black carbon mediated EST2010

ENVIRONMENTALDATA SHEETThe Düotex ® was designed to offer curves capabilities along with stiffness properties. The decorative felt product allows to reduce creases when folded.DüotexFRA 0850 6.4mmOver the years, Texel has become a master in the needlepunch technology and the transformation and finishing of nonwoven materials according to various sophisticated processes, to the point today of developing and manufacturing innovative technicalMasterFormat ®: 12 50 00Validated Eco-Declaration:VALIDATED ECO-DECLARATIONPRODUCT SPECIFICATIONSATTRIBUTESINGREDIENTS AND EMISSIONSMANUFACTURER'SENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTECHNICAL PERFORMANCESCERTIFICATIONS AND CONFORMITY REPORTSReferenceDüotex ® FRA 0850 6.4mmRecycled Content Pre-consumer: 7.7% Post-consumer: 7.7%Life Cycle Assessment Product's carbon footprint Environmental Product DeclarationDeclaration of chemical ingredients VOCs Formaldehyde OthersEmission test Sourcing of raw materialsThe extraction locations of raw materials have been documented for 80.9% of the final product components, based on weight ratio.FSC ® CertificationRapidly renewable materials Performance testsASTM C423 / SAA 0.23 / SAA with 25.4mm Air Gap 0.34 / NRC 0.23 / NRC with 25.4mm Air Gap 0.34 /ASTM E-84 (FLAME SPREAD) CLASS AExpected life ISO 14001 Certification Extended Producer Responsibility(Take Back Program)Corporate Sustainability Report(CSR: GRI,ISO 26000, BNQ 21000 ou autre)Biobased materials----- ----©Copyright 2016 Vertima inc.Product's contribution to LEED ® v4Type of declaration Final manufacturing locationSaint-Elzear-de-Beauce, QC, G0S 2J0CANADA CompositionBlack and white polyester fibers, Acrylic styrene, Recycled polyester fibers , Phosphate esters, Ammonium stearate.------RECYCLED CONTENT• Enhances stiffness without adding low-melt (bicomponent) fibers;• Wrinkle resistant when folded;• Soft side (without resin) improves the look and feel;• Hard side (with resin) gives structural and tackable properties.Weight ratioPre-consumerPost-consumerDüotex FRA 0850 6.4mm100%7.7%7.7%Components (with recycled content)Weight ratioPre-consumerPost-consumerRecycled polyester fibers15.5%50%50%Weight ratioFinal manufacturing location100%Saint-Elzear-de-Beauce, QC G0S 2J0 CANADAProduct ComponentsWeight ratioExtraction locationsTransportationBlack polyester fibers 38.6%United States Truck White polyester fibers23.2%United StatesTruck Acrylic styrene19.1%N/DTruck Recycled polyester fibers15.5%South Carolina (US)Truck Phosphate esters 3.4%United States Truck Ammonium stearate0.2%United StatesTruckFinal manufacturing location Düotex FRA 0850 6.4mm Saint-Elzear-de-Beauce, QC CANADAG0S 2J0EXTRACTION ZONES OF RAWMATERIALS 500 milesExtraction zone ofrecycled raw materialsused in manufacturing Düotex FRA 0850 6.4mm800 kmValidated Eco-Declaration:VED17-1070-05 Period of validity: 2017/06 to 2018/06The data included in this Environmental Data Sheet has been provided by the client and the suppliers, who are responsible for its veracity and its integrity. Vertima follows a rigorous protocol, including an on-site audit of the factory, an audit of the manufacturer’s supply chain documentation, and the analysis and validation of all supporting documents. However, Vertima cannot be held responsible for false or misleading information that may cause any loss or damage suffered, in all or in part, caused by errors and omissions relative to the data collection, compilation and/or interpretation. The analysis protocol used by Vertima is available on request.Copyright© 2016 by Vertima inc.Upon sale, the Düotex ® acoustical panel (850 6.4mm) meets Texel Technical Materials, Inc. specifications and is free from defects in materials and workmanship. Resistance to wear for a period of 5 years under normal use and appropriate use.ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SHEETDüotex FRA 0850 6.4mm QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ISO 9001:2008)QMS-0683-1-01Intertek2015/05/16 to 2018/05/15CERTIFICATION (BNQ 99002-01)BNQ 9700/800Bureau de normalisation du Québec 2010/05/07 to 2019/07/26Validated Eco-Declaration – BNQ CertificationMethodology: validation of documents attesting the BNQ Certification. -ting the environment.Our environmental policy traces the main axes of our actions for the coming years and defines our commitments in terms ofenvironmental management:We operate our installations and execute our activities while aiming to minimize potential risks for the environment and the community;We promote the ongoing improvement of our environmental performance insofar as the biophysical reality andhuman health are concerned while respecting applicable laws and regulations;We continuously seek ways to reduce, reuse or recycle the waste we generate and, when necessary, eliminate it securely and responsibly;We collaborate with government authorities in the search for environmental solutions specific to our activities and inthe development of standards which are technically justified and cost effective;We inform members of our Board of Directors and upper management of their environmental responsibilities in their respective field of activities;We developed an environmental management system to provide our executives, managers, and employees with themanagement tools needed to protect the environment.Validated Eco-Declaration – ISO CertificationMethodology: validation of documents attesting the ISO Certification. Vertima’s procedure: VERT-032011, Second Edition.ENVIRONMENTAL DATA SHEETDüotex FRA 0850 6.4mmIt is important to consider that the total amount of possible points reflects the number of achievable points in each credit category. The product itself cannot achieve this score, as defined above, but is considered as a beneficial element in order to achieve LEED ® credits.MRBuilding Product Disclosure and Optimization – Sourcing of Raw MaterialsOption 2: Leadership extraction practicesMay also contribute to the location valuation factor if the product is sourced (extracted, manufactured, purchased) within 160 km of the project site.1pointATTRIBUTESRecycled Content Pre-consumer (7.7%)Post-consumer (7.7%)LEED ® v4 requirements for Building Design + Construction (BD+C)New Construction, Core and Shell, School, Retail, Data Centers, Warehouse and Distribution Centers, Hospitality and Healthcare.LEED ® v4 requirements for Interior Design + Construction (ID+C)Commercial Interiors, Retail and Hospitality.EQPrereq 3Minimum Acoustic Performance – Schools onlyClassrooms and Core Learning Spaces ≥ 20,000 Cubic FeetOption 2: Confirm through calculations described in ANSI Standard S12.60-2010 that rooms are designed to meet reverberation time requirements as specified in that standard.1The acoustic test results for Düotex FRA 0850 FR 6.4mm will be supplied upon request.PrerequisiteTECHNICAL PERFORMANCES1Düotex FRA 0850 6.4mm may contribute to this prerequisite if the interior design is coherent with theprerequisite.EQAcoustic PerformanceMeet the composite sound transmission class (STCc) ratings listed in the Reference Guide. For all occupied spaces, meet the requirements, as applicable, for HVAC background noise, sound isolation, reverberation time, and sound reinforcement and masking.2The acoustic test results for Düotex FRA 0850 FR 6.4mm will be supplied upon request.1-2points 2TECHNICAL PERFORMANCESDüotex FRA 0850 6.4mmmay contribute for the HVAC background noise and reverberation time requirements if the interior design is coherent with thecredit.MREnvironmentally Preferable Products Option 1: Local ProductionMay also contribute to 0.5 point to the location valuation factor if the product is sourced (extracted, manufactured, purchased) within 160 km of the project site.Option 2: Environmentally Preferable ProductsDüotex FRA 0850 6.4mm does not contribute to 0.5 point. The final products should contain at least 25% post-consumer or 50% pre-consumer content.0.5pointATTRIBUTESRecycled Content Pre-consumer (7.7%)Post-consumer (7.7%)Düotex FRA 0850 6.4mm may contribute in ano-ther product assembly with additional recycledcontent.LEED ® v4 requirements for homesApplies to single family homes, multi-family (one to three stories), or multi-family (four to six stories). Includes homes and multifamily low-rise and multi-family mid-rise.。

Akzo Nobel Powder Coatings BVProduct Data SheetAkzoNobel Powder CoatingsInterpon ACE 2010YN106G Black Medium Gloss SmoothProduct Description Interpon ACE 2010is a series of superior UV and weather resistant TGIC-free polyester powdercoatings designed for exterior exposure and for use as a decorative and/or functional coating foragricultural and construction equipment and components. These coatings also provide significantlyimproved gloss retention and resistance to color change and possess outstanding transfer efficiencyand faraday cage penetration.Powder Properties Chemical type Polyester super-durable (TGIC-free)Area of usage Exterior parts for agricultural machinery or construction equipmentParticle Size Custom manufacturedAppearance Smooth, Medium glossColour BlackGloss (60°)60 ± 5 GUDensity (g/cm3)1,25 ± 0,10Stoving schedue15-30 minutes at 180°C, 10-25 minutes at 190°C, 8-20 minutes at 200°C(time at object temperature)Recommended DFT DTM: 70μm min - 110μm max; On Primer: 50μm min - 90μm max;On e-coat 45μm min - 90μm maxFailure to observe the correct curing and DFT conditions may cause adifference in color, gloss and the deterioration of the coating propertiesApplication ElectrostaticStorage Stability Under dry, cool (<25°C) conditions, at least 12 months from productiondate.Test Conditions The results are based on mechanical and chemical tests which (unless otherwise indicated) have been carried out under laboratory conditions and are given for guidance only. Actual product performance willdepend upon the circumstances under which the product is used.Substrate Cold Rolled SteelPretreatment Iron phosphate pretreated panels (ACT BonderiteÒ1070 DIW Panels)Film Thickness76-90 µmCure Schedule15 minutes at 190°CMechanical Tests Elongation ASTM-D522(conical mandrel)No crack at max elongationAdhesion ASTM-D3359(2 mm crosscut)5BHardness ASTM D3363(Gouge)3HCorrosion and Chemical Tests Cyclic Corrosion SAE J233440 days corrosion creep ≤ 3,5 mm fromscribeChemical resistance Good resistance to DI water, diesel fueland engine oilDurability Tests Exterior durability SAE J25272000h, excellent color and glossretention performanceColor stability atelevated temperatureGoodAkzoNobel Powder Coatings B.V. T +31 (0)71 308 6981Rijksstraatweg 31 (building 24) F +31 (0)71 318 6924PO Box 2170BA SassenheimThe NetherlandsPretreatment Aluminum, steel or Zinc surfaces to be coated must be clean and free from grease. Iron phosphate andparticularly lightweight zinc phosphating of ferrous metals improves corrosion resistance.Aluminum substrates may require a chromate or non-chromate conversion coating.Application Interpon ACE 2010 YN106G powders can be applied by manual or automatic electrostatic sprayequipment.It is recommended that for consistent application and appearance product be fluidized duringapplication. Unused powder can be reclaimed using suitable equipment and recycled through the coating system.Safety Precautions This product is intended for use only by professional applicators in industrial environments and shouldnot be used without reference to the relevant health and safety data sheet which Akzo Nobel has provided to its customers.DisclaimerIMPORTANT NOTE: The information in this data sheet is not intended to be exhaustive and is based on thepresent state of our knowledge and on current laws: any person using the product for any purpose otherthan that specifically recommended in the technical data sheet without first obtaining written confirmationfrom us as to the suitability of the product for the intended purpose does so at his own risk. It is always theresponsibility of the user to take all necessary steps to fulfill the demands set out in the local rules andlegislation. Always read the Material Data Sheet and the Technical Data Sheet for this product if available. Alladvice we give or any statement made about the product by us (whether in this data sheet or otherwise) iscorrect to the best of our knowledge but we have no control over the quality or the condition of the substrateor the many factors affecting the use and application of the product.Therefore, unless we specifically agree in writing otherwise, we do not accept any liability whatsoever for theperformance of the product or for any loss or damage arising out of the use of the product. All productssupplied and technical advices given are subject to our standard terms and conditions of sale. You shouldrequest a copy of this document and review it carefully. The information contained in this data sheet issubject to modification from time to time in the light of experience and our policy of continuousdevelopment. It is the user's responsibility to verify that this data sheet is current prior to using the product.Brand names mentioned in this data sheet are trademarks of or are licensed to AkzoNobelAkzoNobel Powder Coatings B.V.T +31 (0)71 308 6981 Rijksstraatweg 31 (building 24) F +31 (0)71 318 6924 PO Box 2170BA SassenheimThe Netherlands。

