Source Apportionment Using Radiocarbon and Organic Tracers for PM2.5 Carbonaceous Aerosols in Guangzhou, South China: Contrasting Local- and Regional-Scale Haze Events
read more
Citations
Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from Anthropogenic Air Pollution: Rapid and Higher than Expected
A review of current knowledge concerning PM 2. 5 chemical composition, aerosol optical properties and their relationships across China
Review on recent progress in observations, source identifications and countermeasures of PM2.5.
Formation, features and controlling strategies of severe haze-fog pollutions in China
Haze, public health and mitigation measures in China: A review of the current evidence for further policy response
References
Organic aerosol and global climate modelling: a review
Atmospheric aerosols: composition, transformation, climate and health effects.
Levoglucosan, a tracer for cellulose in biomass burning and atmospheric particles
Secondary organic aerosol formation from anthropogenic air pollution: Rapid and higher than expected
Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from Anthropogenic Air Pollution: Rapid and Higher than Expected
Related Papers (5)
High secondary aerosol contribution to particulate pollution during haze events in China
Frequently Asked Questions (19)
Q2. What is the contribution of alkanes and alkenes to SOC?
Approximately 60−80% of the VOCs emitted by biomass burning are alkanes and alkenes,50 whose contribution to SOC can approach ∼20%.51,53
Q3. What is the role of carbonaceous aerosols in haze?
Carbonaceous aerosols account for a large fraction of PM2.5 particles (∼20−90%)4 and are considered to be a vital constituent controlling the formation and evolution of haze episodes.
Q4. How can the authors achieve a detailed haze apportionment?
13,14 With a combination of organic tracers, detailed source apportionments of carbonaceous aerosols can be achieved via 14C analysis.
Q5. What is the effect of biomass burning on the PM2.5 concentrations?
Since particles directly come from biomass burning show a characteristic of both high values of OC/EC and Lev/OC16, impact of biomass burning is suspected on the samples collected during Dec. 26-27, Dec. 11-12 and Jan. 17-18).
Q6. What is the trend of fm(EC) in a haze?
15,37 Because EC is formed only by primary emission, is inert in ambient air and originates from wood burning or fossil fuel combustion only, fm(EC) particularly tracks the change of these PM2.5 sources.
Q7. How many days per year may be governed by haze particles in Guangzhou?
This city often suffers severe air pollution episodes: it has been reported that ∼150 days per year may be governed by haze particles in Guangzhou.
Q8. Why is OCf_sec more hydrophobic than biogenic VOCs?
46 Because fossil-derived VOCs are less polar and appear to be more hydrophobic than biogenic VOCs, competing effects may exist between the20 formation of OCf_sec and OCbio_sec due to changes in relative humidity.
Q9. What is the effect of rain on PM2.5 concentrations?
This suggests that both the scavenging effect of rain and dilution effect of wind have clear positive elimination influences on PM2.5 concentrations, as well as indirectly reflecting the high intensity of local PM2.5 emissions in Guangzhou.
Q10. How many samples were selected to further analyze the 14C content of the three different sources?
27,28 Eight samples representing different atmospheric conditions were selected to further analyze the 14C content of WIOC, WSOC, and EC, as well as secondary organic aerosol (SOA) tracers that could directly reflect atmospheric reactions.
Q11. What is the relative contribution of OCf_sec to total SOC in Guangzhou?
The relative contribution of OCf_sec to total SOC is 33 ± 11%, and the corresponding value for OCbio_sec is 67 ± 11%, demonstrating that VOCs derived from biogenic/biomass burning emissions are the dominant contributor to SOC in Guangzhou, despite the importance of fossil emissions.
Q12. What is the average fm value for WSOC, WIOC, and EC?
The average fm values for WSOC, WIOC, and EC were 0.71 ± 0.03, 0.64 ± 0.06, and 0.31 ± 0.11, respectively, suggesting that fossil fuel has the largest impact on EC, whereas WIOC and WSOC are affected more by nonfossil sources.
Q13. Why do remote particles have a high proportion of SOC43?
Remote particles generally have a high proportion of SOC43 due to the longer-range atmospheric transport they experience (Figure 1).
Q14. How much of the total aromatic VOCs emitted from vehicles during a tunnel study?
toluene accounted for only ∼20% of the total aromatic VOCs emitted from vehicles during a tunnel study conducted in a southern Chinese city.
Q15. What were the samples collected during typical haze episodes?
Of which samples GIG02, GIG06, GIG07, and GIG08 were collected during typical haze episodes with PM2.5 concentrations >100 μg/m3.
Q16. What is the fraction of nonfossil fuel EC?
Because EC is derived from only biomass burning (bb) and fossil fuel combustion, the fraction of nonfossil fuel EC is expressed as ECbb here.
Q17. What is the OC of biomass burning aerosols?
Biomass burning OC (OCbb) is frequently calculated as the ratio (OC/Lev)bb in fresh biomass burning aerosols on the basis that Lev is an prominent tracer for biomass burning tracer to its high concentration and stable physiochemical properties in the atmosphere.
Q18. How many OCs were derived from SOA tracers?
Because SOC values derived from SOA tracers (SOCM+I+β plus SOCA) accounted for only 14 ± 6% of the OC in this study and because this proportion seems to be much lower than that observed in previous studies conducted in winter in southern and northern China (30−60%),48,49 the authors assumed that the SOC values based on these SOA tracers is underestimated.
Q19. Why are the values lower than those observed in European and American cities?
10 However, these values are lower than those observed in European and American cities (∼70−85%);10,15,37 this variation is likely because more15 SOC is derived from fossil fuels in Guangzhou, given that WSOC is a good tracer for SOC in urban regions.