不同污染天气下大气颗粒物及化学成分干沉降通量的粒径演变特征

doi:10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2024.12.006

生态环境学报 ›› 2024, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (12): 1882-1890.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2024.12.006

• 研究论文【环境科学】 • 上一篇下一篇

不同污染天气下大气颗粒物及化学成分干沉降通量的粒径演变特征

张孟燊¹^,²(), 陈志辉³^,^*(), 徐敏¹, 贾世国⁴, 田世丽⁵, 李嘉伟¹, 胡波¹, 潘月鹏¹^,^*()

1.中国科学院大气物理研究所，北京 100029
2.中国科学院大学，北京 100049
3.浙江环科环境研究院有限公司，浙江杭州 310007
4.中山大学大气科学学院，广东珠海 519082
5.北京市科学技术研究院分析测试研究所（北京市理化分析测试中心），北京 100089

收稿日期:2024-05-13 出版日期:2024-12-18 发布日期:2025-01-03
通讯作者: 潘月鹏。E-mail: panyuepeng@mail.iap.ac.cn
*陈志辉。E-mail: zhhchen2008@163.com;
作者简介:张孟燊（1998年生），男，硕士研究生，主要从事大气污染物排放与沉降研究。E-mail: zhangmengshen20@ucas.mails.ac.cn
基金资助:
国家重点研发计划项目(2022YFC3704802);中国科学院基础与交叉前沿科研先导专项(XDB0760400)

Size-resolved Aerosol Dry Deposition and Chemical Composition during Haze Weather in Beijing, China

ZHANG Mengshen¹^,²(), CHEN Zhihui³^,^*(), XU Min¹, JIA Shiguo⁴, TIAN Shili⁵, Li Jiawei¹, HU Bo¹, PAN Yuepeng¹^,^*()

1. Institute of Atmospheric Physics Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100029, P. R. China
2. University of Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100049, P. R. China
3. Zhejiang Huanke Environmental Research Institute Co., Hangzhou Zhejiang 310007, P. R. China
4. School of Atmospheric Science, Sun Yet-Sen University, Zhuhai 519082, P. R. China
5. Institute of Analysis and Testing, Beijing Academy of Science and Technology (Beijing Center for Physical and Chemical Analysis), Beijing 100089, P. R. China

Received:2024-05-13 Online:2024-12-18 Published:2025-01-03

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

干湿沉降是大气污染物的主要汇机制，也是生态系统重要的物质来源。相比于湿沉降，干沉降通量直接测量难度大，研究进展相对缓慢，稀缺的研究资料与其重要性不匹配。基于北京2013年1月大气颗粒物粒径分级采样观测资料，利用经典的大气阻力模型计算了不同粒径段颗粒物的干沉降速度（V_d），重点分析了重污染期间颗粒物的干沉降通量及其化学成分的粒径变化。结果显示，所研究的8个粒径段颗粒物V_d变化范围为0.037－0.50 cm·s⁻¹，高风速和低相对湿度的气象条件有利于V_d的增加；不同粒径段的颗粒物V_d最大值出现在5.8－9 μm，最小值出现在0.65－1.1 μm或1.1－2.1 μm；以最小值出现的1.1 μm为界，随着颗粒物粒径变小或增大，V_d均呈现增加的趋势，反映了不同粒径段颗粒物干沉降微物理机制的差异。观测期间，大气颗粒物总的干沉降通量变化范围为9.41－108.71 mg·m⁻²·d⁻¹，平均值为 (36.65±25.61) mg·m⁻²·d⁻¹，粗粒子干沉降通量的变化更多受颗粒物浓度的影响而细粒子干沉降通量的变化更多受V_d影响；在重污染天气时，所有粒径段的颗粒物浓度和干沉降通量均有所上升，其中硝酸盐、铵盐和硫酸盐等二次化学组分的浓度和干沉降通量峰值所在的粒径出现了由小变大的“粒径转移”现象。2022年1月大气重污染期间依然能观测到类似的“粒径转移”特征，说明这种现象具有一定的持续性和普遍性。迄今为止，北京及周边地区尚未彻底消除重污染天气，这种天气很可能会增加大气颗粒物及化学成分的干沉降通量，进而通过跨介质迁移间接影响水体、土壤和植被等生态环境质量。

