天津市市郊社区不同采暖期昼夜PM<sub>2.5</sub>成分及来源差异

赵岩; 冯利红; 姜长城; 李建平; 商博东; 吴颖虹; 吕光

doi:10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2019.09.020

天津市市郊社区不同采暖期昼夜PM_2.5成分及来源差异

doi: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2019.09.020

1.
300011 天津, 天津市疾病预防控制中心环境与健康室
2.
300011 天津, 天津市疾病预防控制中心卫生检测室
3.
300300 天津, 天津市东丽区疾病预防控制中心职业卫生科

基金项目:

大气重污染成因与治理攻关项目 DQGG0401

天津市疾病预防控制中心科技基金项目 CDCKY1404

详细信息

通讯作者:
赵岩. E-mail: kevin2002a@163.com

中图分类号: R126.8
计量
- 文章访问数: 305
- HTML全文浏览量: 143
- PDF下载量: 20
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2019-02-15
- 修回日期: 2019-07-10
- 刊出日期: 2019-09-10

Composition and source apportionment differences of daytime and nighttime samples of PM_2.5 in the community of suburb in Tianjin during different heating periods

1.
Department of Environmental and Health, Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tianjin 300011, China
2.
Department of Hygienic Testing, Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tianjin 300011, China
3.
Department of Occupational Health, Dongli Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Tianjin 300300, China

Funds:

National Research program for Key Issues in the Air Pollution Control DQGG0401

Tianjin Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Technology Funds CDCKY1404

More Information

Corresponding author: ZHAO Yan, E-mail: kevin2002a@163.com

摘要

摘要: 目的了解在采暖和非采暖期天津市周边区域居民社区不同时段空气中细颗粒物（fine particulate matter，PM_2.5）的污染和来源差异。方法采集市郊某社区2015-2016年间每日昼夜两时段的PM_2.5样品，分别检测PM_2.5样品的质量浓度，金属元素，多环芳烃和无机水溶性离子浓度，并运用正矩阵因子分解模型分析社区不同时段空气中PM_2.5的金属元素，多环芳烃和无机水溶性离子的来源差异。结果在采暖期城市周边居民社区部分金属元素日间时段浓度高于夜间时段，在非采暖期部分多环芳烃和无机水溶性离子浓度夜间时段高于日间时段，而部分金属元素日间时段浓度高于夜间时段，采暖期城市周边居民社区空气PM_2.5日间时段的主要来源为燃煤排放，来源贡献率为50.1%，夜间时段的主要来源分别为二次气溶胶和汽、柴油车燃料燃烧排放，来源贡献率分别为41.0%和35.9%。非采暖期城市周边居民社区空气PM_2.5日间时段的主要来源为室内活动排放，夜间时段主要来源为二次气溶胶，来源贡献率分别为29.8%和31.1%。结论城市周边区域居民社区空气PM_2.5的污染状况较为严重，不同采暖期和不同时段的污染来源均存在差异。
- PM_2.5 /
- 采暖期 /
- 来源贡献率 /
- 正矩阵因子分解 /
- 时段
Abstract: Objective To study the pollution and source apportionment differences of different periods PM_2.5 in the residential community of suburb in Tianjin City during heating and non-heating periods. Methods From 2015 to 2016, daytime and nighttime PM_2.5 samples were collected at a community in the suburb of Tianjin. The mass concentration of PM_2.5 samples and major chemical components in PM_2.5, including metal elements, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and inorganic water-soluble ions were monitored. Positive matrix factorization (PMF) model was used to apportion potential sources of metal elements, PAHs and inorganic water-soluble ions in daytime and nighttime PM_2.5. Results In the heating period, the concentrations of some metal elements of suburban residential community were higher in the daytime than in the nighttime. In the non-heating period, the concentrations of some PAHs and inorganic water-soluble ions of suburban residential community were higher in the nighttime than in the daytime. Meanwhile, the concentrations of some metal elements were greater in the daytime than in the nighttime. When in heating period, the main source of PM_2.5 in the suburban residential community was coal combustion during daytime and its source contribution rate was 50.1% while secondary aerosol and fuel combustion emissions of gasoline and diesel vehicles were main sources during nighttime and their source contribution rates were 41.0% and 35.9%. The principal source of daytime PM_2.5 in the suburban residential community was indoor activity emissions during non-heating period, and secondary aerosol was main source during nighttime and their source contribution rates were 29.8% and 31.1%. Conclusions The pollution status of PM_2.5 in residential communities of suburban is serious, and the source apportionment of day and night PM_2.5 samples has different in different heating periods.
- PM_2.5 /
- Heating period /
- Source contribution rate /
- Positive matrix factorization /
- Period

