Trace Elements and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Variation Along the Guang-Shen Expressway Before and After the 2016 Qingming Festival in Guangzhou
PM2.5 samples (particles with aerodynamic diameter < 2.5 μm) were collected along the Guang-Shen expressway around the Qingming Festival, one of the most congested periods in China, which started from April 2–4, in 2016. Twenty-five trace elements and 16 priority polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) of the samples were analyzed. Their major sources at different periods were identified. The concentrations of PAHs distinctly increased with growing traffic flow 2 days before the Qingming Festival (March 31th and April 1st), decreased gradually on the first 2 days of the 3-day festival (April 2nd and 3rd) and rose again on the last day (April 4th). The proportion changing of higher molecular weight containing 5- and 6-ring PAHs (HMW PAHs) closely related to the traffic flow variation were consistent with the concentration variation of PAHs during the experimental period. Indicators of gasoline/diesel engines emission, i.e., Mo, Co, Mn, and Pb showed similar concentration variation with PAHs. The concentrations of trace elements, mainly derived from wear instead of combustion process, such as Cu, Zn, Ti, and Sb, raised significantly during the rainy days. Incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) values were calculated to evaluate the health risk caused by PAH around the Qingming Festival. The ILCR values increased by 3–10 times 2 days before and on the last day of the festival comparing with other days, as a result of traffic related sources, including engine emission and wearing of tires. It concluded by recommending the necessity of traffic diversion to alleviate the health risk to drivers and nearby residents during important festivals.
The authors thank the National Key Technical Projects (Project No. 2016ZX05047-005) for the financial support of this study.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Bukowiecki N, Lienemann P, Hill M, Furger M, Richard A, Amato F, Prevot ASH, Baltensperger U, Buchmann B, Gehrig R (2010) PM10 emission factors for non-exhaust particles generated by road traffic in an urban street canyon and along a freeway in Switzerland. Atmos Environ 44:2330–2340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chen HZ, Gong CS, Li WL, Li XK, Peng XY, Zhan QJ (2010) Characteristic and evaluation of soil pollution by heavy metal in different functional zones of Guangzhou. J Environ Health 27:700–703Google Scholar
- Chen HX, Li K, Li M, Yang K, Lu F, Cheng XM (2014) Geochemical background and baseline value of chemical elements in urban soil in China. Earth Sci Front 21:265–306Google Scholar
- Chen DQ, Xie ZY, Zhang YJ, Luo XL, Guo QR, Yang JJ, Liang YJ (2016a) Source apportionment of soil heavy metals in Guangzhou based on the PCA/APCS model and geostatistics. Ecol Environ Sci 25:1014–1022Google Scholar
- China Ministry of Environmental Protection (2012) National ambient air quality standards, GB 3095-2012. China MEP, Beijing, pp 1–6Google Scholar
- Kong SF, Li XX, Li L, Yin Y, Chen K, Yuan L, Zhang YJ, Shan YP, Ji YQ (2015) Variation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in atmospheric PM2.5 during winter haze period around 2014 Chinese Spring Festival at Nanjing: insights of source changes, air mass direction and firework particle injection. Sci Total Environ 520:59–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lang YH, Li GL, Wang XM, Peng P, Bai J (2015) Combination of Unmix and positive matrix factorization model identifying contributions to carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons sources in Liaohe delta reed wetland soils, China. Chemosphere 120:431–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lin H, Tao J, Du YD, Liu T, Qian ZM, Tian LW, Di Q, Rutherford S, Guo LC, Zeng WL, Xiao JP, Li X, He ZH, Xu YJ, Ma WJ (2016b) Particle size and chemical constituents of ambient particulate pollution associated with cardiovascular mortality in Guangzhou, China. Environ Pollut 208:758–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schafer K, Elsasser M, Arteaga-Salas JM, Gu JW, Pitz M, Schnelle-Kreis J, Cyrys J, Emeis S, Prevot ASH, Zimmermann R (2016) Impact of meteorological conditions on airborne fine particle composition and secondary pollutant characteristics in urban area during winter-time. Meteorol Z 25:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- US EPA (1984) Guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants under the clean water act: method 610. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. United States Environmental Protection Agency Federal Regulations, vol. 49(209, Part 136):43:34–52Google Scholar
- US EPA (1991) Human health evaluation manual, supplemental guidance: “standard default exposure factors.” OSWER Directive 9285:6–03Google Scholar
- US EPA (2001) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume III—part A, process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment. EPA 540-R-02-002. US Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- US EPA (2008) Integrated science assessment for particulate matter (External review draft). US Environmental Protection Agency, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- US EPA (2011) Exposure factors handbook: 2011 edition. EPA/600/R-090/052 FGoogle Scholar
- WHO (2006) Air quality guidelines: global update 2005. World Health Organization, BonnGoogle Scholar