| Literature DB >> 30424555 |
Yongil Lee1,2, Young-Chul Lee3, Taesung Kim4, Jin Seok Choi5, Duckshin Park6.
Abstract
Hazards related to particulate matter (PM) in subway systems necessitate improvement of the air quality. As a first step toward establishing a management strategy, we assessed the physicochemical characteristics of PM in a subway system in Seoul, South Korea. The mean mass of PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations (n = 13) were 213.7 ± 50.4 and 78.4 ± 8.8 µg/m³, with 86.0% and 85.9% of mass concentration. Chemical analysis using a thermal⁻optical elemental/organic carbon (EC⁻OC) analyzer, ion chromatography (IC), and inductively coupled plasma (ICP) spectroscopy indicated that the chemical components in the subway tunnel comprised 86.0% and 85.9% mass concentration of PM10 and PM2.5. Fe was the most abundant element in subway tunnels, accounting for higher proportions of PM, and was detected in PM with diameters >94 nm. Fe was present mostly as iron oxides, which were emitted from the wheel⁻rail⁻brake and pantograph⁻catenary wire interfaces. Copper particles were 96⁻150 nm in diameter and were likely emitted via catenary wire arc discharges. Furthermore, X-ray diffraction analysis (XRD) showed that the PM in subway tunnels was composed of calcium carbonate (CaCO₃), quartz (SiO₂), and iron oxides (hematite (α-Fe₂O₃) and maghemite-C (γ-Fe₂O₃)). Transmission electron microscopy images revealed that the PM in subway tunnels existed as agglomerates of iron oxide particle clusters a few nanometers in diameter, which were presumably generated at the aforementioned interfaces and subsequently attached onto other PM, enabling the growth of aggregates. Our results can help inform the management of PM sources from subway operation.Entities:
Keywords: air quality; characteristics; particulate matter; source identification; subway tunnel
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30424555 PMCID: PMC6267438 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15112534
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The natural and mechanical ventilation systems in line 4.
Figure 2Number of trains at the M station and S station on weekdays.
Figure 3Positions of the sampling sites at the M (A) and S (B) stations.
Measurement devices and sampling periods.
| Item | Filter | Particle Diameter | Flow Rate (L/min) | Analysis Instruments | Sampling Period and Site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-volume air sampler | Zefluor | PM10 and PM2.5 | 16.7 | Ion compound (IC), Metal compound (ICP-AES) | 15 May to 9 June 2017 |
| Mini-volume air sampler | Quartz | PM10 and PM2.5 | 5.0 | Organic and Elemental Carbon (Carbon analyzer) | |
| Electrical low-pressure impactor | Aluminum foil | 14 stages (D50 1: 10, 5.3, 3.6, 2.5, 1.6, 0.94, 0.60, 0.38, 0.25, 0.15, 0.094, 0.054, 0.030, and 0.016 µm) | 10.0 | Morphology and Chemical by size distribution (SEM and TEM/EDX) | 15 May to 17 May 2017 |
| Low-volume air sampler | Zefluor | PM10 | 16.7 | 18 April 2018 | |
| Sieve | Zipper bag | Floor dust under 1 mm | - | Chemical form (XRD) | Three times within 15 May to 9 June 2017 |
1 D-Values (D50) are the intercepts for 50% of the cumulative mass. PM—particulate matter; ICP-AES—inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry; EDX—energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy; XRD—X-ray diffraction; SEM—scanning electron microscopy; TEM—transmission electron microscopy.
NIOSH Method 5040 parameters.
| Program Activity | Carbon | Carrier Gas | Ramp Time (s) | Program Temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oven purge | - | He | 10 | Ambient |
| 1st ramp | OC1 | 60 | 315 | |
| 2nd ramp | OC2 | 60 | 475 | |
| 3rd ramp | OC3 | 60 | 615 | |
| 4th ramp | OC4 and CC | 90 | 870 | |
| Cooling for EC | CC | 30 | 0 | |
| Stabilize temp | PC and EC | He/O2 | 45 | 550 |
| He/O2 1st ramp | PC and EC | 45 | 625 | |
| 2nd ramp | EC | 45 | 700 | |
| 3rd ramp | 45 | 775 | ||
| 4th ramp | 45 | 850 | ||
| 5th ramp | 120 | 910 | ||
| External standard, calibration and cool down | - | Calibration gas and He/O2 | 120 | 0 |
OC—organic carbon; CC—carbonate carbon; PC—pyrolytic carbon; EC—elemental carbon.
Figure 4Particulate matter (PM) mass concentration in the subway tunnel at the M station.
Figure 5The number and volume of PM in the subway tunnel at the M station between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. on 15 May 2017.
Figure 6Size distribution of PM in the subway tunnel at the M station between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. on 15 May 2017.
Figure 7Mass concentrations of the carbonaceous components of PM in the subway tunnel at the M station (n = 13). OC—organic carbon; CC—carbonate carbon; EC—elemental carbon.