关键词: 干沉降, 大气颗粒物, 粒径分布, 重污染天气, 化学成分

Abstract:

Wet and dry deposition processes are the major removal mechanisms for atmospheric pollutants and are important sources of nutrients and toxins in ecosystems. Compared to wet deposition, dry deposition is more difficult to measure directly; thus, an inferential approach is often used to estimate dry deposition fluxes. In this study, size-resolved particle dry deposition velocities (V_d) were calculated using classical parameterization, which was then combined with measured size- and chemically resolved ambient concentrations to estimate the dry deposition fluxes of particulate matter, with a focus on heavy pollution days. The calculated size-resolved V_d of particulate matter varied from 0.037 to 0.50 cm·s⁻¹, with increased values at high wind speeds and low relative humidity. The maximum and minimum values of V_d occurred at 5.8‒9 μm and 0.65‒1.1 μm or 1.1‒2.1 μm, respectively. With a minimum V_d value at a particle size of 1.1 μm, V_d increased as the particle size decreased or increased, reflecting the different dominant microphysical mechanisms of dry deposition for different particle sizes. During the observation period, dry deposition fluxes of particulate matter ranged from 9.41 to 108.71 mg·m⁻²·d⁻¹, with a mean value of 36.65 mg·m⁻²·d⁻¹. The concentration and V_d had a greater influence on the dry deposition fluxes of the coarse and fine particles, respectively. During heavy polluted days, the dry deposition fluxes of particles at each size range showed an upward trend, among which the dry deposition of secondary aerosols of nitrate, sulfate and ammoniums showed an obvious “size distribution shift” phenomenon. Such a phenomenon occurred in both January 2013 and January 2022, indicating that persistent heavily polluted weather in the North China Plain may increase the input of particulate species to the surface ecosystem through dry deposition.

Key words: dry deposition, particulate matter, size distribution, heavy polluted weather, chemical composition

中图分类号:

X513
X831

张孟燊, 陈志辉, 徐敏, 贾世国, 田世丽, 李嘉伟, 胡波, 潘月鹏. 不同污染天气下大气颗粒物及化学成分干沉降通量的粒径演变特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(12): 1882-1890.

ZHANG Mengshen, CHEN Zhihui, XU Min, JIA Shiguo, TIAN Shili, Li Jiawei, HU Bo, PAN Yuepeng. Size-resolved Aerosol Dry Deposition and Chemical Composition during Haze Weather in Beijing, China[J]. Ecology and Environment, 2024, 33(12): 1882-1890.

图/表 9

参考文献 34

[1]	AKIMOTO H, SATO K, SASE H, et al., 2022. Development of science and policy related to acid deposition in East Asia over 30 years[J]. Ambio, 51(8): 1800-1818.
[2]	CHANG M, CAO J C, MA M R, et al., 2020. Dry deposition of reactive nitrogen to different ecosystems across Eastern China: A comparison of three community models[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 720: 137548.
[3]	CONNAN O, PELLERIN G, MARO D, et al., 2018. Dry deposition velocities of particles on grass: Field experimental data and comparison with models[J]. Journal of Aerosol Science, 123(21): 58-67.
[4]	CONTINI D, DONATEO A, BELOSI F, et al., 2010. Deposition velocity of ultrafine particles measured with the Eddy‐Correlation Method over the Nansen Ice Sheet (Antarctica)[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115(D16): 013600.
[5]	DONG H Y, KANG X Y, DENG S X, et al., 2023. Dry and wet deposition fluxes and source of atmospheric Mercury in the forest in Southeast China[J]. Sustainability, 15(4): 3213.
[6]	EMERSON E W, KATICH J M, SCHWARZ J P, et al., 2018. Direct measurements of dry and wet deposition of black carbon over a grassland[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123(21): 12277-12290.
[7]	FAGERLI H, AAS W, 2008. Trends of nitrogen in air and precipitation: Model results and observations at EMEP sites in Europe, 1980-2003[J]. Environmental Pollution, 154(3): 448-461.
[8]	FARMER D K, BOEDICKER E K, DEBOLT H M, 2021. Dry deposition of atmospheric aerosols: Approaches, observations, and mechanisms[J]. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry, 72(1): 375-397.
[9]	JAVID M, BAHRAMIFAR N, YOUNESI H, et al., 2015. Dry deposition, seasonal variation and source interpretation of ionic species at Abali, Firouzkouh and Varamin, Tehran Province, Iran[J]. Atmospheric Research, 13(1): 74-90.
[10]	LAMB D, BOWERSOX V, 2000. The national atmospheric deposition program: An overview[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 34(11): 1661-1663.
[11]	LAVI A, FARMER D K, SEGRE E, et al., 2013. Fluxes of fine particles over a semi-arid pine forest: Possible effects of a complex terrain[J]. Aerosol Science and Technology, 47(8): 906-915.
[12]	LIU J K, ZHU L J, WANG H H, et al., 2016. Dry deposition of particulate matter at an urban forest, wetland and lake surface in Beijing[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 125(Part A): 178-187.
[13]	LÓPEZ-GARCÍA P, GELADO-CABALLERO M D, SANTANA- CASTELLANO D, et al., 2013. A three-year time-series of dust deposition flux measurements in Gran Canaria, Spain: A comparison of wet and dry surface deposition samplers[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 79: 689-694.
[14]	MACDONALD K M, SHARMA S, TOOM D, et al., 2017. Observations of atmospheric chemical deposition to high Arctic snow[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 17(9): 5775-5788.
[15]	MAMUN A A, CHENG I, ZHANG L, et al., 2019. Overview of size distribution, concentration, and dry deposition of airborne particulate elements measured worldwide[J]. Environmental Reviews, 28(1): 77-78.
[16]	MOHAN S, 2015. An overview of particulate dry deposition: measuring methods, deposition velocity and controlling factors[J]. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 13(1): 387-402.
[17]	PAN Y, LIU B, CAO J, et al., 2021. Enhanced atmospheric phosphorus deposition in Asia and Europe in the past two decades[J]. Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters, 14(5): 10-14.
[18]	PAN Y, WANG Y, TANG G, et al., 2012. Wet and dry deposition of atmospheric nitrogen at ten sites in Northern China[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 12(14): 6515-6535.
[19]	PAN Y P, WANG Y S, TANG G Q, et al., 2013. Spatial distribution and temporal variations of atmospheric sulfur deposition in Northern China: Insights into the potential acidification risks[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 13(3): 1675-1688.
[20]	PETROFF A, ZHANG L, 2010. Development and validation of a size-resolved particle dry deposition scheme for application in aerosol transport models[J]. Geoscientific Model Development, 3(2): 753-769.
[21]	QI J H, YU Y, YAO X H, et al., 2020. Dry deposition fluxes of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus in atmospheric aerosols over the Marginal Seas and Northwest Pacific[J]. Atmospheric Research, 245: 105076.
[22]	RUIJGROK W, TIEBEN H, EISINGA P, 1997. The dry deposition of particles to a forest canopy: A comparison of model and experimental results[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 31(3): 399-415.
[23]	SHEPPARD L J, LEITH I D, MIZUNUMA T, et al., 2011. Dry deposition of ammonia gas drives species change faster than wet deposition of ammonium ions: Evidence from a long-term field manipulation[J]. Global Change Biology, 17(12): 3589-3607.
[24]	SUN K, TAO L, MILLER D J, et al., 2017. Vehicle emissions as an important urban Ammonia source in the United States and China[J]. Environmental Science & Technology, 51(4): 2472-2481.
[25]	TEGEN I, HARRISON S P, KOHFELD K, et al., 2002. Impact of vegetation and preferential source areas on global dust aerosol: Results from a model study[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 107(D21): 4576.
[26]	TIAN S L, PAN Y P, LIU Z R, et al., 2014. Size-resolved aerosol chemical analysis of extreme haze pollution events during early 2013 in urban Beijing, China[J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 279: 452-460. DOI PMID
[27]	WESELY M L, 1989. Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 23(6): 1293-1304.
[28]	YI S M, TOTTEN L A, THOTA S, et al., 2006. Atmospheric dry deposition of trace elements measured around the urban and industrially impacted NY-NJ harbor[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 40(34): 6626-6637.
[29]	ZHANG J, SHAO Y, HUANG N, 2014. Measurements of dust deposition velocity in a wind-tunnel experiment[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(17): 8869-8882.
[30]	ZHANG L M, GONG S L, PADRO J, et al., 2001. A size-segregated particle dry deposition scheme for an atmospheric aerosol module[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 35(3): 549-560.
[31]	顾梦娜, 潘月鹏, 宋琳琳, 等, 2021. 2019年国庆节前后北京气态氨和气溶胶铵盐浓度的同步观测[J]. 环境科学, 42(1): 1-8.
	GU M N, PAN Y P, SONG L L, et al., 2021. Concurrent collection of ammonia gas and aerosol ammonium in urban Beijing during national celebration days utilizing an acid-coated honeycomb denuder in combination with a filter system[J]. Environmental Science, 42(1): 1-8.
[32]	姚利, 刘进, 潘月鹏, 等, 2017. 北京大气颗粒物和重金属铅干沉降通量及季节变化[J]. 环境科学, 38(2): 423-428.
	YAO L, LIU J, PAN Y P, et al., 2017. Atmospheric dry deposition fluxes and seasonal variations of particulate matter and lead in urban Beijing[J]. Environmental Science, 38(2): 423-428.
[33]	苏泳松, 宋松, 陈叶, 等, 2022. 珠江三角洲人类活动净氮输入时空特征及其影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 31(8): 1599-1609. DOI
	SUN Y S, SONG S, CHEN Y, et al., 2022. Temporal and spatial characteristics of net anthropogenic nitrogen input and its influencing factors in the Pearl River Delta[J]. Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 31(8): 1599-1609.
[34]	张仁健, 浦一芬, 徐永福, 等, 2004. 青岛大气气溶胶的浓度分布和干沉降的观测研究[J]. 气候与环境研究, 9(2): 390-395.
	ZHANG R J, PU Y F, XU Y F, et al., 2004. Observation on mass concentration and dry deposition of atmospheric aerosols in Qingdao[J]. Climatic and Environmental Research, 9(2): 390-395.

