4.7 Article

Continuous measurement of peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) in suburban and remote areas of western China

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 43, 期 2, 页码 228-237

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.070

关键词

PAN; Ozone; Lanzhou; Mt. Waliguan; Plume transport

资金

  1. Hong Kong Research Grants Council [PolyU5144/04E]
  2. Hong Kong Polytechnic University [1-BB94]
  3. National Basic Research Program of China [2005CB4422203]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge on atmospheric abundance of peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) is important in assessing the severity of photochemical pollution, and for understanding chemical transformation of reactive odd nitrogen and its impact on the budget of tropospheric ozone (03). In summer 2006, continuous measurements of PAN were made using an automatic GC-ECD analyzer with an on-line calibrator at a suburban site of Lanzhou (LZ) and a remote site of Mt. Waliguan (WLG) in western China, with concurrent measurements of O-3, total reactive nitrogen (NOy) and carbon monoxide (CO). At LZ, several photochemical episodes were observed during the study, and the average mixing ratio of PAN (plus or minus standard deviation) was 0.76 (+/-0.89) ppbv with the maximum value of 9.13 ppbv, compared to an average value of 0.44 (+/-0.16) ppbv at remote WLG. The PAN mixing ratios in LZ exhibited strong diurnal variations with a maximum at noon, while enhanced concentrations of PAN were observed in the evening and a minimum in the afternoon at WLG. The daily O-3 and PAN concentration maxima showed a strong correlation (r(2) = 0.91) in LZ, with a regression slope (PAN/O-3) of 0.091 ppbv ppbv(-1). At WLG, six well-identified pollution plumes (lasting 2-8 h) were observed with elevated concentrations of PAN (and other trace gases), and analysis of backward particle release simulation shows that the high-PAN events at WLG were mostly associated with the transport of air masses that had passed over LZ. (C) 2008 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