The Variation in Chemical Composition and Source Apportionment of PM2.5 before, during, and after COVID-19 Restrictions in Zhengzhou, China

被引:2
|
作者
Huang, Jinting [1 ,2 ]
Cai, Aomeng [2 ,3 ]
Wang, Weisi [4 ]
He, Kuan [1 ]
Zou, Shuangshuang [2 ]
Ma, Qingxia [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Yellow River Conservancy Tech Inst, Coll Surveying & Mapping Engn, Kaifeng 475004, Peoples R China
[2] Henan Univ, Coll Geog & Environm Sci, Key Lab Geospatial Technol Middle & Lower Yellow R, Minist Educ, Kaifeng 475004, Peoples R China
[3] Henan Key Lab Integrated Air Pollut Control & Ecol, Kaifeng 475004, Peoples R China
[4] Henan Ecol & Environm Monitoring Ctr, Zhengzhou 450007, Peoples R China
关键词
haze; reduced PM2.5 level; stable NO3- level; high O-3; FORMATION MECHANISMS; PARTICULATE NITRATE; NORTHERN CHINA; SEVERE HAZE; SULFATE; WINTER; PARTICLES; EVOLUTION; AEROSOLS; GASES;
D O I
10.3390/toxics12010081
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Despite significant improvements in air quality during and after COVID-19 restrictions, haze continued to occur in Zhengzhou afterwards. This paper compares ionic compositions and sources of PM2.5 before (2019), during (2020), and after (2021) the restrictions to explore the reasons for the haze. The average concentration of PM2.5 decreased by 28.5% in 2020 and 27.9% in 2021, respectively, from 102.49 mu g m(-3) in 2019. The concentration of secondary inorganic aerosols (SIAs) was 51.87 mu g m(-3) in 2019, which decreased by 3.1% in 2020 and 12.8% in 2021. In contrast, the contributions of SIAs to PM2.5 increased from 50.61% (2019) to 68.6% (2020) and 61.2% (2021). SIAs contributed significantly to PM2.5 levels in 2020-2021. Despite a 22 similar to 62% decline in NOx levels in 2020-2021, the increased O-3 caused a similar NO3- concentration (20.69 similar to 23.00 mu g m(-3)) in 2020-2021 to that (22.93 mu g m(-3)) in 2019, hindering PM2.5 reduction in Zhengzhou. Six PM2.5 sources, including secondary inorganic aerosols, industrial emissions, coal combustion, biomass burning, soil dust, and traffic emissions, were identified by the positive matrix factorization model in 2019-2021. Compared to 2019, the reduction in PM2.5 from the secondary aerosol source in 2020 and 2021 was small, and the contribution of secondary aerosol to PM2.5 increased by 13.32% in 2020 and 12.94% in 2021. In comparison, the primary emissions, including biomass burning, traffic, and dust, were reduced by 29.71% in 2020 and 27.7% in 2021. The results indicated that the secondary production did not significantly contribute to the PM2.5 decrease during and after the COVID-19 restrictions. Therefore, it is essential to understand the formation of secondary aerosols under high O-3 and low precursor gases to mitigate air pollution in the future.
引用
收藏
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Chemical characteristics and source apportionment of PM2.5 between heavily polluted days and other days in Zhengzhou, China
    Nan Jiang
    Qiang Li
    Fangcheng Su
    Qun Wang
    Xue Yu
    Panru Kang
    Ruiqin Zhang
    Xiaoyan Tang
    Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2018, (04) : 188 - 198
  • [22] Chemical characteristics and source apportionment of PM2.5 between heavily polluted days and other days in Zhengzhou, China
    Jiang, Nan
    Li, Qiang
    Su, Fangcheng
    Wang, Qun
    Yu, Xue
    Kang, Panru
    Zhang, Ruiqin
    Tang, Xiaoyan
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, 2018, 66 : 188 - 198
  • [23] Chemical composition and source apportionment of PM2.5 in Seoul during 2018-2020
    Jeong, Min Jae
    Hwang, Seung-On
    Yoo, Hee-Jung
    Oh, Sang Min
    Jang, Junhyuk
    Lee, Younjun
    Kim, Taeyun
    Kim, Seongheon
    ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2024, 15 (06)
  • [24] Chemical composition characteristics and source analysis of PM2.5 in Jiaxing, China: insights into the effect of COVID-19 outbreak
    Xiong, Chuanfang
    Zhang, Yinglong
    Yan, Jing
    Yang, Xiaoxia
    Wang, Qiongzhen
    Tu, Rui
    He, Yi
    ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, 2023, 44 (04) : 552 - 561
  • [25] Chemical speciation and source apportionment of ambient PM2.5 in New Delhi before, during, and after the Diwali fireworks
    Manchanda, Chirag
    Kumar, Mayank
    Singh, Vikram
    Hazarika, Naba
    Faisal, Mohd
    Lalchandani, Vipul
    Shukla, Ashutosh
    Dave, Jay
    Rastogi, Neeraj
    Tripathi, Sachchida Nand
    ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTION RESEARCH, 2022, 13 (06)
  • [26] Changes of chemical composition and source apportionment of PM2.5 during 2013-2017 in urban Handan, China
    Zhao, Le
    Wang, Litao
    Tan, Jihua
    Duan, Jingchun
    Ma, Xiao
    Zhang, Chengyu
    Ji, Shangping
    Qi, Mengyao
    Lu, XiaoHan
    Wang, Yu
    Wang, Qing
    Xu, Ruiguang
    ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2019, 206 : 119 - 131
  • [27] Chemical composition and source apportionment of ambient PM2.5 during the non-heating period in Taian, China
    Liu, Baoshuang
    Song, Na
    Dai, Qili
    Mei, Rubo
    Sui, Benhui
    Bi, Xiaohui
    Feng, Yinchang
    ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, 2016, 170 : 23 - 33
  • [28] Composition analysis of PM2.5 at multiple sites in Zhengzhou, China: implications for characterization and source apportionment at different pollution levels
    Xiaohan Liu
    Nan Jiang
    Ruiqin Zhang
    Xue Yu
    Shengli Li
    Qingqing Miao
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021, 28 : 59329 - 59344
  • [29] Chemical Composition and Source Apportionment of PM2.5 in Urban Areas of Xiangtan, Central South China
    Ma, Xiaoyao
    Xiao, Zhenghui
    He, Lizhi
    Shi, Zongbo
    Cao, Yunjiang
    Tian, Zhe
    Tuan Vu
    Liu, Jisong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2019, 16 (04)
  • [30] Temporal distribution and source apportionment of PM2.5 chemical composition in Xinjiang, NW-China
    Turap, Yusan
    Talifu, Dilinuer
    Wang, Xinming
    Abulizi, Abulikemu
    Maihemuti, Mailikezhati
    Tursun, Yalkunjan
    Ding, Xiang
    Aierken, Tuergong
    Rekefu, Suwubinuer
    ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, 2019, 218 : 257 - 268