環保專案成果報告查詢系統

專案計畫編號
經費年度	111
計畫經費	2,800 千元
預算科目	空氣品質監測
專案開始日期	2022/01/01
專案結束日期	2022/12/31
專案主持人	周崇光
主辦單位	監資處
承辦人	張志偉
執行單位	中央研究院
專案分類	科技計畫、大氣空氣
中文關鍵字	可凝結性微粒、細懸浮微粒、空氣汙染鑑識
英文關鍵字	Condensable Particulate Matter, Fine Particulate Matter, Air Pollution Forensics
協同主持人	李崇德；紀凱獻；榮建誠
共同主持人
計畫聯絡人	黃譯樘
計畫聯絡電話	02-27875983#
計畫聯絡信箱	yitang@rcec.sinica.edu.tw

中文摘要	本研究團隊於2022年3月4-21日期間，完成台中市與彰化縣境內共8站的大氣PM2.5密集採樣作業，也於3-4月期間完成台中火力發電廠和中龍鋼鐵廠燒結爐煙道排放之PM2.5 (包含過濾性微粒 (filterable particulate matter, FPM) 和可凝結性微粒 (condensable particulate matter, CPM)) 採樣，並針對周界和煙道排放的PM2.5之無機和有機化學組成進行分析，和以Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 解析台中地區的PM2.5污染來源。8個測站的日平均PM2.5濃度為24.5 ± 11.5 μg/m3，有機碳、硝酸鹽、硫酸鹽和銨鹽為PM2.5的主要組成。有機組成部分，Oxalic acid和Phthalic acid是優勢的有機酸組成，塑化劑則以Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)和Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) 的量測濃度最高，濃度最高的Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 物種則為Benzo[b]fluoranthene ＆ Benzo[j]fluoranthene (BbF＆BjF)，其次為Benzo[g,h,i]perylene (BghiP)。在完成的2個固定污染源共12次煙道排放的PM2.5採樣作業部分，CPM占所有PM2.5質量濃度的比例在89%以上。台中火力發電廠煙道排放的無機CPM之金屬元素和水溶性陰陽離子濃度均顯著高於FPM；台中火力發電廠煙道排放的CPM含有的有機酸和塑化劑濃度明顯高於FPM，並以Oxalic acid、DBP和DEHP為優勢物種，Naphthalene、Pyrene和Benzo perylene為PAHs優勢的物種。中龍鋼鐵廠燒結爐煙道排放的無機CPM的金屬元素濃度低於FPM，但CPM則有較高的水溶性陰陽離子濃度；中龍鋼鐵廠燒結爐排放的有機物以Phthalic acid、Oxalic acid、DBP、DEHP、Naphthalene和Pyrene為優勢物種。以PMF分析周界PM2.5的無機組成，共分析出7個污染源因子 (生質燃燒；重油燃燒及衍生之二次氣膠；交通源及衍生之二次氣膠；石油煉製、海鹽和揚沙；鋼鐵工業；不明的塑膠燃燒污染；燃煤污染)，此7個污染源因子對每個測站的PM2.5貢獻相當 (12-17%)。最後，整合PMF和固定污染源煙道排放之CPM與FPM的化學組成分析結果，我們發現採集和分析CPM的化學組成資料，確實有助於周界PM2.5污染源的鑑定。
中文關鍵字	可凝結性微粒、細懸浮微粒、空氣汙染鑑識

中文摘要

本研究團隊於2022年3月4-21日期間，完成台中市與彰化縣境內共8站的大氣PM2.5密集採樣作業，也於3-4月期間完成台中火力發電廠和中龍鋼鐵廠燒結爐煙道排放之PM2.5 (包含過濾性微粒 (filterable particulate matter, FPM) 和可凝結性微粒 (condensable particulate matter, CPM)) 採樣，並針對周界和煙道排放的PM2.5之無機和有機化學組成進行分析，和以Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) 解析台中地區的PM2.5污染來源。8個測站的日平均PM2.5濃度為24.5 ± 11.5 μg/m3，有機碳、硝酸鹽、硫酸鹽和銨鹽為PM2.5的主要組成。有機組成部分，Oxalic acid和Phthalic acid是優勢的有機酸組成，塑化劑則以Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)和Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) 的量測濃度最高，濃度最高的Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 物種則為Benzo[b]fluoranthene ＆ Benzo[j]fluoranthene (BbF＆BjF)，其次為Benzo[g,h,i]perylene (BghiP)。在完成的2個固定污染源共12次煙道排放的PM2.5採樣作業部分，CPM占所有PM2.5質量濃度的比例在89%以上。台中火力發電廠煙道排放的無機CPM之金屬元素和水溶性陰陽離子濃度均顯著高於FPM；台中火力發電廠煙道排放的CPM含有的有機酸和塑化劑濃度明顯高於FPM，並以Oxalic acid、DBP和DEHP為優勢物種，Naphthalene、Pyrene和Benzo perylene為PAHs優勢的物種。中龍鋼鐵廠燒結爐煙道排放的無機CPM的金屬元素濃度低於FPM，但CPM則有較高的水溶性陰陽離子濃度；中龍鋼鐵廠燒結爐排放的有機物以Phthalic acid、Oxalic acid、DBP、DEHP、Naphthalene和Pyrene為優勢物種。以PMF分析周界PM2.5的無機組成，共分析出7個污染源因子 (生質燃燒；重油燃燒及衍生之二次氣膠；交通源及衍生之二次氣膠；石油煉製、海鹽和揚沙；鋼鐵工業；不明的塑膠燃燒污染；燃煤污染)，此7個污染源因子對每個測站的PM2.5貢獻相當 (12-17%)。最後，整合PMF和固定污染源煙道排放之CPM與FPM的化學組成分析結果，我們發現採集和分析CPM的化學組成資料，確實有助於周界PM2.5污染源的鑑定。

中文關鍵字

可凝結性微粒、細懸浮微粒、空氣汙染鑑識

類型	檔名	檔案大小	說明	最新版公開日期
期末報告	111年衍生性PM2.5污染來源鑑識技術發展計畫.pdf	6MB		2023/1/13 上午 12:00:00

摘要	This study investigated the chemical profiles of filterable particulate matter (FPM) and condensable particulate matter (CPM) from a coal-fired power plant and the sintering unit of a steel manufacturing plant, which were in turn applied to improve forensics for the pollution sources of PM2.5 in central Taiwan using the Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) receptor model. In addition, ambient PM2.5 samples were collected from eight sites (Fengyuan, Dali, Xitun, Chungming, Shalu, Taichung EPB, Wang Gao Liao, and Changhua) during March 4 to 21, 2022. All PM2.5 samples were analyzed for water-soluble ions, organic carbon, elemental carbon, crustal elements, heavy metals, and organic markers (organic acids, PAEs, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Levoglucosan). The results showed that CPM was the predominant component in total PM2.5 emitted from these two stationary pollution sources, which accounted for >89%. Moreover, contribution of inorganic CPM (82%) was significantly larger than that of organic CPM (18%). The major chemical constituents in the FPM and CPM samples from these two stationary pollution sources were: (1) Coal-fired power plant: there were higher concentrations of water-soluble ions in CPM (5644 ± 1328 μg/m3) than that in FPM (186 ± 20 μg/m3), and the predominant specie was sulfate. The metal concentration in CPM (246 ± 46 μg/m3) was also significantly higher than that in FPM (95 ± 14 μg/m3). The concentrations of Zn and Na were significantly higher in CPM as compared to FPM, by 58 and 17 times, respectively. The concentrations of organic acids and PAEs were also higher in CPM than those in FPM, and the predominant species were oxalic acid, DBP, and DEHP. The major PAH compounds were naphthalene, pyrene, and benzo perylene; (2) Steel manufacturing plant: there were higher concentrations of water-soluble ions in CPM (16883 ± 2694 μg/m3) than that in FPM (1162 ± 164 μg/m3), and the predominant specie was sulfate. The metal concentration in CPM (245 ± 29 μg/m3) was lower than that in FPM (688 ± 196 μg/m3). However, the concentration of Zr was higher in CPM. The concentrations of organic markers were higher in CPM than those in FPM, and the predominant species were phthalic acid, oxalic acid, DBP, DEHP, naphthalene, and pyrene. The average level of ambient PM2.5 was 24.5 ± 11.5 μg/m3 in the study area. The predominant chemical compounds of the ambient PM2.5 were organic carbon, nitrate, sulfate, and ammonium, which accounted for 26%, 20%, 16%, and 12%, respectively. Oxalic acid (40.8 ± 19.0 ng/m3) and Phthalic acid (39.5 ± 22.0 ng/m3) were predominant organic acids. The highest concentration of PAEs was Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) (93.9 ± 77.3 ng/m3), followed by Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) (42.2 ± 52.7 ng/m3). The Benzo[b]fluoranthene ＆ Benzo[j]fluoranthene (BbF＆BjF) (0.188 ± 0.129 ng/m3) and Benzo[g,h,i]perylene (BghiP) (0.137 ± 0.087 ng/m3) were predominant PAHs. Seven pollution source factors in PM2.5 were extracted from the chemical composition dataset for the study area, where the contributions of these seven sources ranged between 12% and 17% at respective sampling sites. We found that plastic burning could also be a major contributor to PM2.5 in the study area, and further investigation is suggested. Moreover, our data showed that the dominant PM2.5 pollution sources are different on different sampling days, but the dominant pollution sources will contribute continuously for 2-3 days, which implies that the influence of these pollution sources to air quality are not a result of occational events.
英文關鍵字	Condensable Particulate Matter, Fine Particulate Matter, Air Pollution Forensics

摘要

This study investigated the chemical profiles of filterable particulate matter (FPM) and condensable particulate matter (CPM) from a coal-fired power plant and the sintering unit of a steel manufacturing plant, which were in turn applied to improve forensics for the pollution sources of PM2.5 in central Taiwan using the Positive Matrix Factorization (PMF) receptor model. In addition, ambient PM2.5 samples were collected from eight sites (Fengyuan, Dali, Xitun, Chungming, Shalu, Taichung EPB, Wang Gao Liao, and Changhua) during March 4 to 21, 2022. All PM2.5 samples were analyzed for water-soluble ions, organic carbon, elemental carbon, crustal elements, heavy metals, and organic markers (organic acids, PAEs, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Levoglucosan). The results showed that CPM was the predominant component in total PM2.5 emitted from these two stationary pollution sources, which accounted for >89%. Moreover, contribution of inorganic CPM (82%) was significantly larger than that of organic CPM (18%). The major chemical constituents in the FPM and CPM samples from these two stationary pollution sources were: (1) Coal-fired power plant: there were higher concentrations of water-soluble ions in CPM (5644 ± 1328 μg/m3) than that in FPM (186 ± 20 μg/m3), and the predominant specie was sulfate. The metal concentration in CPM (246 ± 46 μg/m3) was also significantly higher than that in FPM (95 ± 14 μg/m3). The concentrations of Zn and Na were significantly higher in CPM as compared to FPM, by 58 and 17 times, respectively. The concentrations of organic acids and PAEs were also higher in CPM than those in FPM, and the predominant species were oxalic acid, DBP, and DEHP. The major PAH compounds were naphthalene, pyrene, and benzo perylene; (2) Steel manufacturing plant: there were higher concentrations of water-soluble ions in CPM (16883 ± 2694 μg/m3) than that in FPM (1162 ± 164 μg/m3), and the predominant specie was sulfate. The metal concentration in CPM (245 ± 29 μg/m3) was lower than that in FPM (688 ± 196 μg/m3). However, the concentration of Zr was higher in CPM. The concentrations of organic markers were higher in CPM than those in FPM, and the predominant species were phthalic acid, oxalic acid, DBP, DEHP, naphthalene, and pyrene. The average level of ambient PM2.5 was 24.5 ± 11.5 μg/m3 in the study area. The predominant chemical compounds of the ambient PM2.5 were organic carbon, nitrate, sulfate, and ammonium, which accounted for 26%, 20%, 16%, and 12%, respectively. Oxalic acid (40.8 ± 19.0 ng/m3) and Phthalic acid (39.5 ± 22.0 ng/m3) were predominant organic acids. The highest concentration of PAEs was Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) (93.9 ± 77.3 ng/m3), followed by Di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP) (42.2 ± 52.7 ng/m3). The Benzo[b]fluoranthene ＆ Benzo[j]fluoranthene (BbF＆BjF) (0.188 ± 0.129 ng/m3) and Benzo[g,h,i]perylene (BghiP) (0.137 ± 0.087 ng/m3) were predominant PAHs. Seven pollution source factors in PM2.5 were extracted from the chemical composition dataset for the study area, where the contributions of these seven sources ranged between 12% and 17% at respective sampling sites. We found that plastic burning could also be a major contributor to PM2.5 in the study area, and further investigation is suggested. Moreover, our data showed that the dominant PM2.5 pollution sources are different on different sampling days, but the dominant pollution sources will contribute continuously for 2-3 days, which implies that the influence of these pollution sources to air quality are not a result of occational events.

英文關鍵字

Condensable Particulate Matter, Fine Particulate Matter, Air Pollution Forensics