In Situ Measurements of Molecular Markers Facilitate Understanding of Dynamic Sources of Atmospheric Organic Aerosols
Xiaopu Lyu,Hai Guo,Dawen Yao,Haoxian Lu,Yunxi Huo,Wen Xu,Nathan Kreisberg,Allen H. Goldstein,John Jayne,Douglas Worsnop,Yan Tan,Shun-Cheng Lee,Tao Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02277
2020-08-17
Abstract:Reducing the amount of organic aerosol (OA) is crucial to mitigation of particulate pollution in China. We present time and air-origin dependent variations of OA markers and source contributions at a regionally urban background site in South China. The continental air contained primary OA markers indicative of source categories, such as levoglucosan, fatty acids, and oleic acid. Secondary OA (SOA) markers derived from isoprene and monoterpenes also exhibited higher concentrations in continental air, due to more emissions of their precursors from terrestrial ecosystems and facilitation of anthropogenic sulfate for monoterpenes SOA. The marine air and continental–marine mixed air had more abundant hydroxyl dicarboxylic acids (OHDCA), with anthropogenic unsaturated organics as potential precursors. However, OHDCA formation in continental air was likely attributable to both biogenic and anthropogenic precursors. The production efficiency of OHDCA was highest in marine air, related to the presence of sulfur dioxide and/or organic precursors in ship emissions. Regional biomass burning (BB) was identified as the largest contributor of OA in continental air, with contributions fluctuating from 8% to 74%. In contrast, anthropogenic SOA accounted for the highest fraction of OA in marine (37 ± 4%) and mixed air (31 ± 3%), overriding the contributions from BB. This study demonstrates the utility of molecular markers for discerning OA pollution sources in the offshore marine atmosphere, where continental and marine air pollutants interact and atmospheric oxidative capacity may be enhanced.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c02277?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.0c02277</a>.Text S1, TAG operation procedures; Text S2, AMS calibrations and configurations; Text S3, uncertainties associated with classification of air mass origins; Text S4, PMF configurations and modeling evaluation; Text S5, reconstruction of PM<sub>1</sub>–OM and method validation; Text S6, uncertainties in source apportionment results; Figure S1, sampling site and instruments deployment; Figure S2, AMS collection efficiency calibration; Figure S3, weather charts indicating cold fronts; Figure S4, time series of BB tracers; Figure S5, correlations between levoglucosan and acetonitrile/temperature; Figure S6, diurnal patterns of O<sub><i>x</i></sub>, oleic acid, PBL height, and temperature; Figure S7, <i>Q</i>/<i>Q</i><sub>exp</sub> versus factor number; Figure S8, source profiles in 5–7 factor solutions; Figure S9, time series of scaled residuals; Figure S10, relationships between source resolved PM<sub>1</sub>–OM and tracers; Figure S11, validation of reconstructed PM<sub>1</sub>–OM; Figure S12, diurnal patterns of unresolved OM, NO<sub><i>x</i></sub>, and SO<sub>2</sub>; Figure S13, comparisons between anthropogenic SOA and MO–OOA; Table S1, TAG development and application; Table S2, TAG operation parameters; Table S3, quality control metrics of TAG data; Table S4, OA marker groups; Table S5, instruments for auxiliary measurements; Table S6, constraints applied to base run; and Table S7, bootstrap mapping results (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.0c02277/suppl_file/es0c02277_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.
environmental sciences,engineering, environmental