4.6 Article

Hydrocarbons and metals in atmospheric deposition and roof runoff in central Paris

期刊

WATER AIR AND SOIL POLLUTION
卷 159, 期 1-4, 页码 67-86

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/B:WATE.0000049165.12410.98

关键词

atmospheric deposition; metal pollution in runoff; n-alkanes; origin of pollution in runoff; PAH; roof runoff

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hydrocarbons ( aliphatic and aromatic) and metals ( heavy metals and major elements) were measured in both atmospheric deposition and roof runoff in central Paris (France). Atmospheric deposition ( wet and dry) was collected from December 2001 to October 2002 and roof runoff was sampled on three buildings with different covering materials, i.e., slate tiles and zinc sheets. This paper gives an overview of the results on the flux and distribution points of view for both atmospheric deposition and roof runoff. Results show that atmospheric fluxes of hydrocarbons and major elements increase during cold seasons, due to residential heating occurrence, while heavy metals, whose major sources have constant emission fluxes, exhibit steady atmospheric loads throughout the year. Moreover, hydrocarbon fingerprints reveal mainly biogenic and pyrolytic origins for aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, respectively. The results about roof runoff contamination suggest that the scavenging processes for hydrocarbons and metals are dependent on rainfall amount rather than on the rain event characteristics ( number, intensity, duration), and dry deposition weakly contributes to the pollutant loads in roof runoff. Results also highlight that both metallic and slate roofs do not act as a source of hydrocarbons and major elements-exclusively originating from atmospheric deposition-while they act as a source of some heavy metals. Zinc-covered roofs largely release Zn and Ti, while slate roofs mainly release Pb, Ti and Cu. Whatever the material used for roof covering, roof runoff presents high Ni and V loads due to the vicinity of the chimney stacks of heating boilers.

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

4.6
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