Concentrations, properties, and health risk of PM2.5 in the Tianjin City subway system
- 420 Downloads
A campaign was conducted to assess and compare the personal exposure in L3 of Tianjin subway, focusing on PM2.5 levels, chemical compositions, morphology analysis, as well as the health risk of heavy metal in PM2.5. The results indicated that the average concentration of the PM2.5 was 151.43 μg/m3 inside the train of the subway during rush hours. PM2.5 concentrations inside car under the ground are higher than those on the ground, and PM2.5 concentrations on the platform are higher than those inside car. Regarding metal concentrations, the highest element in PM2.5 samples was Fe; the level of which is 17.55 μg/m3. OC is a major component of PM2.5 in Tianjin subway. Secondary organic carbon is the formation of gaseous organic pollutants in subway. SEM–EDX and TEM–EDX exhibit the presence of individual particle with a large metal content in the subway samples. For small Fe metal particles, iron oxide can be formed easily. With regard to their sources, Fe-containing particles are generated mainly from mechanical wear and friction processes at the rail–wheel–brake interfaces. The non-carcinogenic risk to metals Cr, Ni, Cu, Zn and Pb, and carcinogenic hazard of Cr and Ni were all below the acceptable level in L3 of Tianjin subway.
KeywordsSubway PM2.5 Elemental metals Iron Health risk
This study was supported by a scholarship from the Chinese Scholarship Council (No.201406205010), the Environmental Protection Commonweal Industry Scientific Research Project (No.201009032) and National Major Scientific Instrument Equipment Development Special (No.2011YQ060111).
- Li TT, Bai YH, Liu ZR, Liu JF, Zhang GS, Li JL (2006) Air quality in passenger cars of the ground railway transit system in Beijing, China [J]. Sci Total Environ 367(1):89–95Google Scholar
- Lorenzo R, Kaegi R, Gehrig R, Grobe´ty B (2006) Particle emissions of a railwayline determined by detailed single particle analysis. Atmos Environ 40:7831–7841Google Scholar
- Ma, H., Shen, H., Liang, Z., Zhang, L., Xia, C. (2014) Passengers’ exposure to PM2.5, PM10, and CO2 in typical underground subway platforms in Shanghai. Lect. Notes Electr. Eng: 237–245Google Scholar
- Martins V, Moreno T, Minguillón MC, Amato F, de Miguel E, Capdevila M, Querol X (2015) Exposure to airborne particulate matter in the subway system. Sci Total Environ 511:711–722Google Scholar
- Querol X, Moreno T, Karanasiou A, Reche C, Alastuey A, Viana M, Font O, Gil J, de Miguel E, Capdevila M (2013) Corrigendum to “variability of levels and composition of PM10 and PM2.5 in the Barcelona metro system” published in Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 5055–5076, 2012. Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 13(21):10767–10768Google Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) Risk assessment guidance for superfund: volume III—part A, Process for conducting probabilistic risk assessment Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington D.C., 20460Google Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: human health evaluation manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment), Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2009) Risk assessment guidance for superfund volume I: human health evaluation manual (Part F, Supplemental Guidance for Inhalation Risk Assessment), Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011) Exposure factors handbook: 2011 Edition. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. (EPA/600/R-09/ 052F.)Google Scholar