济南市一次持续性重污染天气的颗粒物化学组分演变分析

doi:10.3976/j.issn.1002-4026.2022.03.012

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为研究济南市冬季大气重污染过程特征,以2020年12月8日—13日发生的一次典型大气重污染过程为例,从污染过程、气象条件、细颗粒物化学组分等角度综合分析此次重污染过程的特征和成因。结果表明,此次重污染过程期间首要污染物均为PM_2.5,其平均质量浓度为137 μg/m³,11日21时达到此次污染峰值,PM_2.5质量浓度高达为235 μg/m³。重污染期间高空环流较为平直;低层850 hPa受西南气流影响,有利于逆温层结的形成;地面均压场控制,平流雾、辐射雾交替产生。静稳气象条件使得PM_2.5质量浓度累积及高湿状态下颗粒物二次转化增强。观测期间,二次离子(SNA= $SO^{2-}_{4}$ + $NO^{-}_{3}$ + $NH^{+}_{4}$) 质量浓度为85.4 μg/m³,占PM_2.5质量浓度的52.0%。硫转化率(R_S)和氮氧化率(R_N)均值分别为0.44和0.33,大气中SO₂和NO₂的二次氧化程度较高;R_S高于R_N,表明污染期间二次$SO^{2-}_{4}$的二次转化效率高于 $NO^{-}_{3}$。$\rho_{NO^{-}_{3}}$ / $\rho_{SO^{2-}_{4}}$平均值为2.1,表明移动源对PM_2.5污染的贡献占主导地位。有机碳和元素碳浓度的平均比值为6.5,可见本次重污染期间济南市大气中存在二次有机碳(SOC)污染。采用有机碳和元素碳比值(ρ_OC/ρ_EC)最小比值法估算得到重污染期间一次有机碳浓度和二次有机碳浓度分别为11.9 μg/m³、4.3 μg/m³,表明一次燃烧源对污染过程有较大贡献。

关键词: 重污染, PM_2.5, 气象要素, 水溶性离子, 碳质组分

Abstract:

To study the characteristics of heavy-air pollution process of Jinan in winter, a typical heavy-air pollution process that occurred during December 8 to 13 in 2020 was taken as an example to comprehensively analyze the characteristics and causes from the perspectives of pollution process, meteorological conditions, and chemical composition of fine particles. The results were shown as follows: During the heavy pollution process, the primary pollutant was PM₂_.₅, with an average mass concentration of 137 μg/m³. The pollution peak was reached at 21:00 on the December 11, and the mass concentration of PM₂_.₅ was as high as 235 μg/m³. During heavy pollution, the high-altitude circulation was relatively straight; the low 850 hPa was affected by the southwest airflow, which was conducive to the formation of temperature inversion stratification; the ground pressure field was controlled, and advection and radiation fogs occurred alternately. The static and stable meteorological conditions worsened the accumulation of PM₂_.₅ concentration and the secondary conversion of particulate matter under high-humidity conditions. During the observation period, the mass concentration of SNA was 85.4 μg/m³, accounting for 52.0% of the PM₂_.₅concentration. The average values of R_S and R_N were 0.44 and 0.33 respectively, the secondary oxidation of SO₂and NO₂ in the atmosphere was relatively high. R_S was higher than R_N, indicating that the secondary conversion efficiency of $SO^{2-}_{4}$ is higher than $NO^{-}_{3}$. The average value of $\rho_{NO^{-}_{3}}$ / $\rho_{SO^{2-}_{4}}$ was 2.1, indicating that the contribution of mobile sources to PM₂_.₅ pollution is dominant. The average ratio of OC/EC was 6.5, which indicated that there was SOC pollution in the atmosphere of Jinan during the heavy pollution period. Using the ρ_OC/ρ_EC minimum ratio method, the mass concentrations of POC and SOC during the heavy pollution period were estimated to be 11.9 μg/m³ and 4.3 μg/m³, respectively. The mass concentration of POC was higher than SOC, and it indicated that the primary combustion source has a greater contribution to the pollution process.

