| 大气细颗粒物中有机碳和元素碳监测方法对比 |
| 摘要点击 2449 全文点击 1363 投稿时间：2015-09-29 修订日期：2015-11-30 |
| 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 膜采样-离线分析 在线分析 有机碳 元素碳 黑碳 温度协议 |
| 英文关键词 filter sampling off-line analysis on-line analysis organic carbon (OC) elemental carbon (EC) black carbon(BC) temperature protocol |
| 作者 | 单位 | E-mail | | 庞博 | 南京信息工程大学气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 中国气象局气溶胶-云-降水重点开放实验室, 南京 210044
中国科学院大气物理研究所大气边界层与大气化学国家重点实验室, 北京 100029 | pangbo@dq.cern.ac.cn | | 吉东生 | 中国科学院大气物理研究所大气边界层与大气化学国家重点实验室, 北京 100029 | jds@mail.iap.ac.cn | | 刘子锐 | 中国科学院大气物理研究所大气边界层与大气化学国家重点实验室, 北京 100029 | | | 朱彬 | 南京信息工程大学气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 中国气象局气溶胶-云-降水重点开放实验室, 南京 210044 | | | 王跃思 | 南京信息工程大学气象灾害预报预警与评估协同创新中心, 中国气象局气溶胶-云-降水重点开放实验室, 南京 210044
中国科学院大气物理研究所大气边界层与大气化学国家重点实验室, 北京 100029 | |
|
| 中文摘要 |
| 在线精确测量大气细颗粒物中有机碳(OC)和元素碳(EC)是研究碳质气溶胶形成和来源解析的重要科学基础. 在线测定仪器选取不同的升温程序可能导致OC和EC观测数据差异,造成对研究结果的误判. 对比分析在线OC/EC分析仪最常使用的RT-Quartz(R法)、NIOSH 5040(N法)和Fast-TC(F法)这3种温度协议下获得的OC和EC实际观测结果,结合北京空气污染程度,讨论了3种分析程序观测结果的异同. 结果表明,3种分析程序对TC(TC=OC+EC)、OC和EC的测量均无显著性差异,但存在一定偏差. 对TC的测量,R法比N法低5%,比F法高1%; 对OC的测量,R法比N法低9%,比F法高1%; 对EC的测量,R法比N法高20%,比F法低11%,其中R法温度协议在不同空气质量下对TC、OC和EC测量的变异系数均小于N法和F法. 使用R法的在线分析与小流量PM2.5石英膜采样-离线分析所测定的TC、OC和EC结果的线性拟合斜率分别为1.21、1.14和1.35, R2TC、R2OC和R2EC分别为0.99、0.99和0.98; R法测定的EC浓度显著低于多角度吸收光度计(MAAP)测定的BC浓度. 当BC<8 μg ·m-3时,EC/BC为0.39,而当BC>8 μg ·m-3,EC/BC为0.88. EC与BC变化趋势相近,但浓度值存在系统误差. |
| 英文摘要 |
| Accurate measurement of organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) in atmospheric fine particulate is an important scientific basis for studying the formation and source apportionment of carbonaceous aerosol. The selection of different analysis programs will lead to difference in the OC and EC concentrations, and further result in the misjudgment of the results. The OC and EC concentrations observed using three temperature protocols including RT-Quartz (R), NIOSH 5040 (N) and Fast-TC (F) were compared and analyzed in combination with the degree of air pollution in Beijing. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the TC (TC=OC+EC), OC and EC concentrations observed using R, N and F protocols and certain deviation was found among the TC (TC=OC+EC), OC and EC concentrations. For TC, the results observed using R protocol were 5% lower than those using N protocol; but 1% higher than those using F protocol. For OC, the results obtained using R were 9% lower than those using N protocol and 1% higher than those using F protocol. For EC, the results obtained using R were 20% higher than those using N protocol and 11% lower than those using F protocol. The variation coefficients for TC, OC and EC obtained based on R protocol were less than the other two temperature protocols under different air quality degrees. The slopes of regression curves of TC, OC and EC between on-line analysis using R protocol and off-line analysis were 1.21, 1.14 and 1.35, respectively. The correlation coefficients of TC, OC and EC were 0.99, 0.99 and 0.98, respectively. In contrast with the Black carbon(BC) concentrations monitored by multi-angle absorption spectrophotometer (MAAP), the EC concentrations measured by on-line OC/EC analyzer using R protocol were obviously lower. When the BC concentrations were less than or equal to 8 μg ·m-3, the EC/BC ratio was 0.39. While the EC/BC ratio was 0.88, when the BC concentrations were greater than 8 μg ·m-3. The variation trends of EC and BC concentrations were similar, while systematic error existed between the results obtained using those two instruments. |
|
|
|
