4.7 Article

Characterization of particulate matter (PM10) related to surface coal mining operations in Appalachia

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
卷 54, 期 -, 页码 496-501

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.063

关键词

Surface coal mining; PM10; Elemental analysis; Electron microscopy; Air toxic

资金

  1. Southern Appalachia Mountain Stewards (SAMS)
  2. Sierra Club

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the environmental exposure of residents of a community in southwest Virginia to respirable concentrations of dust (PM-10 i.e. PM10) generated by trucks hauling coal from surface coal mining operations. The study site is representative of communities in southwest Virginia and other parts of Appalachia that are located in narrow hollows where homes are placed directly along roads that experience heavy coal truck traffic. Preliminary air sampling (Particulate Matter i.e. PM10) was conducted for a period of approximately two weeks during early August 2008 in the unincorporated community of Roda, Virginia, at two locations (about a mile apart along Roda Road (Route 685) in Wise County, Virginia). For the purposes of this study (a combination of logistics, resource, and characterization of PM) we sited the PM samplers near the road to ascertain the micro exposure from the road. The results revealed high levels of PM10 (the mean adjusted 24-h concentration at the Campbell Site = 250.2 mu g m(-3) (+/-135.0 mu g m(-3)); and at the Willis Site = 144.8 +/- 60.0 mu g m(-3)). The U.S. 24-h national ambient air quality standard for PM10 is 150 mu g m(-3) Elemental analysis for samples (blank-corrected) collected on Quartz filter paper (on one randomly selected day) at both the sites revealed the presence of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium. Electron micrographs reveal the morphology and habit (shapes and aggregates) of the particulate matter collected. (C) 2012 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