Key words: :heavy pollution, PM_2.5, meteorological factors, water-soluble ions, carbonaceous species

中图分类号:

X513

张文娟,夏志勇,孙凤娟,王治非,李敏,边萌,王在峰. 济南市一次持续性重污染天气的颗粒物化学组分演变分析[J]. 山东科学, 2022, 35(3): 100-106.

ZHANG Wen-juan,XIA Zhi-yong,SUN Feng-juan,WANG Zhi-fei,LI Min,BIAN Meng,WANG Zai-feng. Chemical composition evolution of particulate matter in persistent heavy-air pollution in Jinan[J]. Shandong Science, 2022, 35(3): 100-106.

图/表 6

图1

图2

表1

图3

图4

图5

参考文献 28

[1]	刘闽. 沈阳市冬季重污染过程PM_2.5浓度变化及成因分析[J]. 中国环境监测, 2018, 34(1): 47-53.DOI: 10.19316/j.issn.1002-6002.2018.01.06. doi: 10.19316/j.issn.1002-6002.2018.01.06
[2]	何瑞琦. 滨州市一次持续性雾霾天气过程分析[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 50(2): 255-258. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2324.2019.02.018. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2324.2019.02.018
[3]	肖致美, 徐虹, 蔡子颖, 等. 2020年天津市两次重污染天气污染特征分析[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(9): 3879-3888. DOI: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202003109. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202003109
[4]	李敏, 张文娟, 吕晨, 等. 济南市冬季一次典型重污染过程分析[J]. 环境科学研究, 2018, 31(11): 1867-1875. DOI: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2018.08.02. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2018.08.02
[5]	宋晓辉, 田秀霞, 张珺, 等. 邯郸一次重污染天气过程分析[J]. 环境科学与技术, 2016, 39(S2): 19-22.
[6]	张晓, 钤伟妙, 陈静. 石家庄市一次持续性霾过程气象成因分析及其对能见度的影响[J]. 河北师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(1): 93-100. DOI: 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.nse.202105002. doi: 10.13763/j.cnki.jhebnu.nse.202105002
[7]	韩笑颜, 周颖, 吕喆, 等. 京津冀典型城市一次重污染过程特征及边界层结构变化对其影响[J]. 环境科学研究, 2020, 33(10): 2235-2245. DOI: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2020.05.15. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2020.05.15
[8]	刘寿东, 张莉, 张园园, 等. 温湿度对南京北郊PM_2.5中二次无机离子生成演化的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2018, 27(4): 714-721. DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2018.04.017. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2018.04.017
[9]	操文祥, 陈楠, 田一平, 等. 武汉地区秋冬季清洁与重污染过程的水溶性离子特征研究[J]. 环境科学学报, 2017, 37(1): 82-88. DOI: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2016.0177. doi: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2016.0177
[10]	贾佳, 丛怡, 高清敏, 等. 中原城市冬季两次重污染形成机制及来源[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(12): 5256-5266. DOI: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202003323. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202003323
[11]	朱媛媛, 高愈霄, 柴文轩, 等. 京津冀及周边区域PM_2.5叠加沙尘重污染过程特征及预报效果分析[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(2): 574-586. DOI: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201908123. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201908123
[12]	韩军彩, 陈静, 石文雅, 等. 石家庄市一次大气重污染过程的边界层特征和成因分析[J]. 装备环境工程, 2019, 16(6): 85-91. DOI: 10.7643/issn.1672-9242.2019.06.014. doi: 10.7643/issn.1672-9242.2019.06.014
[13]	徐冉, 张恒德, 杨孝文, 等. 北京地区秋冬季大气污染特征及成因分析[J]. 环境科学, 2019, 40(8): 3405-3414. DOI: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201806061. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201806061
