4.7 Article

Emissions of gas- and particle-phase polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the Shing Mun Tunnel, Hong Kong

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 43, 期 40, 页码 6343-6351

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.09.025

关键词

PAH; Gas- and particle PAHs; Emission factor; Tunnel; Hong Kong

资金

  1. Hong Kong Environment Protection Department [AS 02-342]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, CAS [SKLLQG0804]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Real-world vehicle emission factors for seventeen gas and particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were quantified in the Shing Mun Tunnel, Hong Kong during summer and winter 2003. Naphthalene, acenaphthylene, and acenaphthene were the most abundant gas PAHs while fluoranthene and pyrene were the most abundant in the particle phase. Most (98%) of the gas PAHs consisted of two- and three-aromatic rings whereas most of the particle-phase PAHs were in four- (similar to 60%) and five-ring (similar to 17%) for fresh exhaust emissions. Average emission factors for the gas- and particle PAHs were 950-2564 mu g veh(-1) km(-1) and 22-354 mu g veh(-1) km(-1), respectively. Good correlations were found between diesel markers (fluoranthene and pyrene; 0.85) and gasoline markers (benzo[ghi]perylene and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene; 0.96). Higher PAH emission factors were associated with a higher fraction of diesel-fueled vehicles (DV) passing through the tunnel. Separate emission factors were determined from diesel and non-diesel exhaust by the regression intercept method. The average PAH emission factor (i.e., sum of gas and particle phases) from DV (3085 +/- 1058 mu g veh(-1) km(-1)) was similar to 5 times higher than that from non-diesel-fueled vehicles (NDV, 566 +/- 428 mu g veh(-1) km(-1)). Ratios of DV to NDV emission factors were high for diesel markers (>24); and low for gasoline markers (<0.4). (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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