4.7 Article

Variations and sources of nitrous acid (HONO) during a severe pollution episode in Beijing in winter 2016

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 648, Issue -, Pages 253-262

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.133

Keywords

Nitrous acid measurement; Haze; Vehicle emissions; Homogeneous reaction; Daytime HONO budget

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0202700]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41475114, 41571130022]
  3. NERC-MRC-NSFC Newton Fund [NE/N006992/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

HONO is an important precursor of OH radical and plays a key role in atmospheric chemistry, but its source and formation mechanism remain uncertain, especially during complex atmospheric pollution processes. In this study, HONO mixing ratios were measured by a custom-macle instrument during a severe pollution event from 16 to 23 December 2016, at an urban area of Beijing. The measurement was divided into three periods: I (haze), II (severe haze) and III (clean), according to the levels of PM25. This pollution episode was characterized by high levels of NO (75 +/- 39 and 94 +/- 40 ppbV during periods I and II, respectively) and HONO (up to 10.7 ppbV). During the nighttime, the average heterogeneous conversion frequency during the two haze periods were estimated to be 0.0058 and 0.0146 h(-1), and it was not the important way to form HONO. Vehicle emissions contributed 52% (+16)% and 40% (+/- 18)% to ambient HONO at nighttime during periods I and II. The contribution of homogeneous reaction of NO with OH should be reconsidered under high-NOx conditions and could be noticeable to HONO sources during this pollution event Furthermore, HONO was positively correlated with PM25 during periods I and II, suggesting a potential chemical link between HONO and haze particles. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available