专利名称：用于碳水化合物抗原切割的酶促组合物，与其相关的方法、用途、设备和系统
专利类型：发明专利
发明人：斯蒂芬·G·威瑟斯,彼得·拉费尔德,加雅善德兰·基萨科达特胡
申请号：CN201980067913.6
申请日：20190816
公开号：CN112840027A
公开日：
20210525
专利内容由知识产权出版社提供
摘要：本文提供了用于碳水化合物抗原切割的酶促组合物，与其相关的方法、用途、设备和系统。

具体地，所述组合物包含两种酶GalNAc脱乙酰酶和半乳糖胺酶，并且所述组合物还可以包含拥挤剂。

此外，发现本文所述的组合物在适于细胞存活的温度和pH水平下具有活性。

申请人：不列颠哥伦比亚大学
地址：加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省
国籍：CA
代理机构：北京英赛嘉华知识产权代理有限责任公司
更多信息请下载全文后查看。

色素炭黑的安全技术说明书（MSDS）令狐文艳第一部分：化学品名称和公司中文名称1：色素炭黑英文名称1：color pigment carbonCAS No.：1333-86-4分子式：C 分子量：12第二部分：成分/组成信息主要成分：碳（C）元素含量（Wt%）≥93%；含氧基团含量（Wt%）≤7%。

有害物成分：多环芳烃（PAH）（CAS No.¡）含量（Wt%）≤0.001%砷（As）（CAS No.7440-38-2）含量（Wt%）≤0.0001%镉（Cd）（CAS No.7440-43-9）含量（Wt%）≤0.00001%汞（Hg）（CAS No.7439-97-6）含量（Wt%）≤0.0001%铅（Pb）（CAS No.7439-92-1）含量（Wt%）≤0.0001%铬（Cr）（CAS No.7440-47-3）含量（Wt%）≤0.001%第三部分：危险性概述危险性类别：未列入侵入途径：呼吸道吸入、眼睛、皮肤健康危害：长期大量地由呼吸道吸入炭黑粉尘，可能最终造成对肺部的损伤。

目前，没有明确的医学报道证明炭黑会引起癌变的结果。

但可以列入如人类的可能致癌的物质。

对眼睛的损伤主要症状是异物刺激感、流泪。

对皮肤主要是皮肤的弄脏和刺激环境危害：炭黑的外泄暴露，除了会弄脏周围环境外没有发现会对环境造成严重的影响或损害。

燃爆危险：在本品工作场所若形成纯炭黑的粉尘环境，可能造成粉尘爆炸。

本品不是易燃物，一般不会被点燃，若较长时间地处于30０℃以上则可能会无明火地缓慢燃烧，同时释出一氧化碳、二氧化碳或极少量的含氮、硫氧化物。

第四部分：急救措施安全介绍：吸入：1. 立即将被污染的患者转移到有大量新鲜空气的场所。

眼睛接触：1. 立即撑开患者被污染眼睛的眼皮用缓和流动的温水冲洗至少5 分钟以上。

2. 用医用¡金霉素¡眼药膏涂抹患者眼睛。

皮肤接触：1. 及时用大量水及温和性肥皂缓和但彻底的清洗。

Pigment carbon black（色素炭黑）色素炭黑色素炭黑颜色黑色在油墨、油漆、涂料等制品中作着色颜料用的炭黑。

按着色强度（或黑度和粒子大小一般分为高色素炭黑、中色素炭黑、普通色素炭黑和低色素炭黑四种主要由接触法和油炉法生产）。

1）炭黑的几个典型参数黑度（反射率）--炭黑黑度通常以”反射率测定仪”测定的数据来表示，在大部分情况下也反映了该炭黑的原始粒径，是衡量该炭黑市场价格的重要参数之一。

反射率越低，炭黑黑度越高，粒径也越小。

反之亦然。

挥发份--炭黑表面携带含氧基团的数量，反映了炭黑的表面物理性能、电化学性能和应用性能，也是衡量该炭黑市场价格的重要参数之一。

结构--炭黑结构是炭黑微粒子聚集体形成的链枝程度的表征值，它表示了炭黑内部的空隙程度。

通常以吸油值（DBP吸收值）表示。

高、低结构炭黑与应用性能之间地关系示意图2）炭黑分散的重要的意义颜料在应用过程中都必须分散到符合光学性能的微粒子状态，炭黑是所有颜料中最难分散的一种颜料之一，因此炭黑分散的好坏会直接影响到炭黑的黑度、色相和遮盖能力，直接影响到用户最终的使用效果。

炭黑的分散过程主要受到三个因素的影响一）炭黑的本质特性：炭黑的原始粒径、结构和表面各种基团都会对分散产生很大的影响通常情况下炭黑的原始粒径小、结构低、挥发份低分散困难，反之则相对容易些。