颗粒物类型	观测时间 (年-月－年-月)	研究地区	下垫面类型	干沉降通量/(mg·m⁻²·d⁻¹)	参考文献
PM₁₀	2001-09－2002-06	美国	城市	9.86	Yi et al., 2006
PM₁₀	2010-09－2011-12	伊朗	城市	159.37±15.29	Javid et al., 2015
PM₁₀	2009-02－2011-06	西班牙	城市	25.0±0.3	López-García et al., 2013
PM₁₀	2001-11－2002-10	中国 (青岛)	城市	130	张仁健等, 2004
PM_2.5	2014-04－2014-09	中国 (北京)	水体	27.648	Sun et al., 2017
PM_2.5	2014-04－2014-09	中国 (北京)	森林	99.36	Sun et al., 2017
PM_2.5	2013-04－2014-03	中国 (北京)	森林	79.49±56.16	Liu et al., 2016
PM_2.5	2013-04－2014-03	中国 (北京)	水体	6.91±7.78	Liu et al., 2016
PM_2.5	2013-12－2014-11	中国 (北京)	城市	23.01	姚利等, 2017
PM_2.5	2013-12－2014-11	中国 (北京)	城市	41.37	姚利等, 2017
PM_2.1	2013-01－2013-02	中国 (北京)	城市	18.34±13.74	本研究
PM₉	2013-01－2013-02	中国 (北京)	城市	36.65±25.61	本研究

