...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Atmospheric environment >Evaluation of the CMB and PMF models using organic molecular markers in fine particulate matter collected during the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study
【24h】

Evaluation of the CMB and PMF models using organic molecular markers in fine particulate matter collected during the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study

机译：在匹兹堡空气质量研究期间，使用有机分子标记对细颗粒物中的CMB和PMF模型进行评估

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This analysis investigated different possible strategies for source apportionment of airborne fine particulate matter (PM_(2.5)) using data collected as part of the Pittsburgh Air Quality Study (PAQS). More specifically, we apportioned the organic fraction of the winter and summer season PM2.5 using two source-receptor models - the EPA Chemical Mass Balance 8.2 (CMB) and EPA Positive Matrix Factorization 1.1 (PMF) models - and tested several case scenarios with each model by varying either the chemical species or source profiles used as model input. Moreover, we added the constraint of selecting only individual molecular marker species with concentrations above their minimum quantitative limits. Model results suggest that the molecular marker and source profile selection can strongly affect the model, as reflected in the source contribution estimates determined by both CMB and PMF. Biomass burning and mobile emissions sources were identified by both models as being major source contributors in Pittsburgh. A third source was consistent with a meat cooking profile but was more likely a combination of cooking and secondary organic aerosol. As expected, the relative proportion of each source's contribution depended on both the season and on whether the CMB or PMF model was applied. Selecting fewer species in CMB resulted in less mass being apportioned, and an unrealistically large wood burning contribution estimate. Swapping a wildfire profile for one of the two wood burning profiles also resulted in less mass being apportioned in the winter. The results suggest that CMB can distinguish between fireplace burning and wildfire contributions when appropriate species are included. The gasoline/diesel split also varied by up to an order of magnitude, depending on which model was applied and which species were fit.
机译：这项分析使用了作为匹兹堡空气质量研究（PAQS）的一部分而收集的数据，研究了空气中细颗粒物（PM_（2.5））的源分配的不同可能策略。更具体地说，我们使用两种来源-接收器模型-EPA化学物质平衡8.2（CMB）和EPA阳性基质分解1.1（PMF）模型分配了冬季和夏季PM2.5的有机成分，并使用通过更改用作模型输入的化学种类或来源配置文件，每个模型。此外，我们增加了仅选择浓度高于其最小定量限的单个分子标记物种类的限制。模型结果表明，分子标记和来源分布图选择会强烈影响模型，这反映在CMB和PMF确定的来源贡献估算中。两种模型都将生物质燃烧和移动排放源确定为匹兹堡的主要排放源。第三种来源与肉的烹饪方式相符，但更可能是烹饪和二次有机气溶胶的结合。正如预期的那样，每个来源贡献的相对比例取决于季节以及是否使用CMB或PMF模型。在CMB中选择较少的物种会导致分配的质量减少，并且估计的木材燃烧贡献不切实际。将野火配置文件交换为两个木材燃烧配置文件之一也可以减少冬季分配的质量。结果表明，如果包括适当的物种，CMB可以区分壁炉燃烧和野火贡献。汽油/柴油的分配比例也可变化一个数量级，具体取决于所应用的模型和适合的物种。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号