HTML全文

图 1 采暖期城市周边社区不同时段空气中PM_2.5来源贡献率

Figure 1. The source contribution rates of day and night PM_2.5 of suburban residential community during the heating period

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 非采暖期城市周边社区空气PM_2.5不同时段来源贡献率

Figure 2. The source contribution rates of day and night PM_2.5 of suburban residential community during the non-heating period

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 不同采暖期天津市市郊昼夜PM_2.5成分的浓度差异[M(P₂₅，P₇₅)]

Table 1. The difference of various components in day and night PM_2.5 of suburban residential community in Tianjin under different heating periods [M(P₂₅, P₇₅)]

成分	采暖期				非采暖期
成分	日间	夜间	Z值	P值	日间	夜间	Z值	P值
Phe (ng/m³)	0.73(0.28, 3.96)	0.63(0.28, 3.80)	0.22	0.823	0.28(0.28, 0.95)	0.28(0.28, 0.62)	0.21	0.835
Fl(ng/m³)	3.55(1.18, 14.25)	2.57(0.72, 12.20)	0.56	0.576	0.28(0.28, 4.17)	0.28(0.28, 3.68)^b	2.12	0.034
Pyr(ng/m³)	3.27(1.03, 11.80)	2.36(0.68, 11.30)	0.45	0.653	0.40(0.20, 3.80)	0.43(0.20, 3.89)	1.19	0.234
BaA(ng/m³)	1.43(0.24, 9.73)	1.68(0.24, 10.99)	0.49	0.621	-^a	0.24(0.24, 0.90)^b	4.32	＜0.001
BbF(ng/m³)	5.05(1.42, 21.90)	4.84(1.47, 24.00)	0.06	0.949	0.28(0.28, 1.01)	0.68(0.28, 4.98)^b	4.19	＜0.001
BkF(ng/m³)	1.46(0.66, 6.65)	1.21(0.41, 7.09)	0.27	0.787	0.24(0.24, 0.99)	0.24(0.24, 1.61)^b	2.69	0.007
BaP(ng/m³)	1.34(0.28, 11.91)	1.74(0.28, 14.15)	0.38	0.705	-^a	0.28(0.28, 1.53)^b	4.32	＜0.001
InP(ng/m³)	2.27(0.45, 12.40)	1.86(0.52, 12.35)	0.15	0.882	-^a	0.26(0.26, 0.76)^b	4.32	＜0.001
DahA(ng/m³)	0.41(0.14, 3.15)	0.37(0.14, 2.87)	0.26	0.795	-^a	-^a	0.00	1.000
BghiP(ng/m³)	2.27(0.71, 13.36)	1.62(0.92, 13.20)	0.31	0.758	0.26(0.26, 0.91)	0.44(0.26, 1.83)^b	3.81	＜0.001
Be(ng/m³)	0.02(0.01, 0.05)^b	0.01(0.01, 0.02)	2.07	0.038	-^a	-^a	0.00	1.000
Na(μg/m³)	0.01(0.01, 0.40)	0.01(0.01, 0.50)	0.41	0.679	0.13(0.01, 0.84)^b	0.01(0.01, 1.99)	2.69	0.007
Mg(μg/m³)	0.05(0.00, 0.16)	0.04(0.00, 0.10)	0.78	0.437	0.22(0.00, 0.34)^b	0.13(0.00, 2.02)	2.40	0.016