颗粒物类型	观测时间 (年-月－年-月)	研究地区	下垫面类型	干沉降通量/(mg·m⁻²·d⁻¹)	参考文献
PM₁₀	2001-09－2002-06	美国	城市	9.86	Yi et al., 2006
PM₁₀	2010-09－2011-12	伊朗	城市	159.37±15.29	Javid et al., 2015
PM₁₀	2009-02－2011-06	西班牙	城市	25.0±0.3	López-García et al., 2013
PM₁₀	2001-11－2002-10	中国 (青岛)	城市	130	张仁健等, 2004
PM_2.5	2014-04－2014-09	中国 (北京)	水体	27.648	Sun et al., 2017
PM_2.5	2014-04－2014-09	中国 (北京)	森林	99.36	Sun et al., 2017
PM_2.5	2013-04－2014-03	中国 (北京)	森林	79.49±56.16	Liu et al., 2016
PM_2.5	2013-04－2014-03	中国 (北京)	水体	6.91±7.78	Liu et al., 2016
PM_2.5	2013-12－2014-11	中国 (北京)	城市	23.01	姚利等, 2017
PM_2.5	2013-12－2014-11	中国 (北京)	城市	41.37	姚利等, 2017
PM_2.1	2013-01－2013-02	中国 (北京)	城市	18.34±13.74	本研究
PM₉	2013-01－2013-02	中国 (北京)	城市	36.65±25.61	本研究

天气类型	颗粒物类型	指标	Mass	NH₄⁺	NO₃⁻	SO₄^2-	Cl⁻	K⁺	Mg²⁺	F⁻	Na⁺	Ca²⁺	OC	EC
清洁天	PM_1.1	Avg	10.11	0.36	0.30	0.37	0.10	0.05	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.05	1.44	0.17
		Sd	4.22	0.12	0.22	0.24	0.13	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.07	1.18	0.19
		Max	13.80	0.50	0.54	0.66	0.28	0.07	0.02	0.02	0.05	0.14	3.19	0.45
		Min	4.49	0.24	0.00	0.09	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.61	0.05
	PM_2.1	Avg	12.56	0.50	0.41	0.53	0.12	0.06	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.06	1.68	0.22
		Sd	5.47	0.25	0.30	0.37	0.15	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.03	0.08	1.49	0.24
		Max	19.33	0.84	0.71	0.87	0.34	0.09	0.02	0.02	0.06	0.16	3.89	0.58
		Min	6.28	0.27	0.00	0.10	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.63	0.07
	PM_2.1‒9	Avg	8.96	0.45	0.27	0.41	0.25	0.04	0.05	0.03	0.17	0.48	1.38	0.19
		Sd	12.87	0.47	0.34	0.50	0.33	0.05	0.04	0.03	0.22	0.37	1.33	0.12
		Max	28.03	1.14	0.77	1.11	0.73	0.12	0.11	0.07	0.48	0.98	3.37	0.33
		Min	0.00	0.13	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.14	0.58	0.04
轻度污染天	PM_1.1	Avg	10.16	0.91	0.95	0.97	0.18	0.12	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.03	1.89	0.26
		Sd	6.52	0.51	0.72	0.60	0.07	0.11	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.72	0.12
		Max	22.73	2.13	2.79	2.39	0.30	0.39	0.03	0.03	0.04	0.10	3.53	0.47
		Min	4.51	0.43	0.41	0.46	0.08	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.17	0.12
	PM_2.1	Avg	13.08	1.12	1.15	1.28	0.22	0.15	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.03	2.29	0.32
		Sd	7.96	0.61	0.83	0.77	0.08	0.12	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.81	0.14
		Max	29.61	2.51	3.20	2.94	0.34	0.45	0.03	0.03	0.04	0.13	4.07	0.56
		Min	6.43	0.49	0.50	0.58	0.10	0.07	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	1.42	0.18
	PM_2.1‒9	Avg	13.14	0.28	0.34	0.42	0.16	0.05	0.05	0.04	0.11	0.34	0.95	0.10
		Sd	6.64	0.16	0.24	0.19	0.17	0.04	0.02	0.02	0.10	0.18	0.39	0.06
		Max	24.44	0.58	0.67	0.71	0.54	0.15	0.09	0.10	0.35	0.67	1.67	0.21
		Min	3.19	0.13	0.07	0.17	0.00	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.11	0.30	0.03
重度污染天	PM_1.1	Avg	16.30	1.48	1.65	1.63	0.26	0.16	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.20	2.73	0.42
		Sd	7.88	1.10	1.24	1.25	0.13	0.16	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.30	2.29	0.29
		Max	30.36	3.86	4.52	4.41	0.47	0.55	0.06	0.03	0.08	0.92	8.34	0.97
		Min	7.44	0.55	0.71	0.52	0.11	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	1.14	0.14
	PM_2.1	Avg	26.17	2.39	2.58	3.27	0.37	0.23	0.02	0.01	0.05	0.21	4.27	0.51
		Sd	17.43	1.97	2.10	2.97	0.18	0.20	0.02	0.01	0.03	0.32	4.18	0.32
		Max	64.90	6.57	7.19	9.61	0.70	0.67	0.06	0.04	0.12	1.00	14.63	1.11
		Min	9.68	0.70	0.89	0.73	0.13	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	1.34	0.22
	PM_2.1－9	Avg	27.64	2.24	1.68	3.26	0.36	0.14	0.09	0.05	0.14	0.67	2.70	0.36
		Sd	16.04	2.91	1.40	3.58	0.13	0.13	0.04	0.02	0.08	0.46	1.79	0.24
		Max	64.72	8.82	4.07	10.57	0.60	0.36	0.16	0.08	0.25	1.45	5.31	0.92
		Min	13.17	0.27	0.52	0.56	0.22	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.18	0.89	0.13

