Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 353
Appendix C Summary of PM Source-Apportionment Studies in China Here we summarized the results from 11 typical studies. The following infor- mation was extracted from each publication: (1) sampling locations; (2) ambi- ent sampling periods, frequencies, and durations; (3) source categories, source profiles, and methods of obtaining profiles; (4) chemical and physical properties quantified at source and receptor; (5) CMB solution and evaluation methods; (6) source contribution estimates. Since most of results don’t reconcile with source modeling and emissions inventories, the description is omitted. This information is summarized in Table C-1. We can draw several conclusions from the comparison of the studies from Table C-1. 1. Geographic distribution. Most of the studies were conducted in cities in north China including Beijing (Zhang Y.H. et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2005; Song et al., 2006a, 2006b), Xi’an (Zhang X.Y. et al., 2001), Jinan (Feng et al., 2004), Yantai (Xu et al., 2001), Xining (Wang, 2006), Yinchuan (Sang et al., 2005). Studies in south China include Hong Kong (Lee et al., 1999; Ho et al., 2006), Nanjing (Hang et al., 2000), Chongqing (Tao et al., 2006). 2. Study Objecties. Most of these studies were undertaken to improve the source identification and support decision making. These studies were informa- tional rather than regulatory; there was a desire by decision makers to under- stand the relative contributions from different source types. The result of source apportionment study like Xi’an has been adapted by Xi’an municipal government (Zhang X.Y. et al., 2001). Residential coal has been replaced by natural gas, gasoline in taxi cars has also been replaced by natural gas, and open burning has been prohibited. Air quality in Xi’an has been improved largely. 

OCR for page 353
 APPENDIx C 3. Ambient Measurements. All the studies used the chemical measurements of elements (17-36 elements from Na to U). Studies in Beijing (Zhang Y.H. et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2005; Song et al., 2006a, 2006b), Jinan (Feng et al., 2004), Hong Kong PM2.5 (Ho et al., 2006), and Chongqing (Tao et al., 2006) also used chemical measurements of water-soluble ions (chloride [Cl–], nitrate [NO3–], sul- fate [SO42–], ammonium [NH4+], and sometimes sodium [Na+], potassium [K+], calcium [Ca2+]), and carbon (organic [OC] and elemental carbon [EC]). Studies in Xi’an (Zhang X.Y. et al., 2001), and Hong Kong PM10 (Lee et al., 1999) used the measurements of elements and ions. 4. Source Measurements and Pro��les. No area-specific source profile mea- surements were taken in studies of Beijing (Zhang Y.H. et al., 2004; Song et al., 2006a, 2006b), Yantai (Xu et al., 2001), Xining (Wang W., 2006), and Hong Kong (Lee et al., 1999; Ho et al., 2006). Only dust aerosol or dustfall samples from source-dominated microenvironments were taken in studies of Beijing (Zheng et al., 2005), Xi’an (Zhang X.Y. et al., 2001), Jinan (Feng et al., 2004), Yinchuan (Sang et al., 2005), Nanjing (Hang et al., 2000), and Chongqing (Tao et al., 2006). Other profiles like diesel engine exhaust, gasoline-powered vehicle exhaust were taken from earlier tests in the study area or similar areas (Feng et al., 2004; Zheng et al., 2005). 5. Source Contribution Estimates. The major sources including coal combus- tion dust, fugitive dust (soil dust), and construction dust accounted for 58 per- cent at Xi’an (Zhang X.Y. et al., 2001), 77 percent in Jinan (Feng et al., 2004), 67 percent in Yantai (Xu et al., 2001), 79.4 percent in Xining (Wang, 2006), 84.7 in Nanjing (Hang et al., 2000) for TSP fraction. They accounted for 72 percent in Jinan (Feng et al., 2004), 80 percent in Yinchuan (Sang et al., 2005), only 6.1 percent in Hong Kong (Lee et al., 1999) for PM10 fraction. Their percentage is 37.8 percent in Beijing (Zhang Y.H. et al., 2004), and 6-30 percent in Hong Kong (Ho et al., 2006) for PM2.5 fraction. Coal is the dominant energy source and construction activities are serious in most of cities in north China. Strong wind and dry weather results in the large fugitive dust (soil dust) in TSP in these cities. These three sources are also dominant sources contributed to PM10 in cities in north China, but not in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a developed city without intensive construction activities and coal utilization and coastal area with frequent precipitations, which lead to the small contribution from these three sources. In PM2.5 fraction, their contribution decreased because the increasing contribution from secondary sources and vehicular exhaust in Beijing and Hong Kong.