Physical and chemical characteristics of PM at the M station (n = 13).
| PM10 | PM2.5 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This Study | In Seoul [ | In Mexico City [ | This Study | In Seoul [ | In Barcelona [ | In Mexico City [ | |||
| Mass (g/m3) | Ratio (%) | Mass (g/m3) | Mass (g/m3) | Ratio (%) | Mass (g/m3) | ||||
| Total | 213.7 ± 50.4 | 100 | 200.75 | 89.55 | 78.4 ± 8.8 | 100 | 55.1 | 20.7–93.2 | 48.34 |
| TC * | 34.5 ± 6.8 | 16.1 | - | - | 17.5 ± 2.6 | 22.3 | - | 3.2–17.1 | - |
| Anion ** | 11.0 ± 5.1 | 5.2 | 18.16 + | - | 6.7 ± 3.4 | 8.6 | 6.4 ** | - | - |
| Cation | 4.0 ± 1.8 | 1.9 | 9.82 ++ | - | 2.5 ± 1.3 | 3.2 | 3 | - | - |
| Inorganic *** | 11.1 ± 1.5 | 5.2 | 8.68 +++ | - | 2.9 ± 0.6 | 3.7 | - | - | - |
| Fe | 86.1 ± 30.5 | 40.3 | 72.51 | 5.57 | 26.3 ± 6.5 | 33.6 | - | - | 3.1 |
| Fe2O3 **** | 123.1 ± 37.7 | 57.6 | - | - | 37.7 ± 9.3 | 48 | - | 6.9–52.4 | - |
| Unknown | 30.0 ± 22.1 | 14 | - | - | 11.1 ± 9.7 | 14.1 | - | - | - |
* Excluding carbonate C; ** including carbonate C; *** excluding Fe; **** Fe as Fe2O3; + Cl−, NO3−, and SO42−; ++ Na+, K+, Mg2+, and Ca2+; +++ Al, Ba, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Si, Ti, and Zn. TC—total carbon.
Figure 8X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of PM in the subway tunnel at the S station.
Figure 9Normal and mass concentrations of ionic components in PM at the M station (n = 13).
Figure 10Mass concentrations of inorganic components in PM at the M station.
Figure 11Morphology of PM in subway tunnels according to size at the M station.
Figure 12Elemental map of PM2.5 at the M station.
Chemical composition of PM according to size at the M station (unit, %).
| Particle Size (µm) | C K | O K | S K | Fe K | Cu L | Ca K | Si K | Ba L | Br L | K K | Mo L | Mg K |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.016 | 91.58 | 7.21 | 1.21 | |||||||||
| 0.030 | 84.81 | 12.25 | 2.94 | |||||||||
| 0.054 | 95.65 | 4.35 | ||||||||||
| 0.094 | 80.95 | 11.49 | 3.39 | 1.73 | 1.89 | 0.56 | ||||||
| 0.150 | 83.17 | 8.62 | 1.48 | 1.45 | 1.87 | 3.42 | ||||||
| 0.250 | 70.67 | 8.26 | 8.86 | 12.21 | ||||||||
| 0.380 | 64.03 | 17.95 | 1.55 | 14.80 | 0.7 | 0.96 | ||||||
| 0.600 | 60.89 | 14.31 | 0.87 | 20.54 | 1.32 | 1.27 | 0.80 | |||||
| 0.940 | 40.37 | 18.65 | 0.78 | 34.19 | 2.06 | 1.83 | 2.11 | |||||
| 1.600 | 21.69 | 22.97 | 0.79 | 47.20 | 2.38 | 3.09 | 1.87 | |||||
| 2.500 | 28.07 | 20.43 | 0.60 | 44.14 | 1.95 | 2.73 | 1.64 | 0.44 | ||||
| 3.600 | 38.62 | 18.28 | 0.76 | 37.96 | 1.63 | 2.74 |
K, L is principal quantum number of elemental.
Figure 13Morphology of PM in subway tunnels according to size at the S station.
Chemical compositions * of three samples of PM in Figure 13 (unit, %).
| Element | A | B | C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Iron (Fe) | 43.98 | 43.94 | 71.32 |
| Oxygen (O) | 40.40 | 40.58 | 16.33 |
| Silicon (Si) | 6.59 | 6.59 | 3.71 |
| Magnesium (Mg) | 0.34 | 0.34 | 1.42 |
| Aluminum (Al) | 1.18 | 1.17 | 1.76 |
| Calcium (Ca) | 1.77 | 1.76 | |
| Sodium (Na) | 2.80 | 2.79 | |
| Phosphorus (P) | 0.68 | 0.68 | |
| Sulfur (S) | 0.47 | 0.47 | |
| Chlorine (Cl) | 0.54 | 0.54 | |
| Potassium (K) | 1.14 | 1.14 | |
| Titanium (Ti) | 0.12 | ||
| Zirconium (Zr) | |||
| Sum | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
* Cu and C were excluded due to the use of a Cu–C TEM grid.