An evaluation of source apportionment of fine OC and PM2.5 by multiple methods: APHH-Beijing campaigns as a case study
This study aims to critically evaluate the source apportionment of fine particles by multiple receptor modelling approaches, including carbon mass balance modelling of filter-based radiocarbon (14C) data, Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) analysis on filter-based ch...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Faraday discussions 2021-03, Vol.226, p.290-313 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 313 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 290 |
container_title | Faraday discussions |
container_volume | 226 |
creator | Xu, Jingsha Srivastava, Deepchandra Wu, Xuefang Hou, Siqi Vu, Tuan V Liu, Di Sun, Yele Vlachou, Athanasia Moschos, Vaios Salazar, Gary Szidat, Sönke Prévôt, André S H Fu, Pingqing Harrison, Roy M Shi, Zongbo |
description | This study aims to critically evaluate the source apportionment of fine particles by multiple receptor modelling approaches, including carbon mass balance modelling of filter-based radiocarbon (14C) data, Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) analysis on filter-based chemical speciation data, and PMF analysis on Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (AMS-PMF) or Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM-PMF) data. These data were collected as part of the APHH-Beijing (Atmospheric Pollution and Human Health in a Chinese Megacity) field observation campaigns from 10th November to 12th December in winter 2016 and from 22nd May to 24th June in summer 2017. 14C analysis revealed the predominant contribution of fossil fuel combustion to carbonaceous aerosols in winter compared with non-fossil fuel sources, which is supported by the results from other methods. An extended Gelencsér (EG) method incorporating 14C data, as well as the CMB and AMS/ACSM-PMF methods, generated a consistent source apportionment for fossil fuel related primary organic carbon. Coal combustion, traffic and biomass burning POC were comparable for CMB and AMS/ACSM-PMF. There are uncertainties in the EG method when estimating biomass burning and cooking OC. The POC from cooking estimated by different methods was poorly correlated, suggesting a large uncertainty when differentiating this source type. The PM2.5 source apportionment results varied between different methods. Through a comparison and correlation analysis of CMB, PMF and AMS/ACSM-PMF, the CMB method appears to give the most complete and representative source apportionment of Beijing aerosols. Based upon the CMB results, fine aerosols in Beijing were mainly secondary inorganic ion formation, secondary organic aerosol formation, primary coal combustion and from biomass burning emissions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1039/d0fd00095g |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2503453969</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2503453969</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p146t-2c9a6ca1a13e95062043581cc9eb9048e8962945004e1a8f86bfd1f0b5bf34f73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotT01Lw0AQXUTBWr34CwY8p85mP8x6q8VaodIe9Fw2yWxNSTYxuyn035ui8GDex_CGYeye44yjMI8luhIRjdpfsAkXWiZKmuzyzJVJtJZ4zW5COIw7ekwn7Dj3QEdbDzZWrYfWQWiHviCwXdf2Z68hH8--qzzBZgHWl7D9SGcK8hM0Qx2rriZoKH63ZXiG-Xa1Sl6oOlR-D4VtOlvtfQA7YpSBIMShPN2yK2frQHf_c8q-lq-fi1Wy3ry9L-brpONSxyQtjNWF5ZYLMgp1ilKojBeFodygzCgzOjVSIUriNnOZzl3JHeYqd0K6JzFlD3-9Xd_-DBTi7jC-58eTu1ShkEoYbcQvUqNcNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2503453969</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An evaluation of source apportionment of fine OC and PM2.5 by multiple methods: APHH-Beijing campaigns as a case study</title><source>Royal Society Of Chemistry Journals 2008-</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Xu, Jingsha ; Srivastava, Deepchandra ; Wu, Xuefang ; Hou, Siqi ; Vu, Tuan V ; Liu, Di ; Sun, Yele ; Vlachou, Athanasia ; Moschos, Vaios ; Salazar, Gary ; Szidat, Sönke ; Prévôt, André S H ; Fu, Pingqing ; Harrison, Roy M ; Shi, Zongbo</creator><creatorcontrib>Xu, Jingsha ; Srivastava, Deepchandra ; Wu, Xuefang ; Hou, Siqi ; Vu, Tuan V ; Liu, Di ; Sun, Yele ; Vlachou, Athanasia ; Moschos, Vaios ; Salazar, Gary ; Szidat, Sönke ; Prévôt, André S H ; Fu, Pingqing ; Harrison, Roy M ; Shi, Zongbo</creatorcontrib><description>This