天气类型	颗粒物类型	指标	Mass	NH₄⁺	NO₃⁻	SO₄^2-	Cl⁻	K⁺	Mg²⁺	F⁻	Na⁺	Ca²⁺	OC	EC
清洁天	PM_1.1	Avg	10.11	0.36	0.30	0.37	0.10	0.05	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.05	1.44	0.17
		Sd	4.22	0.12	0.22	0.24	0.13	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.07	1.18	0.19
		Max	13.80	0.50	0.54	0.66	0.28	0.07	0.02	0.02	0.05	0.14	3.19	0.45
		Min	4.49	0.24	0.00	0.09	0.00	0.02	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.61	0.05
	PM_2.1	Avg	12.56	0.50	0.41	0.53	0.12	0.06	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.06	1.68	0.22
		Sd	5.47	0.25	0.30	0.37	0.15	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.03	0.08	1.49	0.24
		Max	19.33	0.84	0.71	0.87	0.34	0.09	0.02	0.02	0.06	0.16	3.89	0.58
		Min	6.28	0.27	0.00	0.10	0.00	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.63	0.07
	PM_2.1‒9	Avg	8.96	0.45	0.27	0.41	0.25	0.04	0.05	0.03	0.17	0.48	1.38	0.19
		Sd	12.87	0.47	0.34	0.50	0.33	0.05	0.04	0.03	0.22	0.37	1.33	0.12
		Max	28.03	1.14	0.77	1.11	0.73	0.12	0.11	0.07	0.48	0.98	3.37	0.33
		Min	0.00	0.13	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.14	0.58	0.04
轻度污染天	PM_1.1	Avg	10.16	0.91	0.95	0.97	0.18	0.12	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.03	1.89	0.26
		Sd	6.52	0.51	0.72	0.60	0.07	0.11	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.72	0.12
		Max	22.73	2.13	2.79	2.39	0.30	0.39	0.03	0.03	0.04	0.10	3.53	0.47
		Min	4.51	0.43	0.41	0.46	0.08	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.17	0.12
	PM_2.1	Avg	13.08	1.12	1.15	1.28	0.22	0.15	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.03	2.29	0.32
		Sd	7.96	0.61	0.83	0.77	0.08	0.12	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.81	0.14
		Max	29.61	2.51	3.20	2.94	0.34	0.45	0.03	0.03	0.04	0.13	4.07	0.56
		Min	6.43	0.49	0.50	0.58	0.10	0.07	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.00	1.42	0.18
	PM_2.1‒9	Avg	13.14	0.28	0.34	0.42	0.16	0.05	0.05	0.04	0.11	0.34	0.95	0.10
		Sd	6.64	0.16	0.24	0.19	0.17	0.04	0.02	0.02	0.10	0.18	0.39	0.06
		Max	24.44	0.58	0.67	0.71	0.54	0.15	0.09	0.10	0.35	0.67	1.67	0.21
		Min	3.19	0.13	0.07	0.17	0.00	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.01	0.11	0.30	0.03
重度污染天	PM_1.1	Avg	16.30	1.48	1.65	1.63	0.26	0.16	0.01	0.01	0.04	0.20	2.73	0.42
		Sd	7.88	1.10	1.24	1.25	0.13	0.16	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.30	2.29	0.29
		Max	30.36	3.86	4.52	4.41	0.47	0.55	0.06	0.03	0.08	0.92	8.34	0.97
		Min	7.44	0.55	0.71	0.52	0.11	0.03	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	1.14	0.14
	PM_2.1	Avg	26.17	2.39	2.58	3.27	0.37	0.23	0.02	0.01	0.05	0.21	4.27	0.51
		Sd	17.43	1.97	2.10	2.97	0.18	0.20	0.02	0.01	0.03	0.32	4.18	0.32
		Max	64.90	6.57	7.19	9.61	0.70	0.67	0.06	0.04	0.12	1.00	14.63	1.11
		Min	9.68	0.70	0.89	0.73	0.13	0.05	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	1.34	0.22
	PM_2.1－9	Avg	27.64	2.24	1.68	3.26	0.36	0.14	0.09	0.05	0.14	0.67	2.70	0.36
		Sd	16.04	2.91	1.40	3.58	0.13	0.13	0.04	0.02	0.08	0.46	1.79	0.24
		Max	64.72	8.82	4.07	10.57	0.60	0.36	0.16	0.08	0.25	1.45	5.31	0.92
		Min	13.17	0.27	0.52	0.56	0.22	0.01	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.18	0.89	0.13

不同污染天气下大气颗粒物及化学成分干沉降通量的粒径演变特征

Size-resolved Aerosol Dry Deposition and Chemical Composition during Haze Weather in Beijing, China

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 9

参考文献 34

相关文章 6

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	卢睿霖, 曹芳, 林煜棋, 吴长流, 章炎麟. 南京大气颗粒物化学组分的粒径分布和来源解析[J]. 生态环境学报, 2024, 33(7): 1079-1088.
[2]	张莉, 李铖, 谭皓泽, 韦家怡, 程炯, 彭桂香. 广州典型城市林地对大气颗粒物的削减效应及影响因素[J]. 生态环境学报, 2023, 32(2): 341-350.
[3]	王占永, 陈昕, 胡喜生, 何红弟, 蔡铭, 彭仲仁. 植物屏障影响路边大气颗粒物分布机理及研究方法的进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(5): 1047-1058.
[4]	朱旭, 李海梅, 李彦华, 孙迎坤, 田园. 8种灌木对大气颗粒物污染的生理响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2022, 31(3): 535-545.
[5]	赵晓亮, 郭猛, 吕美婷, 赵雪莹, 姜瑰国, 黄媛媛, 王凡, 姬亚芹. 阜新市绿化树种对大气颗粒物及重金属滞留能力研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(8): 1662-1671.
[6]	黄成, 吴月颖, 吉恒宽, 陈丽铭, 李倍莹, 符传良, 李建宏, 吴蔚东, 吴治澎. 海南典型水稻土厌氧铁还原特征对DOM分子特性的响应[J]. 生态环境学报, 2021, 30(5): 957-967.