Al(μg/m³)	0.25(0.12, 0.40)^b	0.11(0.06, 0.21)	2.60	0.009	0.23(0.02, 0.52)^b	0.19(0.02, 0.40)	2.15	0.031
Ga(μg/m³)	0.28(0.03, 0.59)	0.24(0.01, 0.59)	0.32	0.751	1.13(0.01, 1.83)^b	0.62(0.01, 5.87)	3.02	0.003
V(ng/m³)	3.47(1.66, 6.44)	2.34(0.74, 5.46)	1.45	0.147	7.43(0.03, 15.82)^b	2.35(0.03, 10.94)	3.75	＜0.001
Cr(ng/m³)	2.30(0.51, 4.26)	1.62(0.60, 3.61)	1.14	0.253	1.01(0.08, 15.04)	0.41(0.08, 6.86)	1.50	0.135
Ni(ng/m³)	3.10(1.83, 5.28)	2.38(1.24, 3.57)	1.85	0.065	2.84(0.05, 7.42)^b	1.63(0.05, 5.07)	3.71	＜0.001
Cu(μg/m³)	0.04(0.02, 0.07)^b	0.02(0.01, 0.05)	2.52	0.012	0.02(0.00, 0.10)	0.01(0.00, 0.04)	1.41	0.157
Zn(μg/m³)	0.59(0.21, 0.80)^b	0.28(0.08, 0.52)	2.55	0.011	0.15(0.04, 0.51)	0.11(0.00, 0.45)	0.96	0.338
As(μg/m³)	0.02(0.01, 0.03)^b	0.01(0.01, 0.02)	2.55	0.011	6.04(1.91, 17.90)	4.27(0.09, 13.40)	1.50	0.133
Se(μg/m³)	0.01(0.01, 0.01)^b	0.01(0.00, 0.01)	2.45	0.014	0.00(0.00, 0.01)^b	0.00(0.00, 0.01)	3.31	0.001
Cd(ng/m³)	5.53(2.48, 7.66)^b	2.27(1.06, 5.50)	2.60	0.009	0.71(0.01, 5.06)	0.89(0.01, 3.42)	0.68	0.495
Hg(ng/m³)	0.05(0.05, 0.08)^b	0.05(0.05, 0.05)	2.48	0.013	-^a	-^a	0.00	1.000
TI(ng/m³)	1.77(0.82, 2.81)^b	1.18(0.49, 1.82)	2.67	0.007	0.24(0.01, 1.96)	0.41(0.01, 1.46)	0.22	0.828
Pb(μg/m³)	0.12(0.07, 0.16)^b	0.07(0.04, 0.11)	2.89	0.004	0.04(0.01, 0.09)	0.04(0.00, 0.09)	1.56	0.119
Cl^-(μg/m³)	4.92(2.03, 8.74)	5.18(2.01, 8.93)	0.12	0.903	0.39(0.01, 7.01)	1.60(0.70, 5.62)^b	6.69	＜0.001
SO₄^2-(μg/m³)	20.80(11.17, 33.69)	16.70(6.93, 24.44)	1.52	0.129	11.06(0.01, 28.66)	11.06(4.83, 26.24)	0.39	0.694
NO₃^-(μg/m³)	25.30(12.60, 44.95)	16.70(7.31, 36.01)	1.26	0.207	2.79(0.01, 18.66)	10.66(2.84, 19.63)^b	5.29	＜0.001
NH₄⁺(μg/m³)	21.20(9.50, 28.00)	13.40(5.31, 23.36)	1.42	0.156	1.42(0.04, 20.38)	8.35(0.04, 14.03)^b	2.60	0.009
注：^a表示该成分浓度数值为常量；^b表示昼夜浓度比较差异有统计学意义，P < 0.05。

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(17)

