[Impacts of Online Measurements of Organic Molecular Markers as Input Species for PM2.5 Source Apportionments: A Case Study in Hangzhou During the 19th Asian Games].

Q2 Environmental Science
Shu-Hui Zhu, Cong-Yan Huang, Yong Lai, Yu-Hang Wu, Ren-Chang Yan, Jian-Dong Shen, Jun-Jie Tian, Ya-Qin Gao, Ying-Ge Ma
{"title":"[Impacts of Online Measurements of Organic Molecular Markers as Input Species for PM<sub>2.5</sub> Source Apportionments: A Case Study in Hangzhou During the 19<sup>th</sup> Asian Games].","authors":"Shu-Hui Zhu, Cong-Yan Huang, Yong Lai, Yu-Hang Wu, Ren-Chang Yan, Jian-Dong Shen, Jun-Jie Tian, Ya-Qin Gao, Ying-Ge Ma","doi":"10.13227/j.hjkx.202404043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Positive matrix factorization (PMF) is one of the most widely used receptor models for PM<sub>2.5</sub> source apportionment. The traditional PMF method generally uses inorganic (such as nitrate, sulfate, and EC) measurement data as input species to apportion PM<sub>2.5</sub> sources. These species have ambiguous source origins; thus quantifying PM<sub>2.5</sub> sources with high source sectors is difficult. In this study, online measurements of major chemical components, elemental tracers, as well as organic molecular markers were applied in a PMF model to investigate the differences between the major chemical components-based PMF (MCC) and organic molecular markers-based PMF (OMM) methods in terms of source identification, source separation, and source quantification. The results showed that with the input of organic molecular markers (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, fatty acids, dicarboxylic acids, hydroxyl-dicarboxylic acids, C<sub>9</sub> acids, and phthalic acid), the OMM method greatly enlarged the number of source factors identified. Further, industry emission, shipping emission, dust, vehicle emission, biomass burning, secondary nitrate, and secondary sulfate; two primary source factors (coal combustion and cooking emission); and four secondary organic aerosol (SOA) source factors were also resolved in the OMM method. Comparing with the source profiles resolved by the MCC method, we found that OC/EC mass ratios in OMM-resolved source profiles of industry emission, vehicle emission, biomass burning, and coal combustion were closer to those obtained from emission inventories. In terms of source quantification, the mass contributions of vehicle emission and biomass burning resolved by the MCC method were notably higher than those resolved by the OMM method, especially under high O<sub>3</sub> concentrations (&gt; 120 μg·m<sup>-3</sup>). This suggests that without the input of specific organic molecular markers, the MCC method was inclined to apportion parts of secondary source contributions into primary sources (such as vehicle emission and biomass burning). We further quantified and compared PM<sub>2.5</sub> source contributions in Hangzhou before, during, and after the 19<sup>th</sup> Asian Games with the application of the OMM method. Our results showed that the percentage contributions of vehicle emission, industry emission, and dust dropped by 65%, 24%, and 24%, respectively, during the Games. Anthropogenic SOA and aged SOA also displayed significant decreases in mass contributions during the Games by 35% and 49%, respectively, due to the emission reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These results imply that PM<sub>2.5</sub> pollution can be effectively controlled with the implementation of emission reduction measures. Our study also revealed that online measurements of organic molecular markers are important for improving PM<sub>2.5</sub> source apportionment results and formulating pollution control policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":35937,"journal":{"name":"环境科学","volume":"46 3","pages":"1314-1325"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"环境科学","FirstCategoryId":"1087","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13227/j.hjkx.202404043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Environmental