首页 Source apportionment of particulate matter in Europe. A review of methods and results

Source apportionment of particulate matter in Europe. A review of methods and results

举报
开通vip

Source apportionment of particulate matter in Europe. A review of methods and results Aerosol Science 39 (2008) 827–849 www.elsevier.com/locate/jaerosci Review Source apportionment of particulate matter in Europe: A review of methods and results M. Vianaa,r,∗, T.A.J. Kuhlbuschb, X. Querola,r, A. Alastueya,r, R.M. Harrisonc, P.K. Hopked, W. ...

Source apportionment of particulate matter in Europe. A review of methods and results
Aerosol Science 39 (2008) 827–849 www.elsevier.com/locate/jaerosci Review Source apportionment of particulate matter in Europe: A review of methods and results M. Vianaa,r,∗, T.A.J. Kuhlbuschb, X. Querola,r, A. Alastueya,r, R.M. Harrisonc, P.K. Hopked, W. Winiwartere, f , M. Valliusg, S. Szidath, A.S.H. Prévôti, C. Hueglinj, H. Bloemenk, P. Wåhlinl, R. Vecchim, A.I. Mirandan, A. Kasper-Gieblo, W. Maenhautp, R. Hitzenbergerq aInstitute for Environmental Diagnosis and Water Studies (IDAEA-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain bIUTA e.V., Duisburg, Germany cSchool of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK dDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, USA eAustrian Research Centers—ARC, Vienna, Austria f International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria gDepartment of Environmental Health, National Public Health Institute, Kuopio, Finland hDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland iLaboratory for Atmospheric Chemistry, Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI), Villigen-PSI, Switzerland jLaboratory for Air Pollution and Environmental Technology, Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (EMPA), Dübendorf, Switzerland kLaboratorium voor Milieumetingen, RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands lNational Environmental Research Institute (NERI), Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark mInstitute of General Applied Physics, University of Milan, Milan, Italy nDepartment of Environment and Planning, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal oInstitute for Chemical Technologies and Analytics, Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria pDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, Institute for Nuclear Sciences, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium qAerosol, Bio- and Environmental Physics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria rInstitute of Earth Sciences “Jaume Almera”-CSIC, Barcelona, Spain Received 21 January 2008; received in revised form 21 May 2008; accepted 28 May 2008 Abstract European publications dealing with source apportionment (SA) of atmospheric particulate matter (PM) between 1987 and 2007 were reviewed in the present work, with a focus on methods and results. The main goal of this meta-analysis was to provide a review of the most commonly used SA methods in Europe, their comparability and results, and to evaluate current trends and identify possible gaps of the methods and future research directions. Our analysis showed that studies throughout Europe agree on the identification of four main source types (PM10 and PM2.5): a vehicular source (traced by carbon/Fe/Ba/Zn/Cu), a crustal source (Al/Si/Ca/Fe), a sea-salt source (Na/Cl/Mg), and a mixed industrial/fuel-oil combustion (V/Ni/SO2−4 ) and a secondary aerosol (SO2−4 /NO−3 /NH+4 ) source (the latter two probably representing the same source type). Their contributions to bulk PM levels varied widely at different monitoring sites, and showed clear spatial patterns in the cases of the crustal and sea-salt sources. Other specific sources such as ∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +34934110012. E-mail address: mviana@ija.csic.es (M. Viana). 0021-8502/$ - see front matter� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.05.007 828 M. Viana et al. / Aerosol Science 39 (2008) 827 –849 biomass combustion or shipping emissions were rarely identified, even though they may contribute significantly to PM levels in specific locations. � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: PM10; PM2.5; Emission sources; Receptor modelling; Tracers; Research directions; Shipping emissions; Biomass burning Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 2. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 3.1. Receptor models in use in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 3.2. Target metric, sampling and analytical methodologies, receptor sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832 3.2.1.Target metric . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832 3.2.2.Sampling methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 832 3.2.3.Analytical methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833 3.2.4.Receptor sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834 3.3. SA results in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 3.4. Current research trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840 3.4.1.Inter-comparison of SA methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840 3.4.2.Receptor modelling of particle size distribution and meteorological data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 840 3.4.3.SA analysis of specific PM fractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 3.4.4.Receptor modelling for epidemiological and health-related studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843 4. Gap analysis and possible research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 843 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844 1. Introduction In the field of atmospheric sciences, source apportionment (SA) models aim to re-construct the impacts of emissions from different sources of atmospheric pollutants, e.g., particulate matter (PM), based on ambient data registered at monitoring sites (Bruinen de Bruin, Koistinen, Yli-Tuomi, Kephalopoulos, & Jantunen, 2006; Hopke & Song, 1997; Watson et al., 2002). There are three main groups of SA techniques: (a) Methods based on the evaluation of monitoring data. Basic numerical data treatment is used to identify sources. Examples are: (1) correlation of wind direction with levels of measured components to identify source locations (Henry, Chang, & Spiegelman, 2002); (2) the correlation of gaseous pollutants with PM components to identify source associations; (3) subtraction of levels measured at regional background from those obtained at urban background and/or roadside levels to identify the contributions from the regional background, the city background and the monitored street (Lenschow et al., 2001), or (4) quantification of natural PM contributions (e.g., African dust) by subtracting PM levels at regional background sites from those at urban background locations for specific days (Escudero et al., 2007). The main advantage is the simplicity of the methods and the consequent low impact of mathematical artefacts due to data treatment. (b) Methods based on emission inventories and/or dispersion models to simulate aerosol emission, formation, transport and deposition (Eldering & Cass, 1996; Visser, Buring, & Breugel, 2001). These models require detailed emission inventories that are not always available, and they are limited by the accuracy of emission inventories, especially when natural emissions are important. A significant advantage of these methods is that they may be used in scenario studies to evaluate the impact of emission abatement strategies on the anthropogenic contribution to ambient PM concentrations. (c) Methods based on the statistical evaluation of PM chemical data acquired at receptor sites (receptor models). The fundamental principle of receptor modelling is that mass and species conservation can be assumed and a mass M. Viana et al. / Aerosol Science 39 (2008) 827 –849 829 Fig. 1. Approaches for estimating pollution source contributions using receptor models (modified from Schauer et al., 2006). Specific models are shown in italics and with dotted arrows. balance analysis can be used to identify and apportion sources of airborne PM in the atmosphere (Hopke et al., 2006). An overview of the wide range of statistical models and modelling approaches which are currently available in the literature is shown in Fig. 1. As shown in the graph, one of the main differences between models is the degree of knowledge required about the pollution sources prior to the application of receptor models. The two main extremes of receptor models are chemical mass balance (CMB) and multivariate models. The CMB model assumes knowledge of the composition of the emissions for all relevant sources. If changes of the source profiles between the emitter and the receptor may be considered minimal, CMB can be regarded as the ideal receptor model. However, these requirements are almost never completely fulfilled, and thus, pure CMB approaches are often problematic. One important characteristic of CMB is that secondary aerosols must be included not as components of emission source profiles but as specific, single chemical compounds. This absence of mixture with other tracer elements is often regarded as a limitation, and may lead to misinterpretation of results. Principal component/factor analysis (e.g., principal component analysis or PCA, positive matrix factorisation or PMF, UNMIX) attempts to apportion the sources on the basis of observations (internal correlations) at the receptor site alone. These are commonly used tools, because software to perform this type of analysis is widely available and detailed prior knowledge of the sources and source profiles is not required. The choice of the model dimension and the search for non-negative solutions by axis rotations can be based entirely on mathematical criteria. Nevertheless, it has been suggested that factor analysis attempts to get more information out of atmospheric data than is really there (Henry, 1987). Furthermore, it is a common problem that the resulting components or factors may represent mixtures of emission sources, as opposed to clearly independent source profiles. Source signatures that change with time are a limitation for this and other types of receptor models. To combine the advantages and reduce the disadvantages of CMB and factor analysis hybrid models have been developed. Examples are confirmatory or target transformation factor analysis, which offer some control of the solutions by “fixing” or “freeing” specific parameters, set according to the theoretical expectation of the researcher (Gleser, 1997; Hopke, 1988). With a constrained physical receptor model (COPREM, Wåhlin, 2003), an initial profile matrix with the main characteristics of known sources as columns is used, and a priori knowledge about the character of the sources can be used to achieve a solution with a sufficient number of sources. The multilinear engine (ME, Paatero, 1999) can solve multilinear problems with the possibility of implementing many kinds of constraints using a script language. Like COPREM, the program allows choosing hybrid versions in the full range between PMF and CMB- type models, with the difference that individual data points can be properly weighed (not possible in any eigenvector analysis). 830 M. Viana et al. / Aerosol Science 39 (2008) 827 –849 The main objective of receptor models is, therefore, to identify the possible sources of PM (if not assumed already from the source profiles) and to obtain data on their contributions to the bulk PM mass. Even human exposure to these pollution components has been evaluated to assess their health effects and risks (Hopke et al., 2006; Ilacqua et al., 2007; Watson et al., 2002). Furthermore, policy-makers require sound scientific knowledge of the PM sources and their contributions to atmospheric PM levels and associated health risks for the development and implementation of policies to protect human health and the environment. Thus the information provided by receptor models is key to the design of effective mitigation strategies on the local- and meso-scale. Despite the widespread need for these data, there is little information available on receptor modelling results from different European countries, the type of models applied or the input data utilised. Furthermore, parameters such as time resolution, type of monitoring site and PM sampler, and analytical methods vary widely from one study to another. Consequently, general European-wide conclusions cannot yet be extracted. In addition to this lack of harmonisation in the published studies, a large amount of valuable material is currently available in the grey literature only. The need to tackle this issue was detected by the COST Action 633 (“Particulate matter: Properties related to health effects”) and subsequently addressed by compiling a database of SA studies available in Europe, more specif- ically in COST633 member countries (http://www2.dmu.dk/atmosphericenvironment/COST633/). Both meta-data on publications and data on PM sources and source contributions were collected, with the aim to obtain an overview of the results and analyse their comparability. The issue of the comparability between receptor modelling results is considered essential if SA data are to be used for the design of multinational mitigation strategies, the assessment of human exposure to PM from specific sources, and investigations of long-term changes in exposure situations over Europe. 2. Methodology The compilation of meta-data on SA publications was carried out by means of a questionnaire, distributed via e-mail among researchers from COST633 member countries and based on already existing publications in international scientific journals or public reports. The authors were asked to report on meta-data such as the receptor modelling technique used, the location of the study area, the type of sampler or the analytical methodology used, among others. Despite the fact that replies to the questionnaires were not obtained from all the member countries, the return may be seen as a useful overview on SA activities in Europe from 1987 up to the end of the year 2005 (date of meta-data collection). Furthermore, a literature search was carried out by the authors for SA-related papers published in 2006 and 2007 (thus extending the evaluation period to 1987–2007), the results of which are also included in this paper (Table 1). It should be noted, however, that this meta-analysis does not claim to provide an overview of all SA studies performed in Europe or the COST633 Action member countries. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Receptor models in use in Europe When evaluating the European publications reported in the questionnaires, PCA was the most frequently used model up to 2005 (30% of the studies), followed by the Lenschow approach (11%) and back-trajectory analysis (11%). Other models commonly used were PMF (8%), CMB (7%) and mass balance analysis (addition of chemically analysed PM components, 7%). Methods such as ME, COPREM or UNMIX were only reported in one study each until 2005. Data from 2006–2007 show a continued use of PCA (50% of the new publications) and an increase in the use of PMF (13%) and the mass balance analysis of chemical components (19%). No new publications applying CMB or the Lenschow approach in Europe were obtained for 2006–2007. With regard to the number of research teams in Europe applying each of these receptor modelling techniques, PCA was once again the most widespread model (in use by eight different research teams), followed closely by the Lenschow approach (seven research teams) and CMB (five). Even though a relatively large number of publications were reported using back-trajectory analysis (8 publications by 2005), this approach was used by a relatively low number of research teams in Europe (three). Researchers from a number of countries (Belgium, Germany, Portugal and Spain) reported the application of more than one receptor model, the most frequent combinations being PCA-cluster analysis (CA), PCA-Lenschow, PCA-CMB, PCA-back-trajectory analysis, PMF-UNMIX-ME, and CMB-mass balance. M. Viana et al. / Aerosol Science 39 (2008) 827 –849 831 Table 1 Publications reported in the questionnaires (up to year 2005, and unpublished data at that point in time) and results from the literature search (marked with *, published in 2006–2007) Results from questionnaires and literature search Alastuey et al. (2006); Almeida, Pio, Freitas, Reis, and Trancoso (2005)12 Harrison, Smith, Pio, and Castro (1997)16,33 Maenhaut and Cafmeyer (1998)8,9 Quass, Kuhlbusch, and Koch (2004)14 Vallius et al. (2003)32 Almeida, Pio, Freitas, Reis, and Trancoso (2006)12 Harrison, Jones, and Lawrence (2003)16 Maenhaut et al. (1999)8,9 Querol et al. (2001)3 Vallius et al. (2005)28,29 ∗Andersen, Wåhlin, Raaschou-Nielsen, Scheike and Loft (2007)17 Harrison, Jones, and Lawrence (2004)16 Maenhaut (2000) Querol et al. (2002)4 Viana, Querol, and Alastuey (2006)6 Bauer et al. (2007) Hueglin et al. (2005) Marcazzan, Vaccaro, Valli, and Vecchi (2001) 21 Querol et al. (2004)2,5 Viana, Querol, and Alastuey (2006)3 Bauer et al. (2007b) John, Weissenmayer, Lutz, and Kuhbusch (2004) Marcazzan, Ceriani, Valli, and Vecchi (2003)21 Raes, Hubacz, Hanssen, and Maenhaut (2005)30,31 Viana, Querol, and Alastuey (2006)6 Borrego and Pio (1991) John, Lutz, and Kuhbusch (2004) ∗Marenco et al. (2006)23,24 ∗Ragosta et al. (2006) Viana et al. (2007)3 Brüggemann et al. (2000) Kaiser and Scheifinger (2003) ∗Mazzei et al. (2006) Rodríguez, Querol, Alastuey, Viana, and Alarcón (2004)2 Viana et al. (2008)27 ∗Canepari et al. (2006) Kaiser and Scheifinger (2005) ∗Mazzei et al. (2007) ∗Salma and Maenhaut (2006) Wåhlin and Palmgren (2005)17 Castro, Pio, Harrison, and Smith (1999) Kaiser, Scheifinger, and Langer (2002) ∗Minguillón et al. (2007)27 Salvador, Artíñano, Alonso, Querol, and Alastuey (2004)1 Wåhlin, Berkowicz, and Palmgren (2006)17 D’Alessandro et al. (2003)22 Kaiser, Scheifinger, Spangl, Nagl, and Schneider
本文档为【Source apportionment of particulate matter in Europe. A review of methods and results】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑, 图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。
下载需要: 免费 已有0 人下载
最新资料
资料动态
专题动态
is_783091
暂无简介~
格式:pdf
大小:884KB
软件:PDF阅读器
页数:23
分类:生产制造
上传时间:2013-05-12
浏览量:18