| 国内外PM2.5源谱对比及其对空气质量模拟效果的影响 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 夏泽群,范小莉,黄志炯,刘郁葱,殷晓鸿,叶潇,郑君瑜.国内外PM2.5源谱对比及其对空气质量模拟效果的影响[J].环境科学研究,2017,30(3):359-367. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 夏泽群 范小莉 黄志炯 刘郁葱 殷晓鸿 叶潇 郑君瑜 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 华南理工大学环境与能源学院, 广东 广州 510006 |
| |
| 基金项目： | 国家杰出青年科学基金项目(41325020)；非道路环保公益项目(204109012)；国家科技支撑项目(2014BAC21B02)[ZK)] |
| |
| 摘 要： | 对比了国内外固定燃烧源、工业过程源、道路移动源和扬尘源等排放源PM2.5成分谱之间的差异，并利用CMAQ（区域空气质量模型）模拟识别各PM2.5成分谱之间的差异对空气质量模拟影响较大的排放源.结果表明:① 由于国内外发展水平、排放标准、采样分析条件以及排放源除尘设备等的差异，各排放源PM2.5成分谱差异较大；② PM2.5成分谱差异较大的源主要有燃煤电厂、水泥制造、重型柴油车和道路扬尘等，而差异较大的组分主要有SO42-、NO3-和Ca等；③ 道路移动源源谱本地化对PM2.5的模拟影响最大，其次为扬尘源和工业过程源，而固定燃烧源则相较最小，其中道路移动源源谱本地化模拟案例与基线的PM2.5模拟质量浓度绝对差值为0.27μg/m3，各组分质量浓度差系数之和为52.60×10-3 μg/（m3·kg），而固定燃烧源源谱本地化模拟案例PM2.5模拟质量浓度绝对差值仅为0.10μg/m3，各组分之和为2.12×10-3 μg/（m3·kg）.研究显示，有必要采用统一的标准开展本地源成分谱测试工作，为源解析及模型模拟提供基础性数据，而从对空气质量模型模拟影响的角度出发，优先建立道路移动源本地化PM2.5成分谱较为重要.
|
| 关 键 词： | PM2.5 成分谱 CMAQ 珠三角 模拟影响 |
| 收稿时间： | 2016/8/6 0:00:00 |
| 修稿时间： | 2016/12/5 0:00:00 |
Comparison of Domestic and Foreign PM2.5 Source Profiles and Influence on Air Quality Simulation |
| |
| XIA Zequn,FAN Xiaoli,HUANG Zhijiong,LIU Yucong,YIN Xiaohong,YE Xiao and ZHENG Junyu.Comparison of Domestic and Foreign PM2.5 Source Profiles and Influence on Air Quality Simulation[J].Research of Environmental Sciences,2017,30(3):359-367. |
| |
| Authors: | XIA Zequn FAN Xiaoli HUANG Zhijiong LIU Yucong YIN Xiaohong YE Xiao and ZHENG Junyu |
| |
| Affiliation: | College of Environment and Energy, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China |
| |
| Abstract: | Fine particulate matter(PM2.5) chemically-speciated source profiles of stationary combustion sources, industrial process sources, on-road mobile source and fugitive dust source derived from local studies and SPECIATE database were compared.We used the regional air quality model CMAQ to identify the influence of different source profiles on the simulation results.The results showed that:(1) PM2.5 chemical source profiles derived from local studies and SPECIATE database were different due to the discrepancy of the development level, emission standards, sampling and analysis method and dust removal equipment.(2) Sources with large differences were coal combustion power plants, cement manufacturing, heavy diesel vehicles and road dust, and chemical components with large differences were SO42-, NO3- and Ca.(3) Differences in on-road mobile source profiles affected the simulations the most(0.27 μg/m3 on average), followed by those in fugitive dust and industrial process.Differences in stationary combustion had smaller impact on the simulations(only 0.10 μg/m3 on average).The results showed that it is imperative to adopt uniform sampling and analysis methods in the development of source profiles in order to provide input data for source apportionment or model simulation.Considering the simulation impacts, developing local on-road mobile source profiles is a priority task. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《环境科学研究》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《环境科学研究》下载全文 |
|
