4.7 Article

An evaluation of atmospheric Nr pollution and deposition in North China after the Beijing Olympics

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 74, Issue -, Pages 209-216

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.03.054

Keywords

Air pollution; Reactive N; Dry and wet deposition; Inferential method

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41071151]
  2. NSFC [31121062]
  3. Sino-German Research Training Group [GK 1070]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [ceh010023] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

North China is known for its large population densities and rapid development of industry and agriculture. Air quality around Beijing improved substantially during the 2008 Summer Olympics. We measured atmospheric concentrations of various N-r compounds at three urban sites and three rural sites in North China from 2010 to 2012 and estimated N dry and wet deposition by inferential models and the rain gauge method to determine current air conditions with respect to reactive nitrogen (N-r) compounds and nitrogen (N) deposition in Beijing and the surrounding area. NH3, NO2, and HNO3 and particulate NH+4 and NO3-, and NH4+-N and NO3--N in precipitation averaged 8.2, 11.5, 1.6, 8.2 and 4.6 mu g N m(-3), and 2.9 and 1.9 mg N L-1, respectively, with large seasonal and spatial variability. Atmospheric N-r (especially oxidized N) concentrations were highest at urban sites. Dry deposition of N-r ranged from 35.2 to 60.0 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1), with wet deposition of N-r of 16.3 to 43.2 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) and total deposition of 54.4-103.2 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1). The rates of N-r dry and wet deposition were 36.4 and 33.2% higher, respectively, at the urban sites than at the rural sites. These high levels reflect the occurrence of a wide range of N-r pollution in North China and suggest that further strict air pollution control measures are required. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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