4.6 Article

Chemical composition of air masses transported from Asia to the U. S. West Coast during ITCT 2K2:: Fossil fuel combustion versus biomass-burning signatures -: art. no. D23S20

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2003JD004202

关键词

long-range transport; fossil-fuel combustion; biomass burning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[1] As part of the Intercontinental Transport and Chemical Transformation experiment in 2002 (ITCT 2K2), a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) WP-3D research aircraft was used to study the long-range transport of Asian air masses toward the west coast of North America. During research flights on 5 and 17 May, strong enhancements of carbon monoxide (CO) and other species were observed in air masses that had been transported from Asia. The hydrocarbon composition of the air masses indicated that the highest CO levels were related to fossil fuel use. During the flights on 5 and 17 May and other days, the levels of several biomass-burning indicators increased with altitude. This was true for acetonitrile (CH3CN), methyl chloride (CH3Cl), the ratio of acetylene (C2H2) to propane (C3H8), and, on May 5, the percentage of particles measured by the particle analysis by laser mass spectrometry (PALMS) instrument that were attributed to biomass burning based on their carbon and potassium content. An ensemble of back-trajectories, calculated from the U.S. west coast over a range of latitudes and altitudes for the entire ITCT 2K2 period, showed that air masses from Southeast Asia and China were generally observed at higher altitudes than air from Japan and Korea. Emission inventories estimate the contribution of biomass burning to the total emissions to be low for Japan and Korea, higher for China, and the highest for Southeast Asia. Combined with the origin of the air masses versus altitude, this qualitatively explains the increase with altitude, averaged over the whole ITCT 2K2 period, of the different biomass-burning indicators.

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