study aims to critically evaluate the source apportionment of fine particles by multiple receptor modelling approaches, including carbon mass balance modelling of filter-based radiocarbon (14C) data, Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) analysis on filter-based chemical speciation data, and PMF analysis on Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (AMS-PMF) or Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM-PMF) data. These data were collected as part of the APHH-Beijing (Atmospheric Pollution and Human Health in a Chinese Megacity) field observation campaigns from 10th November to 12th December in winter 2016 and from 22nd May to 24th June in summer 2017. 14C analysis revealed the predominant contribution of fossil fuel combustion to carbonaceous aerosols in winter compared with non-fossil fuel sources, which is supported by the results from other methods. An extended Gelencsér (EG) method incorporating 14C data, as well as the CMB and AMS/ACSM-PMF methods, generated a consistent source apportionment for fossil fuel related primary organic carbon. Coal combustion, traffic and biomass burning POC were comparable for CMB and AMS/ACSM-PMF. There are uncertainties in the EG method when estimating biomass burning and cooking OC. The POC from cooking estimated by different methods was poorly correlated, suggesting a large uncertainty when differentiating this source type. The PM2.5 source apportionment results varied between different methods. Through a comparison and correlation analysis of CMB, PMF and AMS/ACSM-PMF, the CMB method appears to give the most complete and representative source apportionment of Beijing aerosols. Based upon the CMB results, fine aerosols in Beijing were mainly secondary inorganic ion formation, secondary organic aerosol formation, primary coal combustion and from biomass burning emissions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1359-6640</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1364-5498</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1039/d0fd00095g</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry</publisher><subject>Aerosols ; Apportionment ; Atmospheric models ; Biomass ; Biomass burning ; Carbon 14 ; Cooking ; Correlation analysis ; Fossil fuels ; Fuel combustion ; Mass balance ; Megacities ; Organic carbon ; Speciation ; Uncertainty</subject><ispartof>Faraday discussions, 2021-03, Vol.226, p.290-313</ispartof><rights>Copyright Royal Society of Chemistry 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Xu, Jingsha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Srivastava, Deepchandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Xuefang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hou, Siqi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vu, Tuan V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Di</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Yele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlachou, Athanasia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moschos, Vaios</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salazar, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szidat, Sönke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prévôt, André S H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fu, Pingqing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Roy M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Zongbo</creatorcontrib><title>An evaluation of source apportionment of fine OC and PM2.5 by multiple methods: APHH-Beijing campaigns as a case study</title><title>Faraday discussions</title><description>This study aims to critically evaluate the source apportionment of fine particles by multiple receptor modelling approaches, including carbon mass balance modelling of filter-based radiocarbon (14C) data, Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) analysis on filter-based chemical speciation data, and PMF analysis on Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (AMS-PMF) or Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM-PMF) data. These data were collected as part of the APHH-Beijing (Atmospheric Pollution and Human Health in a Chinese Megacity) field observation campaigns from 10th November to 12th December in winter 2016 and from 22nd May to 24th June in summer 2017. 