Emission and profile characteristic of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in PM2.5 and PM10 from stationary sources based on dilution sampling
Emission and profile characteristic of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in PM2.5 and PM10 from stationary sources based on dilution sampling
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.04.073
复制
发表时间：
2013-10-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Bai, Zhipeng
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kong, Shaofei;Ji, Yaqin;Bai, Zhipeng
2010年2 ~ 3月，采用稀释采样系统和GC-MS分析方法，研究了山东省6种固定污染源排放的大气PM2. 5和PM10中18种多环芳烃（PAHs）的质量浓度及其分布特征。六种固定源的PM2.5和PM10质量浓度分别在8.2-79.4 mg m（-3）和23.3-156.7 mg m（-3）之间变化。PM2.5和PM10中多环芳烃的总质量浓度分别为0.40-94.35 μ g·m ~（-3）和9.16-122.91 μ g·m ~（-3）。对PM2.5和PM10具有高致癌性的多环芳烃浓度，最具毒性的是烧结灰和焦炉灰。BbF、Phe、NaP、BghiP、Pyr、BaP和BeP含量丰富，与前人不同，其主要原因之一可能是采样方法的差异。从扩散系数（CD）值来看，焦炉飞灰PM2.5和PM10组分中多环芳烃的组成存在差异。焦炉排放的PM10的多环芳烃分布与其他固定源不同（CD值大于0.35），而烧结矿排放的PM2.5的多环芳烃分布与其他固定源相同（CD值大多接近0.30）。除烧结矿外，固定源排放的细颗粒物中存在相似的多环芳烃标记物。对于PM10，除焦炉外，其多环芳烃主要是三环多环芳烃，以BbF、IND和BghiP为特征。BaA/（BaA + Chr）、Flu/（Flu + Pyr）、BaP/（BaP + BeP）、BeP/BghiP和IND/（IND + BghiP）的诊断比值对6种固定源的区分效果不佳，其中对飞灰PM2.5和PM10的诊断比值最大/最小值均小于2，不宜用于源识别研究。应采用稀释采样法及时更新不同粒径固定源飞灰中多环芳烃的质量浓度和来源特征。(C)2013爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
The mass concentrations and profile characteristic for 18 kinds of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in PM2.5 and PM10 from stack gases for six types of stationary sources in Shandong Province, China were studied by a dilution sampling system and GC-MS analysis method from February to March in 2010. The mass concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 from the six types of stationary sources varied in 8.2-79.4 mg m(-3) and 23.3-156.7 mg m(-3), respectively. The total mass concentrations of analyzed PAHs in PM2.5 and PM10 were in the ranges of 0.40-94.35 mu g m(-3) and 9.16-122.91 mu g m(-3). The most toxic ashes were from sinter and coke oven for both PM2.5 and PM10 with high carcinogenic PAHs concentrations. BbF, Phe, NaP, BghiP, Pyr, BaP and BeP were abundant which was different from formers and one of the key reasons may be the differences of sampling methods. Diversities in PAHs compositions existed between fly ashes within PM2.5 and PM10 fractions for coke oven according to coefficient of divergence (CD) values. PAHs profiles for PM10 emitted from coke oven were different from those of other stationary sources (with CD values higher than 0.35) and for PM2.5, it was the same for sinter (with most CD values close to 0.30). There existed similar PAHs markers for fine particles emitted from stationary sources excepted for the sinter. For PM10, PAHs markers were primary 3-ring PAHs except for the coke oven with BbF, IND and BghiP as its signatures. Diagnostic ratios of BaA/(BaA + Chr), Flu/(Flu + Pyr), BaP/(BaP + BeP), BeP/BghiP and IND/(IND + BghiP) could be not well distinguished for the six types of stationary sources with the maximum/minimum ratios lower than 2 for both PM2.5 and PM10 of fly ashes which should be not used for source identification studies. The mass concentrations and source profiles of PAHs should be updated timely for size-differentiated fly ashes from various stationary sources by dilution sampling method. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.