| 热带树木燃烧颗粒物中脱水糖和醋菲烯的排放特征 |
| 摘要点击 2395 全文点击 995 投稿时间：2017-11-01 修订日期：2018-01-04 |
| 查看HTML全文
查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 中文关键词 生物质燃烧 大气颗粒物 示踪化合物 左旋葡聚糖 醋菲烯 |
| 英文关键词 biomass burning atmospheric particulate matter tracer compounds levoglucosan acephenanthrylene |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 森林植被燃烧是大气颗粒物的重要来源之一.为研究生物示踪物，对22种东南亚典型热带树木进行开放式燃烧实验，这些树木主要可分为常绿乔木、落叶乔木和灌木这3大类.分析植被燃烧产生的脱水糖、醋菲烯（acephenanthrylene）、醋蒽烯（aceanthrylene）、惹烯等生物质燃烧示踪物的排放因子特征.22种典型东南亚热带树木燃烧产生的颗粒物中3种植物类型的总糖平均排放因子大小趋势为：常绿乔木（1.56 g·kg-1±1.01 g·kg-1） <灌木（1.99 g·kg-1±0.64 g·kg-1） <落叶乔木（5.38 g·kg-1±7.18 g·kg-1）；醋菲烯平均排放因子趋势为常绿乔木（2.63 mg·kg-1±2.44 mg·kg-1）≈灌木（2.46 mg·kg-1±2.14 mg·kg-1） <落叶乔木（6.07 mg·kg-1±8.50 mg·kg-1）.关于示踪物特征比率，乔木、灌木的左旋葡聚糖（Lev）/甘露聚糖（Man）平均值分别为20.6±11.9、23.2±9.20，总范围为5.80~51.5；两者的醋菲烯（AP）/醋蒽烯（AC）平均值分别为7.13±5.18、5.53±1.51.相较于受影响条件较多的脱水糖，芳烃类化合物分析方法简捷，其中AP/AC虽然较荧蒽（FL）/芘（PY）的稳定性略差，但受到的其他污染源干扰少、特异性高.因此，在生物质源解析方面可以综合考虑各示踪物的优缺点以提高准确性，其中醋菲烯是作为生物示踪物的较优选择. |
| 英文摘要 |
| Forest vegetation burning is an important source of atmospheric particulates. In this study, 22 kinds of typical tropical trees in Southeast Asia, which can be divided into evergreen trees, deciduous trees, and shrubs, were selected for experimentation. The emission characteristics of dehydrated sugar, acephenanthrylene, aceanthrylene, and retene were analyzed. The trend of the average emission factor for total sugar was evergreen trees (1.56 g·kg-1±1.01 g·kg-1) < shrubs (1.99 g·kg-1±0.64 g·kg-1) < deciduous trees (5.38 g·kg-1±7.18 g·kg-1). Furthermore, the trend of the average emission factor of acephenanthrylene was evergreen trees (2.63 mg·kg-1±2.44 mg·kg-1) ≈ shrubs (2.46 mg·kg-1g±2.14 mg·kg-1) < deciduous trees (6.07 mg·kg-1±8.50 mg·kg-1). For ratios of organic biomarkers, the average ratios of Lev/Man for trees and shrubs were 20.6±11.90 and 23.2±9.20, respectively. The range of Lev/Man was 5.8-51.5 in this study. The average ratios of AP/AC for trees and shrubs were 7.13±5.18 and 5.53±1.51, respectively. Compared with the dehydrated sugar, which was affected by more conditions, the analysis methods of aromatic hydrocarbons were simple. Furthermore, although the ratio of AP/AC was less stable than that of FL/PY in this manuscript, AP/AC was less affected by other sources of pollution and had higher specificity. In conclusion, the advantages and disadvantages of each organic biomarker can be synthetically considered in terms of biomass source analysis in order to improve accuracy, and acephenanthrylene was a better choice than other biomarkers. |
|
|
|
