Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
DOI | 10.1016/j.atmosres.2017.10.021 |
PMF5.0 vs. CMB8.2: An inter-comparison study based on the new European SPECIEUROPE database | |
Bove, Maria Chiara3; Massabo, Dario1; Prati, Paolo | |
2018-03-01 | |
发表期刊 | ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH |
ISSN | 0169-8095 |
EISSN | 1873-2895 |
出版年 | 2018 |
卷号 | 201页码:181-188 |
文章类型 | Article |
语种 | 英语 |
国家 | Italy |
英文摘要 | Receptor Models are tools widely adopted in source apportionment studies. We describe here an experiment in which we integrated two different approaches, i.e. Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) and Chemical Mass Balance (CMB) to apportion a set of PM10 (i.e. Particulate Matter with aerodynamic diameter lower than 10 pm) concentration values. The study was performed in the city of Genoa (Italy): a sampling campaign was carried out collecting daily PM10 samples for about two months in an urban background site. PM10 was collected on Quartz fiber filters by a low-volume sampler. A quite complete speciation of PM samples was obtained via Energy Dispersive-X Ray Fluorescence (ED-XRF, for elements), Ionic Chromatography (IC, for major ions and levoglucosan), thermo-optical Analysis (TOT, for organic and elemental carbon). The chemical analyses provided the input database for source apportionment by both PMF and CMB. Source profiles were directly calculated from the input data by PMF while in the CMB runs they were first calculated by averaging the profiles of similar sources collected in the European database SPECIEUROPE. Differences between the two receptor models emerged in particular with PM10 sources linked to very local processes. For this reason, PMF source profiles were adopted in refined CMB runs thus testing a new hybrid approach. Finally, PMF and the "tuned" CMB showed a better agreement even if some discrepancies could not completely been resolved. In this work, we compared the results coming from the last available PMF and CMB versions applied on a set of PM10 samples. Input profiles used in CMB analysis were obtained by averaging the profiles of the new European SPECIEUROPE database. The main differences between PMF and CMB results were linked to very local processes: we obtained the best solution by integrating the two different approaches with the implementation of some output PMF profiles to CMB runs. |
英文关键词 | PM10 Source apportionment Receptor models SPECIEUROPE database |
领域 | 地球科学 |
收录类别 | SCI-E |
WOS记录号 | WOS:000418981500014 |
WOS关键词 | POSITIVE MATRIX FACTORIZATION ; PM10 SOURCE APPORTIONMENT ; FACTOR-ANALYTIC MODELS ; PARTICULATE MATTER ; SEASONAL-VARIATIONS ; ELEMENTAL CARBON ; MASS CLOSURE ; HONG-KONG ; PM2.5 ; URBAN |
WOS类目 | Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences |
WOS研究方向 | Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences |
引用统计 | |
文献类型 | 期刊论文 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/15189 |
专题 | 地球科学 |
作者单位 | 1.Univ Genoa, Dept Phys, Via Dodecaneso 33, I-16146 Genoa, Italy; 2.INFN, Via Dodecaneso 33, I-16146 Genoa, Italy; 3.ARPAL, Dept La Spezia, Via Fontevivo 12, La Spezia, Italy |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Bove, Maria Chiara,Massabo, Dario,Prati, Paolo. PMF5.0 vs. CMB8.2: An inter-comparison study based on the new European SPECIEUROPE database[J]. ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH,2018,201:181-188. |
APA | Bove, Maria Chiara,Massabo, Dario,&Prati, Paolo.(2018).PMF5.0 vs. CMB8.2: An inter-comparison study based on the new European SPECIEUROPE database.ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH,201,181-188. |
MLA | Bove, Maria Chiara,et al."PMF5.0 vs. CMB8.2: An inter-comparison study based on the new European SPECIEUROPE database".ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH 201(2018):181-188. |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。
修改评论