4.7 Article

Characterization of carbonaceous aerosols over Delhi in Ganga basin: seasonal variability and possible sources

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 14, 页码 8610-8619

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-014-2660-y

关键词

Carbonaceous aerosols; Black/elemental carbon; Organic carbon; Emission sources; Absorption coefficient; Mass absorption efficiency

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology (DST), India [IF-EAS-02]
  2. ISRO-ARFI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mass concentration of carbonaceous species, organic carbon (OC), and elemental carbon (EC) using a semicontinuous thermo-optical EC-OC analyzer, and black carbon (BC) using an Aethalometer were measured simultaneously at an urban mega city Delhi in Ganga basin from January 2011 to May 2012. The concentrations of OC, EC, and BC exhibit seasonal variability, and their concentrations were similar to 2 times higher during winter (OC 38.1 +/- 17.9 mu g m(-3), EC 15.8 +/- 7.3 mu g m(-3), and BC 10.1 +/- 5.3 mu g m(-3)) compared to those in summer (OC 14.1 +/- 4.3 mu g m(-3), EC 7.5 +/- 1.5 mu g m(-3), and BC 4.9 +/- 1.5 mu g m(-3)). A significant correlation between OC and EC (R = 0.95, n = 232) indicate their common emission sources with relatively lower OC/EC ratio (range 1.0-3.6, mean 2.2 +/- 0.5) suggests fossil fuel emission as a major source of carbonaceous aerosols over the station. On average, mass concentration of EC was found to be similar to 38 % higher than BC during the study period. The measured absorption coefficient (b(abs)) was significantly correlated with EC, suggesting EC as a major absorbing species in ambient aerosols at Delhi. Furthermore, the estimated mass absorption efficiency (sigma(abs)) values are similar during winter (5.0 +/- 1.5 m(2) g(-1)) and summer (4.8 +/- 2.8 m(2) g(-1)). Significantly high aerosol loading of carbonaceous species emphasize an urgent need to focus on air quality management and proper impact assessment on health perspective in these regions.

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