Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 408–417 | Cite as

Removal efficiency of particulate matters at different underlying surfaces in Beijing

  • Jiakai Liu
  • Lichun Mo
  • Lijuan Zhu
  • Yilian Yang
  • Jiatong Liu
  • Dongdong Qiu
  • Zhenming Zhang
  • Jinglan Liu
Research Article

Abstract

Particulate matter (PM) pollution has been increasingly becoming serious in Beijing and has drawn the attention of the local government and general public. This study was conducted during early spring of 2013 and 2014 to monitor the concentration of PM at three different land surfaces (bare land, urban forest, and lake) in the Olympic Park in Beijing and to analyze its effect on the concentration of meteorological factors and the dry deposition onto different land cover types. The results showed that diurnal variation of PM concentrations at the three different land surfaces had no significant regulations, and sharp short-term increases in PM10 (particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter <10 μm) occurred occasionally. The concentrations also differed from one land cover type to another at the same time, but the regulation was insignificant. The most important meteorological factor influencing the PM concentration is relative humidity; it is positively correlated with the PM concentration. While in the forests, the wind speed and irradiance also influenced the PM concentration by affecting the capture capacity of trees and dry deposition velocity. Other factors were not correlated with or influenced by the PM concentration. In addition, the hourly dry deposition in unit area (μg/m2) onto the three types of land surfaces and the removal efficiency based on the ratio of dry deposition and PM concentration were calculated. The results showed that the forest has the best removal capacity for both PM2.5 (particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter <2.5 μm) and PM10 because of the faster deposition velocity and relatively low resuspension rate. The lake’s PM10 removal efficiency is higher than that of the bare land because of the relatively higher PM resuspension rates on the bare land. However, the PM2.5 removal efficiency is lower than that of the bare land because of the significantly lower dry deposition velocity.

Keywords

Particulate matter Meteorological factors Underlying surfaces Dry deposition Removal efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by The Forestry Public Welfare Project of China (201304301), Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Project (Z141100006014031) and Youth Foundation of Beijing Municipal Bureau of Landscape and Forestry (20100014120011). Thanks to two anonymous reviewers and editor for their help in improving a previous version of this manuscript. Jiakai Liu and Lichun Mo contributed equally to this work.

References

  1. Amato F, Pandolfi M, Viana M (2009) Spatial and chemical patterns of PM10 in road dust deposited in urban environment. Atmos Environ 43(9):1650–1659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balestrini R, Arisci S, Brizzio MC, Mosello R, Rogora M, Tagliaferri A (2007) Dry deposition of particles and canopy exchange: comparison of wet, bulk and throughfall deposition at five forest sites in Italy. Atmos Environ 41(4):745–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgardner D, Varela S, Escobedo FJ, Chacalo A, Ochoa C (2012) The role of a peri-urban forest on air quality improvement in the Mexico city megalopolis. Environ Pollut 163:174–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckett KP, Freer-Smith PH, Taylor G (1998) Urban woodlands: their role in reducing the effects of particulate pollution. Environ Pollut 99(3):347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckett KP, Freer-Smith P, Taylor G (2000) Effective tree species for local air quality management. J Arboric 26(1):12–19Google Scholar
  6. Beckett KP, Freer-Smith PH, Taylor G (2006) Particulate pollution capture by urban trees: effect of species and wind speed. Glob Chang Biol 6:995–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brack CL (2002) Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestration by an urban forest. Environ Pollut 116:S195–S200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cavanagh JE, Zawar-Reza P, Wilson JG (2009) Spatial attenuation of ambient particulate matter air pollution within an urbanised native forest patch. Urban For Urban Green 8(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chamberlain AC (1975) The movement of particles in plant communities. Veg Atmos 1:155–203Google Scholar
  10. Chen H, Liu CL (2014) Assessment of the effect of PM2.5 reduction by plain afforestation project in beijing based on dry deposition model. Chin J Ecol 33(11):2897–2904Google Scholar
  11. Cheng M, Horng C, Lin Y (2007) Characteristics of atmospheric aerosol and acidic gases from urban and forest sites in central Taiwan. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 79(6):674–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Croxford B, Penn A, Hillier B (1996) Spatial distribution of urban pollution: civilizing urban traffic. Sci Total Environ 189:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derwent RG (1996) EPAQS recommendations--can they be implemented. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 63rd national society for clean Air environmental protection conference and exhibition. National Society for Clean Air, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  14. Dockery DW, Pope CA, Xu X, Spengler JD, Ware JH, Fay ME (1993) An association between air pollution and mortality in six US cities. N Engl J Med 329(24):1753–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dzierżanowski K, Popek R, Gawrońska H, Sæbø A, Gawroński SW (2011) Deposition of particulate matter of different size fractions on leaf surfaces and in waxes of urban forest species. Int J Phytoremediation 13(10):1037–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards R (1996) Smog blights babies in the womb. New Sci 152(2052):4Google Scholar
  17. Erisman JW, Draaijers G (2003) Deposition to forests in Europe: most important factors influencing dry deposition and models used for generalisation. Environ Pollut 124(3):379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erisman JW, Grennfelt P, Sutton M (2003) The European perspective on nitrogen emission and deposition. Envion Int 29(2–3):311–325Google Scholar
  19. Escobedo FJ, Nowak DJ (2009) Spatial heterogeneity and air pollution removal by an urban forest. Landsc Urban Plan 90:102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Escobedo FJ, Wagner JE, Nowak DJ, De la Maza CL, Rodriguez M, Crane DE (2008) Analyzing the cost effectiveness of Santiago, Chile’s policy of using urban forests to improve air quality. J Environ Manag 86(1):148–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher R (1955) Statistical method and scientific induction. J R Stat 17(1):69–87Google Scholar
  22. Freer-Smith P, El-Khatib A, Taylor G (2004) Capture of particulate pollution by trees: a comparison of species typical of semi-arid areas with european and north american species. Water Air Soil Pollut 155:173–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Great B (1995) Asthma and outdoor Air pollution. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Grimm EC (1988) Data analysis and display. Springer, NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khan FI, Abbasi SA (2000) Attenuation of gaseous pollutants by greenbelts. Environ Monit Assess 64(2):457–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Khong KS, Liu W (2002) Calculation of critical values for dunnet and Tamhane’s step-up multiple test procedure. Stat Prob Lett 49(4):411–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacKenzie JJ, El-Ashry MT (1989) Air pollution’s toll on forests and crops. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonald AG, Bealey WJ, Fowler D, Dragosits U, Skiba U, Smith RI (2007) Quantifying the effect of urban tree planting on concentrations and depositions of PM < sub > 10 in two UK conurbations. Atmos Environ 41(38):8455–8467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nowak DJ, Crane DE, Stevens JC (2006) Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the united states. Urban For Urban Green 4:115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowak DJ, Hirabayashi S, Bodine A (2013) Modeled PM2.5 removal by trees in ten US. Cities and associated health effects. Environ Pollut 178:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ould-Dada Z (2002) Dry deposition profile of small particles within a model spruce canopy. Sci Total Environ 286(1):83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Petroff A, Mailliat A, Amielh M, Anselmet F (2008) Aerosol dry deposition on vegetative canopies. Part I: review of present knowledge. Atmos Environ 42(16):3625–3653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pullman M (2009) Conifer PM2.5 deposition and re-suspension in wind and rain events. Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  34. Reinap A, Wiman BL, Svenningsson B, Gunnarsson S (2009) Oak leaves as aerosol collectors: relationships with wind velocity and particle size distribution. Experimental results and their implications. Trees 23(6):1263–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruijgrok W, Tieben H, Eisinga P (1997) The dry deposition of particles to a forest canopy: a comparison of model and experimental results. Atmos Environ 31(3):399–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sabin LD, Hee Lim J, Teresa Venezia M, Winer AM, Schiff KC, Stolzenbach KD (2006) Dry deposition and resuspension of particle-associated metals near a freeway in Los Angeles. Atmos Environ 40(39):7528–7538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shan Y, Jingping C, Liping C, Zhemin S, Xiaodong Z, Dan W (2007) Effects of vegetation status in urban green spaces on particle removal in a street canyon atmosphere. Acta Ecol Sin 27(11):4590–4595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shannigrahi AS, Fukushima T, Sharma RC (2004) Anticipated air pollution tolerance of some plant species considered for green belt development in and around an industrial/urban area in India: an overview. Int J Environ Stud 61(2):125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Slinn SA, Slinn WGN (1980) Predictions for particle deposition on nature waters. Atmos Environ 14:1013–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tallis M, Taylor G, Sinnett D (2011) Estimating the removal of atmospheric particulate pollution by the urban tree canopy of London under current and future environments. Landsc Urban Plan 103:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tiwary A, Morvan HP, Colls JJ (2006) Modelling the size-dependent collection efficiency of hedgerows for ambient aerosols. J Aerosol Sci 37(8):990–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tiwary A, Reff A, Colls JJ (2008) Collection of ambient particulate matter by porous vegetation barriers: sampling and characterization methods. J Aerosol Sci 39(1):40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vedal S (1995) Health effects of inhalable particles: Implications for British Columbia: the ministryGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang XF (1999) Determination of concentrations of elements in the atmospheric aerosol of the urban and rural areas of beijing in winter. Biol Trace Elem Res 71(1):203–208Google Scholar
  45. Wang YC (2011) Carbon sequestration and foliar dust retention by woody plants in the greenbelts along two major Taiwan highways. Ann Appl Biol 159(2):244–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watkins LH (1991) Air pollution from road vehicles. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Williams RM (1982) A model for the dry deposition of particles to nature water surfaces. Atmos Environ 16(8):1933–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Willis KG, Garrod G, Scarpa R, Powe N, Lovett A, & Bateman IJ (2003) The social and environmental benefits of forests in Great Britain. Newcastle University, Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal and ManagementGoogle Scholar
  49. Wuyts K, Verheyen K, De Schrijver A, Cornelis WM, Gabriels D (2008) The impact of forest edge structure on longitudinal patterns of deposition, wind speed, and turbulence. Atmos Environ 42(37):8651–8660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang J, McBride J, Zhou J, Sun Z (2005) The urban forest in beijing and its role in air pollution reduction. Urban For Urban Green 3(2):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang W, Sun Y, Zhuang G, Xu D (2006) Characteristics and seasonal variations of PM2. 5, PM10, and TSP aerosol in beijing. Biomed Environ Sci 19(6):461Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiakai Liu
    • 1
  • Lichun Mo
    • 1
  • Lijuan Zhu
    • 1
  • Yilian Yang
    • 1
  • Jiatong Liu
    • 1
  • Dongdong Qiu
    • 1
  • Zhenming Zhang
    • 1
  • Jinglan Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Nature ConservationBeijing Forestry UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations