Advertisement

Particulates and particulates-bound mercury (Hg(p)) sizes (PM18, PM10, PM2.5, PM1, PM<1) distributions study by using MOUDI sampler at a complex sampling site

  • Guor-Cheng FangEmail author
  • Chao-Lang Kao
  • Pin-Wen Huang
  • Huang-Min Chen
  • Yu-Lun Wu
  • Gui-Ren Liang
Original Paper

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to measure ambient air particles concentrations of different particulates sizes ranges (PM18, PM10, PM2.5, PM1, PM<1) at a complex (traffic, residential and commercial) site. Besides, particulates-bound mercury (Hg(p)) concentrations for various particulates sizes (PM18, PM10, PM2.5, PM1, PM<1) at mixed site were also studied. Finally, ambient air particulates and Hg(p) size distributions were also described at this complex sampling site. The results showed that the average PM18, PM10, PM2.5, PM1, PM<1 concentrations were 48.83, 41.78, 35.41, 19.89, and 11.86 μg/m3, respectively. And the average ambient air particulates-bound mercury (Hg(p)) which attached on PM18, PM10, PM2.5, PM1, PM<1 particles concentrations were 0.0838, 0.0867, 0.0790, 0.0546, and 0.0373 ng/m3, respectively, in the summer season. In addition, the average ambient air Hg(p) which attached on PM18, PM10, PM2.5, PM1, PM<1 particles concentrations were 0.0175, 0.0144, 0.0120, 0.0092, and 0.0057 ng/m3, respectively, in the autumn season. Finally, the average ambient air Hg(p) which attached on PM18, PM10, PM2.5, PM1, PM<1 particles concentrations were 0.0070, 0.0053, 0.0038, 0.0026, and 0.0014 ng/m3, respectively, in the winter season. And July has the average highest PM18 and PM10 concentrations. As for PM2.5, PM1 and PM<1 particulates, the average highest particulates concentrations all occurred in November. In addition, the highest average Hg(p) in PM18, PM10, PM2.5, PM1, and PM<1 concentrations all occurred in July. Moreover, the average particles and particulates-bound mercury m.m.d. values were ranged from 1.0 to 1.8 and 0.7 to 2.0 μm from July to December of 2018, respectively, at this mixed sampling site. As for monthly ambient air particles sizes distributions, the results further showed that the main peaks for July, September, and December all occurred in the sizes of 10–18 μm. The main peaks for October and November all occurred in the sizes of 2.5–10 μm. As for monthly Hg(p) sizes distributions, the results further showed that the main peaks for July occurred in the size of 0.3–1 μm. The main peak for September occurred in the size of 1–2.5 μm. The main peaks for October to December all occurred in the size of 10–18 μm. The above finding further concluded that the particulates-bound mercury (Hg(p)) was tended to be associated with the large particles sizes mode during the winter season. Finally, this study further shows that the Taichung Thermal Power Plant was responsible for the main emission source of Hg(p) especially in summer season of Central Taiwan.

Keywords

Particles sizes distributions MOUDI Particles Particulate-bound mercury 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their appreciations for the financial support under the Project No. 107-2221-E-241-003.