Science","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Positive matrix factorization (PMF) is one of the most widely used receptor models for PM2.5 source apportionment. The traditional PMF method generally uses inorganic (such as nitrate, sulfate, and EC) measurement data as input species to apportion PM2.5 sources. These species have ambiguous source origins; thus quantifying PM2.5 sources with high source sectors is difficult. In this study, online measurements of major chemical components, elemental tracers, as well as organic molecular markers were applied in a PMF model to investigate the differences between the major chemical components-based PMF (MCC) and organic molecular markers-based PMF (OMM) methods in terms of source identification, source separation, and source quantification. The results showed that with the input of organic molecular markers (such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, fatty acids, dicarboxylic acids, hydroxyl-dicarboxylic acids, C9 acids, and phthalic acid), the OMM method greatly enlarged the number of source factors identified. Further, industry emission, shipping emission, dust, vehicle emission, biomass burning, secondary nitrate, and secondary sulfate; two primary source factors (coal combustion and cooking emission); and four secondary organic aerosol (SOA) source factors were also resolved in the OMM method. Comparing with the source profiles resolved by the MCC method, we found that OC/EC mass ratios in OMM-resolved source profiles of industry emission, vehicle emission, biomass burning, and coal combustion were closer to those obtained from emission inventories. In terms of source quantification, the mass contributions of vehicle emission and biomass burning resolved by the MCC method were notably higher than those resolved by the OMM method, especially under high O3 concentrations (> 120 μg·m-3). This suggests that without the input of specific organic molecular markers, the MCC method was inclined to apportion parts of secondary source contributions into primary sources (such as vehicle emission and biomass burning). We further quantified and compared PM2.5 source contributions in Hangzhou before, during, and after the 19th Asian Games with the application of the OMM method. Our results showed that the percentage contributions of vehicle emission, industry emission, and dust dropped by 65%, 24%, and 24%, respectively, during the Games. Anthropogenic SOA and aged SOA also displayed significant decreases in mass contributions during the Games by 35% and 49%, respectively, due to the emission reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These results imply that PM2.5 pollution can be effectively controlled with the implementation of emission reduction measures. Our study also revealed that online measurements of organic molecular markers are important for improving PM2.5 source apportionment results and formulating pollution control policies.

[有机分子标记物作为输入种的在线测量对PM2.5源分配的影响:以第19届亚运会期间杭州为例]。
正矩阵分解(PMF)是目前应用最广泛的PM2.5源分配受体模型之一。传统的PMF方法一般采用无机(如硝酸盐、硫酸盐、EC)测量数据作为输入种来分配PM2.5源。这些物种的来源不明确,因此很难量化高来源部门的PM2.5来源。本研究在PMF模型中应用了主要化学成分、元素示踪剂和有机分子标记的在线测量,以研究基于主要化学成分的PMF (MCC)和基于有机分子标记的PMF (OMM)方法在来源识别、来源分离和来源定量方面的差异。结果表明,随着有机分子标记(如多环芳烃、脂肪酸、二羧酸、羟基二羧酸、C9酸和邻苯二甲酸)的输入,OMM方法大大增加了识别源因素的数量。此外,工业排放、船舶排放、粉尘、车辆排放、生物质燃烧、二次硝酸盐和二次硫酸盐;两个主要源因素(煤炭燃烧和烹饪排放);以及四个二次有机气溶胶(SOA)源因素也在OMM方法中得到了解决。与MCC方法解析的源剖面相比,我们发现omm解析的工业排放、汽车排放、生物质燃烧和煤炭燃烧源剖面的OC/EC质量比更接近排放清单。在源量化方面,MCC方法解决的车辆排放和生物质燃烧的质量贡献明显高于OMM方法解决的质量贡献,特别是在高O3浓度(>;120μg·m3)。这表明,在没有特定有机分子标记输入的情况下,MCC方法倾向于将部分次要源贡献分配给主要源(如车辆排放和生物质燃烧)。应用OMM方法,对第19届亚运会之前、期间和之后杭州PM2.5源贡献进行了进一步量化和比较。我们的研究结果表明,在奥运会期间,机动车排放、工业排放和扬尘的贡献率分别下降了65%、24%和24%。由于挥发性有机化合物(VOCs)的排放减少,人为SOA和老化SOA在奥运会期间的质量贡献也分别下降了35%和49%。这些结果表明PM2.5污染可以通过实施减排措施得到有效控制。研究还表明,有机分子标志物的在线测量对于改善PM2.5源分配结果和制定污染控制政策具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
环境科学
环境科学 Environmental Science-Environmental Science (all)
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15329
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信