14C analysis revealed the predominant contribution of fossil fuel combustion to carbonaceous aerosols in winter compared with non-fossil fuel sources, which is supported by the results from other methods. An extended Gelencsér (EG) method incorporating 14C data, as well as the CMB and AMS/ACSM-PMF methods, generated a consistent source apportionment for fossil fuel related primary organic carbon. Coal combustion, traffic and biomass burning POC were comparable for CMB and AMS/ACSM-PMF. There are uncertainties in the EG method when estimating biomass burning and cooking OC. The POC from cooking estimated by different methods was poorly correlated, suggesting a large uncertainty when differentiating this source type. The PM2.5 source apportionment results varied between different methods. Through a comparison and correlation analysis of CMB, PMF and AMS/ACSM-PMF, the CMB method appears to give the most complete and representative source apportionment of Beijing aerosols. Based upon the CMB results, fine aerosols in Beijing were mainly secondary inorganic ion formation, secondary organic aerosol formation, primary coal combustion and from biomass burning emissions.</description><subject>Aerosols</subject><subject>Apportionment</subject><subject>Atmospheric models</subject><subject>Biomass</subject><subject>Biomass burning</subject><subject>Carbon 14</subject><subject>Cooking</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Fossil fuels</subject><subject>Fuel combustion</subject><subject>Mass balance</subject><subject>Megacities</subject><subject>Organic carbon</subject><subject>Speciation</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><issn>1359-6640</issn><issn>1364-5498</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotT01Lw0AQXUTBWr34CwY8p85mP8x6q8VaodIe9Fw2yWxNSTYxuyn035ui8GDex_CGYeye44yjMI8luhIRjdpfsAkXWiZKmuzyzJVJtJZ4zW5COIw7ekwn7Dj3QEdbDzZWrYfWQWiHviCwXdf2Z68hH8--qzzBZgHWl7D9SGcK8hM0Qx2rriZoKH63ZXiG-Xa1Sl6oOlR-D4VtOlvtfQA7YpSBIMShPN2yK2frQHf_c8q-lq-fi1Wy3ry9L-brpONSxyQtjNWF5ZYLMgp1ilKojBeFodygzCgzOjVSIUriNnOZzl3JHeYqd0K6JzFlD3-9Xd_-DBTi7jC-58eTu1ShkEoYbcQvUqNcNw</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Xu, Jingsha</creator><creator>Srivastava, Deepchandra</creator><creator>Wu, Xuefang</creator><creator>Hou, Siqi</creator><creator>Vu, Tuan V</creator><creator>Liu, Di</creator><creator>Sun, Yele</creator><creator>Vlachou, Athanasia</creator><creator>Moschos, Vaios</creator><creator>Salazar, Gary</creator><creator>Szidat, Sönke</creator><creator>Prévôt, André S H</creator><creator>Fu, Pingqing</creator><creator>Harrison, Roy M</creator><creator>Shi, Zongbo</creator><general>Royal Society of Chemistry</general><scope>7SR</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>An evaluation of source apportionment of fine OC and PM2.5 by multiple methods: APHH-Beijing campaigns as a case study</title><author>Xu, Jingsha ; Srivastava, Deepchandra ; Wu, Xuefang ; Hou, Siqi ; Vu, Tuan V ; Liu, Di ; Sun, Yele ; Vlachou, Athanasia ; Moschos, Vaios ; Salazar, Gary ; Szidat, Sönke ; Prévôt, André S H ; Fu, Pingqing ; Harrison, Roy M ; Shi, Zongbo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p146t-2c9a6ca1a13e95062043581cc9eb9048e8962945004e1a8f86bfd1f0b5bf34f73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aerosols</topic><topic>Apportionment</topic><topic>Atmospheric models</topic><topic>Biomass</topic><topic>Biomass burning</topic><topic>Carbon 14</topic><topic>Cooking</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Fossil fuels</topic><topic>Fuel combustion</topic><topic>Mass balance</topic><topic>Megacities</topic><topic>Organic carbon</topic><topic>Speciation</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Xu, Jingsha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Srivastava, Deepchandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Xuefang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hou, Siqi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vu, Tuan V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Di</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Yele</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vlachou, Athanasia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moschos, Vaios</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salazar, Gary</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szidat, Sönke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prévôt, André