OCR for page 353
TABLE C-1 Summary of PM Source Apportionment Studies Using CMB and Other Receptor Models in China Source Apportionment Study, Location, Period, and Measurements Method Findings Northern China Solution: CMB Reference: Beijing PM2.5 study (Zhang Y.H. et al., Average CMB-calculated source contribution to PM2.5 (in % mass): 2004) When: 24-h samples were acquired during April 25-30, Source Type Annual 2000, August 18-25, 2000, October 30-November 4 and January 9-14, 2001. Coal combustion 16.4 Where: Three sites include Beijing Union University Vehicle exhaust 5.6 (BUU), Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine Construction dust 3.3 (CAPM), and Chinese Research Academy of Fugitive dust 18.1 Environmental Sciences (CRAES). Biomass burning 4.5 Ambient: Samples were acquired with a MOUDI-100 Secondary sulfate and nitrate 9.6 Organic matter 15.0 impactor, A-245 dichotomous sampler and a PM2.5 sampler and a self-developed sampler. The samples Unexplained 27.5 were analyzed for mass, 19 elements (by ICP- 122 AES), ions (NO3-, SO42-, and NH4+ by IC), carbon Average measured PM2.5 mass (µg m-3) (OC and EC by NIOSH), and organic compounds Number in Average Not reported (including PAHs by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry). Source: No area-specific source profile measurements were taken.  continued

OCR for page 353
TABLE C-1 Continued  Source Apportionment Study, Location, Period, and Measurements Method Findings Solution: PCA/ Reference: Beijing PM2.5 study (Zheng et al., 2005; Average calculated source contribution to PM2.5 (in % mass): Song et al., 2006a, 2006b) APCA, UNMIX, When: 24-h samples were acquired once every 6 days PMF, and CMB Source Type CMB PMF APCA UNMIx in January, April, July, and October in 2000. Where: Five sites include Ming Tombs (OT), airport Secondary sulfates 16.7 16.0 (NB), Beijing University (BJ), Dong Si EPB (XY), Secondary nitrates 10.7 15.0 23.1 28.0 and Yong Le Dian (CH). Secondary ammonium 6.4 Ambient: Samples were acquired with Total Particle Coal combustion 6.3 15.8 26.4 23.3 samplers and analyzed for mass, 19 elements (by Biomass aerosols 8.3 10.1 Motor vehicles 6.5 5.5 5.9 10.7 XRF), ions (NO3-, SO42-, and NH4+ by IC), carbon (OC and EC by NIOSH), and organic compounds Road dust a 12.3 7.0 7.1 8.3 (including PAHs by Gas Chromatography/Mass Industry 4.7 6.5 10.9 Spectrometry). Cigarette smoke 1.3 Source: No area-specific source profile measurements Vegetative detritus 1.0 were taken in PMF, APCA, and UNMIX studies Other organic matter 11.2 (Song et al., 2006a, 2006b). Dust and coal emission Unexplained 15.3 18.1 26.1 14.0 profiles were composed and other profiles were taken from earlier tests in the study area or similar Average measured areas in CMB study (Zheng et al., 2005). mass (µg m-3) b 101 93 96 96 Number in average 100 90 90 90 a Averaged in January, July, and October as a different dust signature used during April in CMB. b CMB: an average of the measured PM 2.5 mass concentrations in 100 samples; PMF: the contributions of apportioned dust storms were subtracted from the CMB value (101 µg m−3); PCA/APCS and UNMIX: averages of 90 samples (excluding 10 dust storm samples).