[14]	石梦双, 韩斌, 杨文, 等. 北京市典型重污染过程中PM_2.5载带水溶性无机离子污染特征分析[J]. 中国环境监测, 2018, 34(3): 21-29. DOI: 10.19316/j.issn.1002-6002.2018.03.04. doi: 10.19316/j.issn.1002-6002.2018.03.04
[15]	丁淑琴, 吴家平, 万学平, 等. 常熟市秋冬季典型大气重污染过程中PM_2.5及其主要化学组分分析[J]. 环境工程, 2020, 38(3): 142-147. DOI: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202003024. doi: 10.13205/j.hjgc.202003024
[16]	袁小燕, 朱羽蒙, 廖瑞雪, 等. 成都市重污染期间PM_2.5中水溶性离子特征分析[J]. 四川环境, 2017, 36(S1): 28-31. DOI: 10.14034/j.cnki.schj.2017.s1.006. doi: 10.14034/j.cnki.schj.2017.s1.006
[17]	雷天阳, 藏雨, 高元官, 等. 菏泽市秋冬季PM_2.5水溶性离子化学特征分析[J]. 环境科学研究, 2020, 33(4): 831-840. DOI: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2019.10.09. doi: 10.13198/j.issn.1001-6929.2019.10.09
[18]	尹寒梅, 陈军辉, 冯小琼, 等. 基于高分辨率MARGA分析成都市PM_2.5中水溶性离子污染特征[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(9): 3889-3898. DOI: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202003042. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202003042
[19]	张敬巧, 罗达通, 王少博, 等. 聊城市秋季PM_2.5中水溶性离子污染特征及来源解析[J]. 环境工程技术学报, 2021, 11(4): 617-623.DOI: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200228. doi: 10.12153/j.issn.1674-991X.20200228
[20]	刘安康, 王红磊, 陈魁, 等. 南京市一次霾污染过程中水溶性离子分布特征[J]. 中国环境科学, 2019, 39(5): 1793-1803.DOI: 10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2019.0213. doi: 10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2019.0213
[21]	王念飞, 陈阳, 郝庆菊, 等. 苏州市PM_2.5中水溶性离子的季节变化及来源分析[J]. 环境科学, 2016, 37(12): 4482-4489. DOI: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201605094. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.201605094
[22]	张蒙, 韩力慧, 刘保献, 等. 北京市冬季重污染期间PM_2.5及其组分演变特征[J]. 中国环境科学, 2020, 40(7): 2829-2838. DOI: 10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2020.0316. doi: 10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2020.0316
[23]	王维思, 王楠, 高玉娟, 等. 2019年郑州冬、春季重污染期间PM_2.5污染特征分析[J]. 环境科学学报, 2020, 40(5): 1594-1603.DOI: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2020.0065. doi: 10.13671/j.hjkxxb.2020.0065
[25]	董贵明, 唐贵谦, 张军科, 等. 北京南部城区PM_2.5中碳质组分特征[J]. 环境科学, 2020, 41(10): 4374-4381. DOI: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202003031. doi: 10.13227/j.hjkx.202003031
[26]	梁晓宇, 单春艳, 孟瑶, 等. 唐山一次冬季重污染过程污染特征及成因分析[J]. 中国环境科学, 2019, 39(5): 1804-1812. DOI: 10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2019.0214. doi: 10.19674/j.cnki.issn1000-6923.2019.0214
[27]	段小琳, 闫雨龙, 邓萌杰, 等. 长治市冬季典型大气重污染过程特征分析[J]. 环境化学, 2020, 39(12): 3327-3335. DOI: 10.7524/j.issn.0254-6108.2019083002. doi: 10.7524/j.issn.0254-6108.2019083002
[28]	夏志勇, 付华轩, 吕晨, 等. 重污染天气期间济南市城区和清洁对照点PM_2.5及其组分污染特征[J]. 生态环境学报, 2019, 28(5): 958-963.DOI: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2019.05.012. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2019.05.012

日期	高空形势	地面气压场	风速/(m·s^-1)	平均相对湿度/%	最大相对湿度/%	平均气压值/hPa	AQI
2020-12-09	平直偏西	高压后转均压	1.4	61.5	75.0	1 019.8	113
2020-12-10	浅槽过境	均压	1.0	72.9	80.0	1 019.0	176
2020-12-11	平直偏西	均压-弱高压前	0.9	81.8	91.0	1 017.8	227
2020-12-12	平直偏西	鞍型场	0.9	78.8	97.0	1 015.1	202
2020-12-13	槽后	高压前	2.7	43.5	85.0	1 025.7	71