4.7 Article

Seasonal and long-term change in lead deposition in central Japan: evidence for atmospheric transport from continental Asia

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 341, 期 1-3, 页码 149-158

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.09.038

关键词

lead; isotope ratios; long-range transport; back trajectories; bark pockets

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-range transport of air pollution from continental Asia is currently an important issue concerning the Japanese environment, especially in regions susceptible to acidification due to low buffering capacity, such as Murakami, Niigata prefecture, located on the west coast of central Japan. Evidence for long-range transport was obtained through lead and lead isotopic analysis of 84 archived precipitation filters, showing seasonal changes in lead deposition from May 1999 to May 2002. Lead deposition was highest in winter and spring (November through May) each year and lowest in summer. Computed 72-h back trajectories showed that in winter air masses were predominantly transported from the northwest, passing over northern China aid eastern Russia, whilst in summer air masses predominantly originated from the southeast passing over Japan. Lead isotopic analysis showed higher Pb-208/Pb-206 during winter, indicating that lead originated from a different source. A plot of Pb-207/Pb-205 vs. Pb-208/Pb-206 identified a thorogenic component, which is excess Pb-208 compared to a standard lead growth curve, indicative of certain lead ores and coals in continental Asia. The data provided evidence of long-range transport of lead from continental Asia to Japan. Bark pockets included within the trunks of two Japanese cedar trees harvested near Murakami, dating between 1972 and 1982, exhibited lead isotope ratios indicative of Japanese-sourced lead. In contrast, current (2003) bark showed thorogenic ratios, consistent with a relative decline in Japanese-sourced and increase in continental-sourced lead. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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