mu g m(-3), respectively). Mean SO2 levels were 8 mu g m(-3) in Pamplona and 5 mu g m(-3) in Alsasua. Hourly levels of PM10, NO and NO2 showed similar variations with the typically two coincident maximums during traffic rush hours demonstrating a major anthropogenic origin of PM10, in spite of the sporadic dust outbreaks.

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