References

  1. AMAP/UNEP. (2013). Technical Background Report for the Global Mercury Assessment.Google Scholar
  2. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2008). Technical background report to the global atmospheric mercury assessment. Geneva, Switzerland, AMAP/UNEP.Google Scholar
  3. Chan, Y. C., Simpson, R. W., Mctainsh, G. H., Vowles, P. D., Cohen, D. D., & Bailey, G. M. (1997). Characterisation of chemical species in PM2.5 and PM10 aerosols in Brisbane, Australia. Atmospheric Environment, 31(22), 3773–3785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, W. K., Li, T. C., Sheu, G. R., Lin, N. H., Chen, L. Y., & Yuan, C. S. (2016). Correlation analysis, transportation mode of atmospheric mercury and criteria air pollutants, with meteorological parameters at two remote sites of Mountain and Offshore Island in Asia. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 16(11), 2692–3705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi, E. M., Kim, S. H., Holsen, T. M., & Yi, S. M. (2009). Total gaseous concentrations in mercury in Seoul, Korea: Local sources compared to long-range transport from China and Japan. Environmental Pollution, 157(3), 816–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chou, C. P., Chang, T. C., Chiu, C. H., & Hsi, H. C. (2018). Mercury speciation and mass distribution of cement production process in Taiwan. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 18(11), 2801–2812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke, L. B. (1993). The fate of trace elements during coal combustion and gasification: an overview. Fuel, 72, 731–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Ippoliti, D., Forastiere, F., Ancona, C., Agabiti, N., Fusco, D., & Michelozzi, P. (2003). Air pollution and myocardial infarction in Rome: A case-crossover analysis. Epidemiology, 14(5), 528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duan, L., Cheng, N., Xiu, G., Wang, F., & Chen, Y. (2017). Characteristics and source appointment of atmospheric particulate mercury over East China Sea: Implication on the deposition of atmospheric particulate mercury in marine environment. Environmental Pollution, 224, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fang, G. C., Basu, N., Nam, D. H., & Yang, I. L. (2009). Characterization of ambient air particulates and particulate mercury at Sha-Lu, central Taiwan. Environmental Forensics, 10(4), 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fang, G. C., Chang, C. Y., Tsai, J. H., & Lin C. C. (2014). The size distributions of ambient air metallic pollutants by using a multi-stage MOUDI sampler. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 14(3), 970–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang, G. C., Lo, C. T., Zhuang, Y. J., Kuo, Y. C., & Cho, M. H. (2016). Sources of ambient air particulates and Hg(p) pollutants at Freeway, Industrial, Thermal power plant F.I.T. characteristic sites. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75, 103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5057-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fang, G. C., Tsai, K. H., Huang, C. Y., Ou Yang, K. P., Xiao, Y. F., Huang, W. C., et al. (2018). Seasonal variations of ambient air mercury species nearby an airport. Atmospheric Research, 202(1), 96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang, G. C., Zhang, L., & Huang, C. S. (2012). Measurements of size-fractionated concentration and bulk dry deposition of atmospheric particulate bound mercury. Atmospheric Environment, 61, 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Han, S. Q., Zhang, Y. F., Li, Y. H., & Li, X. J. (2011). Simulation of extinction and radiant effect of aerosol in spring of Tianjin City. China Environmental Science, 31(1), 8–12.Google Scholar
  16. Huang, Y., Deng, M., Li, T., Japenga, J., Chen, Q., Yang, X., et al. (2017). Anthropogenic mercury emissions from 1980 to 2012 in China. Environmental Pollution, 226, 230–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jung, J., Lee, H., Kim, Y. J., Liu, X., Zhang, Y., & Gu, J. (2009). Aerosol chemistry and the effect of aerosol water content on visibility impairment and radiative forcing in guangzhou during the 2006 pearl river delta campaign. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11), 3231–3244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewandowska, A. U., Bełdowska, M., Witkowska, A., Falkowska, L., & Wiśniewska, K. (2018). Mercury bonds with carbon (OC and EC) in small aerosols (PM1) in the urbanized coastal zone of the Gulf of Gdansk (southern Baltic). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 157, 350–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pacyna, E. G., Pacyna, J. M., Sundseth, K., Munthe, J., Kindbom, K., Wilson, S., et al. (2010). Global emission of mercury to the atmosphere from anthropogenic sources in 2005 and projections to 2020. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 2487–2499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pyta, H., Rogula-Kozłowska, W., & Mathews, B. (2017). Co-occurrence of PM2.5-bound mercury and carbon in rural areas affected by coal combustion. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 8(1), 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Qie, G., Wang, Y., Wu, C., Mao, H., Zhang, P., Li, T., et al. (2018). Distribution and sources of particulate mercury and other trace elements in PM2.5 and PM10 atop Mount Tai, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 215, 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Streets, D., Hao, J. M., Wu, Y., Jiang, J. K., Chan, M., Tian, H. Z., et al. (2005). Anthropogenic mercury emissions in China. Atmospheric Environment, 39, 7789–7806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Streets, D. G., Lu, Z., Levin, L., Afh, T. S., & Sunderland, E. M. (2017). Historical releases of mercury to air, land, and water from coal combustion. Science of the Total Environment, 615, 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tian, H. Z., Wang, Y., Xue, Z. G., & Cheng, K. (2010). Trend and characteristics of atmospheric emissions of Hg, As, and Se from coal combustion in China, 1980–2007. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 20729–20768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Xu, L., Chen, J., Yang, L., Niu, Z., Tong, L., & Yin, L. (2015). Characteristics and sources of atmospheric mercury speciation in a Coastal city, Xiamen, China. Chemosphere, 119, 530–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guor-Cheng Fang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chao-Lang Kao
    • 2
  • Pin-Wen Huang
    • 1
  • Huang-Min Chen
    • 1
  • Yu-Lun Wu
    • 1
  • Gui-Ren Liang
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Safety, Health, and Environmental EngineeringHungkuang UniversityTaichung CityTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Department of Chemical and Materials EngineeringNational Chin-Yi University of TechnologyTaichung CityTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations