737
2,242.57
3.04
1,426

Recent PublicationsView all

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review summarizes the different receptor models that have been adopted at industrial and urban sites to apportion the sources of particulate matter (PM) from industries. Industrial processes and those associated with industry (such as transportation) are an important source of airborne PM which includes trace elements, organic and elemental carbon, and PAHs. Industry also emits gaseous pollutants which form secondary aerosol in the atmosphere. Most published studies have employed chemical mass balance (CMB), positive matrix factorization (PMF) and/or principal component analysis (PCA) models as source apportionment tools. These receptor models were mostly applied to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and PM10 compositional data, particularly the inorganic constituents. Some studies have combined two or more of these receptor models, which provides useful information on the uncertainties associated with different models. Industry has been reported to contribute from 0 to 70% of PM mass at industrial sites. It appears that some studies are unsuccessful in apportioning PM from industry, e.g., unable to distinguish industrial emissions from other sources. A critical evaluation of the literature data also showed that the choice of appropriate tracers for industry, both generically and for specific industries, varies between different PM source apportionment studies. This is not surprising considering the significant difference in source profiles of PM from different types of industry, which may compromise source apportionment of industrial emissions using CMB with non-local source profiles. It may also affect the attribution of industrial emissions in multivariate statistical models (e.g. PMF and PCA). It is concluded that a general classification of the source “industry” is rarely appropriate for PM source apportionment. Indeed, such studies may even need to consider the different processes within a particular industry, such as a steelworks, which emit PM with significantly different chemical signatures. It is suggested that future source apportionment studies should make every effort to measure source profiles of PM from different industrial processes, and where possible, use multiple models in order to more accurately apportion the source emissions from industry.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2014 · Atmospheric Environment
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Single particle analysis of an industrially polluted atmosphere in Port Talbot, South Wales, United Kingdom was conducted using Aerosol-Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (ATOFMS). During the four week sampling campaign, a total of 5,162,018 particles were sized in the size range 0.2–1.9 μm aerodynamic diameter. Of these, 580,798 were successfully ionized generating mass spectra. K-means clustering employed for analysing ATOFMS data utilized 96% of the hit particles to generate 20 clusters. Similar clusters were merged together and 17 clusters were generated from which 7 main particle groups were identified. The particle classes include: K-rich particles (K–CN, K–NO3, K–EC, K–Cl–PO3 and K–HSO4), aged sea salt (Na–NO3), silicate dust (Na–HSiO2), sulphate rich particles (K–HSO4), nitrate rich particles (AlO–NO3), Ca particles (Ca–NO3), carbon-rich particles (Mn–OC, Metallic–EC, EC, EC–NO3 and OC–EC), and aromatic hydrocarbon particles (Arom–CN, Fe–PAH–NO3 and PAH–CN). With the aid of wind sector plots, the K–Cl–PO3 and Na–HSiO2 particle clusters were related to the steelworks blast furnace/sinter plant while Ca-rich particles arose from blast furnace emissions. K–CN, K–EC, Na–HSiO2, K–HSO4, Mn–OC, Arom–CN, Fe–PAH–NO3, and PAH–CN particles were closely linked with emissions from the cokemaking and mills (hot and cold) steelworks sections. The source factors identified by the ATOFMS were compared with those derived from multivariate analysis using Multilinear Engine (ME-2) applied to filter samples analysed off-line. Both methods of source apportionment identified common source factors including those within the steelworks (blast furnace, sinter, cokemaking), as well as marine, traffic and secondary particles, but quantitative attribution of mass is very different.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2014 · Atmospheric Environment
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Use of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in soft furnishings has occurred for over thirty years with the phase out of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) only relatively recently begun. As products treated with BFRs reach the end of their lifecycle they enter the waste stream, thereby constituting an important and increasing reservoir of these chemicals. This review highlights the dearth of data on the extent and potential mechanisms of BFR emissions from waste soft furnishings. However, insights into what may occur are provided by scrutiny of the larger (though still incomplete) database related to BFR emissions from electronic waste (e-waste). In many countries, municipal landfills have historically been the primary disposal method of waste consumer products and therefore represent a substantial reservoir of BFRs. Published data for BFR emissions to both air and water from landfill and other waste disposal routes are collated, presented and reviewed. Reported concentrations of PBDEs in landfill leachate range considerably from < 1 ng L− 1 to 133,000 ng ΣPBDE L− 1. In addition to direct migration of BFRs from waste materials; there is evidence that some higher brominated flame retardants are able to undergo degradation and debromination during waste treatment, that in some instances may lead to the formation of more toxic and bioavailable compounds. We propose that waste soft furnishings be treated with the same concern as e-waste, given its potential as a reservoir and source of environmental contamination with BFRs.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2014 · Environment International
Information provided on this web page is aggregated encyclopedic and bibliographical information relating to the named institution. Information provided is not approved by the institution itself. The institution’s logo (and/or other graphical identification, such as a coat of arms) is used only to identify the institution in a nominal way. Under certain jurisdictions it may be property of the institution.