[1]	Kloog I, Ridgway B, Koutrakis P, et al. Long- and short-term exposure to PM_2.5 and mortality: using novel exposure models[J]. Epidemiology, 2013, 24(4): 555-561. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318294beaa.
[2]	张经纬, 冯利红, 侯常春, 等. 天津市大气污染对儿童呼吸系统疾病影响的病例交叉研究[J]. 中华疾病控制杂志, 2019, 23(5): 545-549. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2019.05.011. Zhang JW, Feng LH, Hou CC, et al. The impact of air pollution on children's respiratory disease in Tianjin: a case over study[J]. Chin J Dis Control Prev, 2019, 23(5): 545-549. DOI: 10.16462/j.cnki.zhjbkz.2019.05.011.
[3]	李恩平. 天津市三个层面区域经济关系及优化对策研究[J]. 天津商业大学学报, 2017, 37(1): 38-44. DOI: 1674-2362(2017)01-0038-07. Li EP. Regional economic relations and optimization countermeasures at three levels in Tianjin metropolitan area[J]. Journal of Tianjin University of Commerce, 2017, 37(1): 38-44. DOI: 1674-2362(2017)01-0038-07.
[4]	Norris G, Duvall R, Brown S, et al. EPA positive matrix factorization (PMF 5.0) fundamentals and user guide[R]. Washington DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014.
[5]	Paatero P, Tapper U. Analysis of different modes of factor analysis as least squares fit problem[J]. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 1993, 18(2): 183-194. DOI: 10.1016/0169-7439(93)80055-M.
[6]	Bragato M, Joshi K, Carlson JB, et al. Combustion of coal, bagasse and blends thereof: Part Ⅱ: Speciation of PAH emission[J]. Fuel, 2012, 96(6): 51-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.11.069.
[7]	Birmili W, Allen AG, Bary F, et al. Trace metal concentrations and water solubility in size-fractionated atmospheric particles and influence of road traffic[J]. Environ Sci Technol, 2006, 40(4): 1144-1153. DOI: 10.1021/es0486925.
[8]	Yao XH, Chan CK, Fang M, et al. The water-soluble ionic composition of PM_2.5 in Shanghai and Beijing, China[J]. Atmos Environ, 2002, 36(26): 4223-4234. DOI: 10.1016/s1352-2310(02)00342-4.
[9]	Xie Y, Zhao B. Chemical composition of outdoor and indoor PM_2.5 collected during haze events: transformations and modified source contributions resulting from outdoor-to-indoor transport[J]. Indoor Air, 2018, 28(6): 828-839. DOI: 10.1111/ina.12503.
[10]	Yu L, Wang G, Zhang R, et al. Characterization and source apportionment of PM_2.5 in an urban environment in Beijing[J]. Aerosol Air Qual Res, 2013, 13(2): 574-583. DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2012.07.0192.
[11]	Hagler GS, Bergin MH, Salmon LG, et al. Source areas and chemical composition of fine particulate matter in the Pearl River Delta region of China[J]. Atmos Environ, 2006, 40(20): 3802-3815. DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.02.032.
[12]	Zhang J, Zhou X, Wang Z, et al. Trace elements in PM_2.5 in Shandong province: source identification and health risk assessment[J]. Sci Total Environ, 2017, 621(8): 558-577. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.292.
[13]	Chin JY, Batterman SA, Northrop WF, et al. Gaseous and particulate emissions from diesel engines at idle and under load: comparison of biodiesel blend and ultralow sulfur diesel fuels[J]. Energy Fuels, 2012, 26(11): 6737-6748. DOI: 10.1021/ef300421h.
[14]	Guarieiro ALN, JSantos VS, Eiguren-Fernandez A, et al. Redox activity and PAH content in size-classified nanoparticles emitted by a diesel engine fuelled with biodiesel and diesel blends[J]. Fuel, 2014, 116(2): 490-497. DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2013.08.029.
[15]	Liao HT, Chou CC, Chow JC, et al. Source and risk apportionment of selected VOCs and PM_2.5 species using partially constrained receptor models with multiple time resolution data[J]. Environ Pollut, 2015, 205(10): 121-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.05.035.
[16]	Yang Y, Liu L, Xu C, et al. Source apportionment and influencing factor analysis of residential indoor PM_2.5 in Beijing[J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2018, 15(4): 686-704. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15040686.
[17]	Turap Y, Talifu D, Wang X, et al. Concentration characteristics, source apportionment, and oxidative damage of PM_2.5-bound PAHs in petrochemical region in Xinjiang, NW China[J]. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2018, 25(23): 22629-22640. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-2082-3.