S H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fu, Pingqing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harrison, Roy M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Zongbo</creatorcontrib><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>Faraday discussions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Xu, Jingsha</au><au>Srivastava, Deepchandra</au><au>Wu, Xuefang</au><au>Hou, Siqi</au><au>Vu, Tuan V</au><au>Liu, Di</au><au>Sun, Yele</au><au>Vlachou, Athanasia</au><au>Moschos, Vaios</au><au>Salazar, Gary</au><au>Szidat, Sönke</au><au>Prévôt, André S H</au><au>Fu, Pingqing</au><au>Harrison, Roy M</au><au>Shi, Zongbo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An evaluation of source apportionment of fine OC and PM2.5 by multiple methods: APHH-Beijing campaigns as a case study</atitle><jtitle>Faraday discussions</jtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>226</volume><spage>290</spage><epage>313</epage><pages>290-313</pages><issn>1359-6640</issn><eissn>1364-5498</eissn><abstract>This study aims to critically evaluate the source apportionment of fine particles by multiple receptor modelling approaches, including carbon mass balance modelling of filter-based radiocarbon (14C) data, Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) and Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) analysis on filter-based chemical speciation data, and PMF analysis on Aerosol Mass Spectrometer (AMS-PMF) or Aerosol Chemical Speciation Monitor (ACSM-PMF) data. These data were collected as part of the APHH-Beijing (Atmospheric Pollution and Human Health in a Chinese Megacity) field observation campaigns from 10th November to 12th December in winter 2016 and from 22nd May to 24th June in summer 2017. 14C analysis revealed the predominant contribution of fossil fuel combustion to carbonaceous aerosols in winter compared with non-fossil fuel sources, which is supported by the results from other methods. An extended Gelencsér (EG) method incorporating 14C data, as well as the CMB and AMS/ACSM-PMF methods, generated a consistent source apportionment for fossil fuel related primary organic carbon. Coal combustion, traffic and biomass burning POC were comparable for CMB and AMS/ACSM-PMF. There are uncertainties in the EG method when estimating biomass burning and cooking OC. The POC from cooking estimated by different methods was poorly correlated, suggesting a large uncertainty when differentiating this source type. The PM2.5 source apportionment results varied between different methods. Through a comparison and correlation analysis of CMB, PMF and AMS/ACSM-PMF, the CMB method appears to give the most complete and representative source apportionment of Beijing aerosols. Based upon the CMB results, fine aerosols in Beijing were mainly secondary inorganic ion formation, secondary organic aerosol formation, primary coal combustion and from biomass burning emissions.</abstract><cop>Cambridge</cop><pub>Royal Society of Chemistry</pub><doi>10.1039/d0fd00095g</doi><tpages>24</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1359-6640 |
ispartof | Faraday discussions, 2021-03, Vol.226, p.290-313 |
issn | 1359-6640 1364-5498 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2503453969 |
source | Royal Society Of Chemistry Journals 2008-; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Aerosols Apportionment Atmospheric models Biomass Biomass burning Carbon 14 Cooking Correlation analysis Fossil fuels Fuel combustion Mass balance Megacities Organic carbon Speciation Uncertainty |
title | An evaluation of source apportionment of fine OC and PM2.5 by multiple methods: APHH-Beijing campaigns as a case study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T02%3A58%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20evaluation%20of%20source%20apportionment%20of%20fine%20OC%20and%20PM2.5%20by%20multiple%20methods:%20APHH-Beijing%20campaigns%20as%20a%20case%20study&rft.jtitle=Faraday%20discussions&rft.au=Xu,%20Jingsha&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=226&rft.spage=290&rft.epage=313&rft.pages=290-313&rft.issn=1359-6640&rft.eissn=1364-5498&rft_id=info:doi/10.1039/d0fd00095g&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2503453969%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2503453969&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |