| Literature DB >> 22754478 |
Abstract
In recent decades, high ambient ozone concentrations have become one of the major regional air quality issues in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region. Non-methane hydrocarbons (NMHCs), as key precursors of ozone, were found to be the limiting factor in photochemical ozone formation for large areas in the PRD. For source apportioning of NMHCs as well as ozone pollution control strategies, it is necessary to obtain typical seasonal and diurnal patterns of NMHCs with a large pool of field data. To date, few studies have focused on seasonal and diurnal variations of NMHCs in urban areas of Guangzhou. This study explored the seasonal variations of most hydrocarbons concentrations with autumn maximum and spring minimum in Guangzhou. The diurnal variations of most anthropogenic NMHCs typically showed two-peak pattern with one at 8:00 in the morning and another at 20:00 in the evening, both corresponding to traffic rush hours in Guangzhou, whereas isoprene displayed a different bimodal diurnal curve. Propene, ethene, m, p-xylene and toluene were the four largest contributors to ozone formation in Guangzhou, based on the evaluation of individual NMHCs' photochemical reactivity. Therefore, an effective strategy for controlling ozone pollution may be achieved by the reduction of vehicle emissions in Guangzhou.Entities:
Keywords: non-methane hydrocarbons; ozone formation; photochemical reactivity; seasonal and diurnal variations
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22754478 PMCID: PMC3386592 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9051859
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Wind frequency distribution in four seasons.
Figure 2The mean temperature and humidity in four seasons.
Mixing ratios of abundant hydrocarbons at an urban site in Guangzhou (units: ppbv).
| Hydrocarbons | Mixing ratios |
|---|---|
| Ethyne | 5.46 ± 4.03 |
| Propane | 4.49 ± 3.69 |
| Toluene | 4.19 ± 4.94 |
| Ethane | 3.15 ± 2.89 |
| Ethene | 2.79 ± 1.45 |
| 2.54 ± 1.80 | |
| Propene | 2.26 ± 2.10 |
| 2.11 ± 3.39 | |
| 1.81 ± 1.70 | |
| Benzene | 1.73 ± 1.26 |
| 1.65 ± 2.74 | |
| 1.35 ± 1.02 | |
| 1.18 ± 0.97 | |
| Ethylbenzene | 1.03 ± 1.49 |
| 0.79 ± 1.10 | |
| 3-Methylhexane | 0.72 ± 0.92 |
| 2-Methylpentane | 0.70 ± 0.68 |
| Isoprene | 0.66 ± 0.90 |
| 0.64 ± 1.03 | |
| 3-Methylpentane | 0.62 ± 0.58 |
| 0.56 ± 0.75 | |
| 2,3-dimethylbutane | 0.52 ± 0.50 |
| Alkanes | 23.28 ± 1.09 |
| Alkenes | 6.83 ± 0.93 |
| Alkynes | 5.46 ± 4.03 |
| Aromatics | 10.80 ± 1.09 |
| Biogenics | 0.88 ± 0.33 |
| ∑NMHCs | 47.26 ± 1.19 |
Comparison of selected NMHCs in Guangzhou with other cities (units: ppbv).
| Hydrocarbon | Guangzhou a, China | Beijing b, China | Honkong c, China | Dongguan d, China | Shanghai e, China | Kaohsiung f, Taiwan | 43 Cities China g |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethane | 3.15 | 3.75 | 1.83 | 1.60 | 1.10 | 4.5 | 3.7–17.0 |
| Propane | 4.49 | 3.59 | 1.60 | 2.46 | 4.25 | 3.1 | 1.5–20.8 |
| 1.35 | 2.31 | 0.90 | 1.07 | 0.97 | 0.7 | 0.4–4.6 | |
| 2.54 | 2.75 | 1.46 | 1.89 | 1.80 | 2.3 | 0.6–18.8 | |
| 1.81 | 4.11 | 0.52 | 1.42 | 1.98 | 3.8 | 0.3–18.8 | |
| 1.18 | 1.7 | 0.25 | 0.70 | 1.40 | 1.3 | 0.2–7.7 | |
| Ethene | 2.79 | 4.59 | 1.47 | 3.07 | 7.5 | 2.1–34.8 | |
| Propene | 2.26 | 1.16 | 0.32 | 0.53 | 0.93 | 2.2 | 0.2–8.2 |
| Ethyne | 5.46 | 5.41 | 1.95 | 4.27 | 3.58 | 4.9 | 2.9–58.3 |
| Benzene | 1.73 | 1.76 | 0.42 | 1.26 | 1.67 | 1.1 | 0.7–10.4 |
| Toluene | 4.19 | 3.03 | 2.77 | 6.13 | 4.69 | 8.2 | 0.4–11.2 |
| Ethylbenzene | 1.03 | 0.98 | 0.40 | 1.06 | 1.51 | 0.7 | 0.1–2.7 |
| 1.65 | 2.04 | 0.70 | 1.48 | 1.31 | 1.2 | 0.4–15.3 | |
| Isoprene | 0.66 | 0.41 | 0.18 | 0.68 | 0.03 | 0.6 | 0.04–1.7 |
a This study; b Song et al. 2007 [13]; c Guo et al. 2007 [4]; d Barletta et al. 2008 [10]; e Ran et al. 2009 [14]; f Chang et al. 2005 [15]; g Barletta et al. 2005 [12].
Figure 3Seasonal variations of selected NMHCs in Guangzhou.
Figure 4Scatter plots for isoprene versus temperature in Guangzhou.
Figure 5Diurnal variations of selected NMHCs in Guangzhou.
The top 20 NMHCs ranked according to propylene-equivalent concentration.
| Rank | Species | Rate constant with OH | Propylene-equivalent concentration(ppbC) | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Isoprene | 100 | 12.50 | 16.0% |
| 2 | 18.7 | 9.41 | 12.1% | |
| 3 | Propene | 26.3 | 6.77 | 8.7% |
| 4 | Toluene | 5.63 | 6.27 | 8.1% |
| 5 | α-Pinene | 52.3 | 3.45 | 4.4% |
| 6 | 65 | 2.83 | 3.6% | |
| 7 | 64 | 2.71 | 3.5% | |
| 8 | 13.6 | 2.63 | 3.4% | |
| 9 | 5.2 | 2.51 | 3.2% | |
| 10 | Ethylbenzene | 7 | 2.19 | 2.8% |
| 11 | 1-Butene | 31.4 | 2.06 | 2.6% |
| 12 | 8.11 | 1.95 | 2.5% | |
| 13 | Ethene | 8.52 | 1.80 | 2.3% |
| 14 | 2-Methyl-1-butene | 61 | 1.79 | 2.3% |
| 15 | 67 | 1.70 | 2.2% | |
| 16 | 56.4 | 1.58 | 2.0% | |
| 17 | 1-Pentene | 31.4 | 1.35 | 1.7% |
| 18 | 3.6 | 1.24 | 1.6% | |
| 19 | 2-Methyl-2-butene | 86.9 | 1.13 | 1.5% |
| 20 | 6.76 | 1.01 | 1.3% |
Note: Rate constant with OH are cited from Atkinson & Arey [30].
The top 20 NMHCs ranked according to ozone formation potential.
| Rank | Species | MIR value | Conc (ppbv). | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Propene | 9.4 | 21.22 | 17.3% |
| 2 | Ethene | 7.4 | 20.61 | 16.8% |
| 3 | 7.4 | 12.24 | 10.0% | |
| 4 | Toluene | 2.7 | 11.30 | 9.2% |
| 5 | Isoprene | 9.1 | 5.98 | 4.9% |
| 6 | o-Xylene | 6.5 | 4.13 | 3.4% |
| 7 | 1-Butene | 8.9 | 3.84 | 3.1% |
| 8 | 10 | 2.79 | 2.3% | |
| 9 | Ethylbenzene | 2.7 | 2.78 | 2.3% |
| 10 | Ethyne | 0.5 | 2.73 | 2.2% |
| 11 | 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene | 8.8 | 2.70 | 2.2% |
| 12 | 1.02 | 2.59 | 2.1% | |
| 13 | 1.38 | 2.50 | 2.0% | |
| 14 | Propane | 0.48 | 2.15 | 1.8% |
| 15 | 0.98 | 2.07 | 1.7% | |
| 16 | 10 | 1.84 | 1.5% | |
| 17 | 1.21 | 1.64 | 1.3% | |
| 18 | 1-Pentene | 6.2 | 1.40 | 1.1% |
| 19 | 1,2,3-Trimethylbenzene | 8.9 | 1.37 | 1.1% |
| 20 | 1.04 | 1.23 | 1.0% |
Note: MIR values are taken from Carter [31].