4.7 Article

Transport pathways and potential sources of PM10 in Beijing

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 594-604

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.10.040

关键词

Transport pathway; Backward trajectory; Trajectory cluster; Trajectory sector analysis (TSA); Potential source contribution function (PSCF)

资金

  1. Chinese National Science Foundation [40975088]
  2. National Key Basic Research and Development Program of China [2008AA06A415]
  3. Public Welfare Projects for Environmental Protection [200809018, 200709001]
  4. Ministry of Education of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Beijing has suffered from major air pollution in recent years from PM10. In this study, we investigated the transport pathways and potential sources of PM10 concentration based on backward trajectories and PM10 concentration records from 2003 to 2009. Four transport pathways of high PM10 existed. One was the northwest pathway, which had the most frequency of occurrence in spring and winter, and traveled over the southern Mongolia, western Inner Mongolia, and Loess plateaus. The second one was the south pathway, which mostly occurred during May and September, and passed from the south of Beijing. The third one was the V-shape southwest pathway, which occurred mostly during early autumn and passed over the west and south of Hebei. The highest PM10 concentration was found with the southwest pathway, which occurs mostly in April and October, and traveled over the Loess Plateau and the west and south of Hebei. Low concentrations of PM10 with the southwest and east pathways were possible due to intensive precipitation in summer. Characterizing with the lowest PMio concentration, the north pathway was possible associated with strong winds that leaded to diffusion of air pollutants in Beijing. The contribution of PK10 from long transported was about 39.3 mu g m(-3), which accounted for about 26.0% of the PK10 concentrations in Beijing. (C) 2010 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