4.7 Article

Identification of atmospheric volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and carbonyl compounds in Hong Kong

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 289, 期 1-3, 页码 145-158

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0048-9697(01)01031-2

关键词

volatile organic compounds (VOCs); polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAHs) carbonyl compounds; Hong Kong; correlation; roadside air monitoring station

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and carbonyl compounds are the major organic pollutants in the atmosphere. Emissions from motor vehicles have been one of the primary pollution sources in the metropolitan area of Hong Kong. A 12-month monitoring program for VOCs, PAHs and carbonyl compounds was performed at a roadside urban station at Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HKPU) in order to determine the correlations of each selected pollutant. The monitoring program ran from 16 April 1999 to 10 April 2000 for a period of I year, and a 2-week winter intensive sampling was carried out during January 2000. Traditionally, emission sources are identified from organic compounds in air particulates. Since many of the gaseous and particulate phases of organic compounds are from the same sources, correlations between the major exhausts are to be expected. Therefore, it would be more effective to apportion the sources using the combined gaseous and particulate phases of organic compounds. Correlations of selected pollutants within two other toxic air pollutants (TAPs) monitoring stations in Tsuen Wan (TW) and Central/Western (CW) were analyzed. Good correlations were found between pollutants that came from vehicle exhaust, especially in intensive sampling periods at HKPU roadside station. This was because the washing out effect for particulates during rainy days and photochemical degradation during high solar radiation were minimized in wintertime. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. 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