OCR for page 353
Reference: Xi'an TSP study (Zhang X.Y. et al., 2001) Solution: Average APCA-calculated source contribution to TSP (in % mass): When: 24-h samples were acquired from September APCA/CEB 1996 to August 1997. Source Type Annual Where: Four sites include east, south, west and center sites. Ambient: Samples were acquired with Coal combustion 37 bulk aerosol samplers and analyzed for mass, 20 Fugitive dust 21 elements (by PIXE), ions (by IC). Motor vehicle 20 Source: Dust samples of resuspended road dust, Agricultural & waste 12 construction dust and source-dominated samples Industrial 3 from industrial, motor vehicle, night market and Unexplained 8 dumpling site were taken and measured. Average measured mass (µg m–3) 410 Number in Average 299  continued

OCR for page 353
TABLE C-1 Continued  Source Apportionment Study, Location, Period, and Measurements Method Findings Reference: Jinan PM study (Feng et al., 2004) Solution: CMB Average source contribution (in % mass): When: 24-h samples were acquired from December 15-30 1999, April 30-May 6 2000, September 7-15, Source Type TSP PM0 2000. Where: Five sites includes Jinan Chemical Factory, Fugitive dust 34 30 Jinan Environmental Mornitoring Station, Shandan Coal combustion 25 27 Seed Station, Jinan Machine Tool Factory and Soil dust 18 15 Official Resting Place. Motor vehicle exhausts 6 9 Cement dust 2 3 Ambient: TSP and PM10 samples were acquired with KB120 medium-vol sampler and analyzed for mass, Unexplained 15 16 17 elements (by ICP-MS), ions (Cl-, NO3-, SO42-, Average measured mass (µg m–3) 304 175 and NH4+ by IC, Na+ and K+ by AAS), and carbon (OC and EC by TOR). Number in average no reported no reported Source: Dust samples from fugitive dust, soil dust, coal combustion, cement dust, and steel industry were taken and measured. Vehicular exhaust profile was used (Chow et al., 1994).

OCR for page 353
Reference: Yantai TSP study (Xu et al., 2001) Solution: CMB Average source contribution (in % mass): When: 30-min samples were acquired. Where: Three sites include east, west, and center Source Type Annual stations. Ambient: Samples were acquired with KB120 medium- Construction dust 46 vol samplers and analyzed for mass and 21 elements Residential coal combustion 21 (by XRF). Heavy vehicular exhaust 12 Source: No area-specific source profile measurements Coal burning boiler 10 were taken. Metal production plant 5 Marine aerosol 6 Mass not reported Number 101 Reference: Xining TSP study (Wang, 2006) Solution: CMB Average source contribution (in % mass): When: 30-min samples were acquired for 5 times during December 2001, May, August, and October Source Type Annual 2002. Where: Three sites include Environmental Mornitoring Coal combustion dust 37.0 Station, Silu Hospital, and Medicine Storehouse. Soil dust 27.0 Ambient: Samples were acquired with KB120 medium- Construction dust 15.4 vol samplers and analyzed for mass and 21 elements Smelting dust 2.9 (by XRF). Source: No area-specific source profile measurements Mass not reported were taken. Number 45  continued

OCR for page 353
TABLE C-1 Continued 0 Source Apportionment Study, Location, Period, and Measurements Method Findings Solution: CMB Average source contribution (in % mass): Reference: Yinchuan PM10 study (Sang et al., 2005) When: 24-h samples were acquired for 5 times during January, April, July, and October 2002. Source Type Annual Where: One site in Yinchuan Environmental Mornitoring Station. Coal combustion dust 36.7 Soil dust 33.9 Ambient: Samples were acquired with Anderson PM10 samplers and analyzed for mass and 17 elements Construction dust 9.4 (by XRF). Smelting dust 6.5 Source: Dust samples from fugitive dust, soil dust, Unexplained 13.5 coal combustion, construction dust, and steel industry were taken and measured. Mass 232 Number 20 South China

OCR for page 353
Solution: PMF Reference: Hong Kong PM10 study (Lee et al., 1999) Average PMF-calculated source contribution to PM10 (in % mass): When: 24-h samples were acquired once 6 days from 1992 to 1994. Source Type Annual Where: 11 sites include Central Western, Junk Bay, Taipo, Sham Shui Po, Shatin, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Secondary ammonium sulfate 37.8 Kong South, Kwai Chung, Kwun Tong, Tsuen Wan, Chloride depleted marine aerosols 14.3 Mongkok. Marine aerosols 6.9 Ambient: Samples were acquired with Anderson hi-vol Crustal/soil dust 6.1 samplers and analyzed for mass, 13 elements (by Non-ferrous smelters 1.2 ICP-AES) and 6 ions (by IC) Vehicular emission 0.8 Source: No area-specific source profile measurements Particulater bromide 0.8 were taken. Particulater copper 0.6 Fuel oil burning 0.2 Unexplained 31.4 Mass 15.2 Number 1516  continued

OCR for page 353
TABLE C-1 Continued  Source Apportionment Study, Location, Period, and Measurements Method Findings Solution: APCA Reference: Hong Kong PM2.5 study (Ho et al., 2006) Average APCA-calculated source contribution to PM2.5 (in % mass): When: 24-h samples were acquired once every 6 days from November 2000 to February 2001 and June Source Type PolyU KT 2001 to August 2001. Where: Two sites include PolyU and KT. Diesel emission 47 4 Ambient: Samples were acquired with Anderson Secondary aerosol 18 Instruments hi-vol samplers and analyzed for mass, Crustal matter 6 30 Automobile emission + secondary aerosol 15 44 17 elements (by ICP-MS), ions (Cl-, NO3-, SO42-, Oil combustion 0 4 and NH4+ by IC, Na+ and K+ by AAS), and carbon (OC and EC by TOR). unexplained 14 8 Source: No area-specific source profile measurements were taken. Average measured mass (µg m–3) 41.7 43.9 Number in average 0 29 Reference: Nanjing TSP study (Hang et al., 2000) Solution: CMB Average source contribution (in % mass): When: Samples were acquired in October 1998, January, April, and July 1999. Source Type Annual Where: Seven sites include Zhonghua Gate, Maigao Bridge, Ruijin Road, Xuanwu Lake, Zhongshan Coal combustion dust 25.7 Tomb, Chaochang Gate, Shanxi Road. Soil dust 19.2 Ambient: 6-h samples were acquired with Kb-6A Construction dust 39.8 samplers and analyzed for mass and 17 elements Smelting dust 1.8 by XRF Unexpained 13.5 Source: Dust samples from soil dust, coal combustion, construction dust, and steel industry were taken and Average measured mass (µg m–3) no reported measured. Number no reported

OCR for page 353
Reference: Chongqing TSP study (Tao et al., 2006) Solution: CMB Average source contribution (in % mass): When: 11.5-h samples were acquired for two times once 6 days during July, October 2001, Janunary Source Type Annual and April 2002. Where: Seven sites include Beipei background site, Coal combustion dust 18.0 Research academy of Environmental Science, Soil dust 30.0 No 2 Hospital, Shaping Meteorological Station, Construction dust 25.0 Nan’an Environmental Protection Office, Jiulong Smelting dust 8.0 Environmental Protection Office and Yubei Vehicular dust 10.0 Environmental Protection Office. Unexpained 9.0 Ambient: Samples were acquired with TH-150C medium-vol samplers and analyzed for mass, 36 Average measured mass (µg m–3) 192 elements (by XRF), ions (by IC) and carbon (OC, Number 336 EC by MT-5 elemental analyzer). Source: Dust samples from fugitive dust, coal combustion, construction dust, vehicular dust, and steel industry were taken and measured. 

OCR for page 353