b）使用者的配方：炭黑使用者的配方，基料、溶剂和树脂的性能都会非常显著地影响炭黑的最终分散情况，尤其是炭黑用树脂的选择。

C）分散设备：不同的分散设备在相同条件下的分散效果是完全不同的。

正确选用分散设备是使用者必须重视的。

3）选择炭黑的基本思路使用者在选择炭黑前首先要考虑的是：你想用炭黑来达到什么要求？着色、调色、抗紫外线还是起导电作用。

最重要的是一定要和炭黑的专业技术工程师进行沟通，共同对物料体系进行技术评价，选择比较合适的炭黑品种。

通常情况是：着色用--选择黑度高、粒径小的炭黑，但一定要保证炭黑经过合理的、完全的分散，否则反而会背道而驰，达不到原来要求。

Life Cycle Assessment of Biochar Systems:Estimating the Energetic, Economic,and Climate Change PotentialK E L L I G.R O B E R T S,*,†B R E N T A.G L O Y,‡S T E P H E N J O S E P H,§N O R M A N R.S C O T T,⊥A N D J O H A N N E S L E H M A N N†College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,Cornell University, Ithaca,New York14853,and School of Materials Science and Engineering,University of New South Wales,Sydney,NSW 2251,AustraliaReceived July27,2009.Revised manuscript received October30,2009.Accepted November17,2009.Biomass pyrolysis with biochar returned to soil is a possible strategy for climate change mitigation and reducing fossil fuel consumption.Pyrolysis with biochar applied to soils resultsin four coproducts:long-term carbon(C)sequestration from stable C in the biochar,renewable energy generation,biochar as a soil amendment,and biomass waste management.Life cycle assessment was used to estimate the energy and climate change impacts and the economics of biochar systems.The feedstocksanalyzedrepresentagriculturalresidues(cornstover), yard waste,and switchgrass energy crops.The net energyof the system is greatest with switchgrass(4899MJ t-1dry feedstock).The net greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions for both stover and yard waste are negative,at-864and-885kg CO2equivalent(CO2e)emissions reductions per tonne dry feedstock,respectively.Of these total reductions,62-66%are realized from C sequestration in the biochar.The switchgrass biochar-pyrolysis system can be a net GHG emitter(+36kg CO2e t-1dry feedstock),depending on the accounting method for indirect land-use change impacts.The economic viability of the pyrolysis-biochar system is largely dependent on the costsof feedstock production,pyrolysis,and the value of C offsets. Biomass sources that have a need for waste management such as yard waste have the highest potential for economicprofitability(+$69t-1dry feedstock when CO2e emission reductions are valued at$80t-1CO2e).The transportation distanceforfeedstockcreatesasignificanthurdletotheeconomic profitability of biochar-pyrolysis systems.Biochar may at present only deliver climate change mitigation benefits and be financially viable as a distributed system using waste biomass.IntroductionThere is an urgent need to develop strategies for mitigating global climate change.Promising approaches to reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions often in-clude energy generation from climate neutral renewable resources.However,pyrolysis of biomass with biochar applied to soil offers a direct method for sequestering C and generating bioenergy(1-3).Biochar is the stable,carbon-rich charcoal that results from pyrolysis of biomass materials. Used as a soil amendment,biochar can improve soil health and fertility,soil structure,nutrient availability,and soil-water retention capacity(4-8),and is also a mechanism for long-term C storage in soils.Because carbonizing biomass stabilizes the C that has been taken up by plants,sustainably produced biochar applied to soils may proactively sequester C from the atmosphere,while also generating energy.Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of organic material in the absence of oxygen,and is also an initial stage in both combustion and gasification processes(9,10).Both slow and fast pyrolysis of biomass result in three coproducts:char, gas,and tarry oils,where the relative amounts and charac-teristics of each are controlled by the pyrolysis processing conditions such as temperature,residence time,pressure, and feedstock type.Slow pyrolysis is generally carried out at lower temperatures and longer residence times than fast pyrolysis,and the typical product yield is35%char,35%gas, and30%liquid(9).Pyrolysis with biochar applied to soil offers potential solutions to the current climate and energy concerns.However,to avoid unintended consequences of a new technology or mitigation strategy,it is necessary to conduct analyses of potential life-cycle impacts of biochar-pyrolysis systems,as it would be undesirable to have the system actually emit more GHG than sequestered or consume more energy than is generated.Because of its“cradle-to-grave”approach and transparent methodology,life cycle assessment(LCA)is an appropriate tool for estimating the energy and climate change impacts of pyrolysis-biochar systems.In this paper,we use LCA to estimate the full life-cycle energy,GHG emissions balance,and economic feasibility of biochar.The biomass feedstock sources compared are corn stover,yard waste,and a switchgrass energy crop.This range of feedstock provides insight into the use of biomass“waste”resources compared to bioenergy crops and the resulting energy and climate change impacts and economic costs of each scenario.MethodologyGoal and Scope.The cumulative energy,climate change impacts,and economics of biochar production from corn stover,yard waste,and switchgrass feedstocks at a slow-pyrolysis facility in the United States are estimated using process-based LCA in Microsoft Excel.The goal of the biochar energy,greenhouse gases,and economic(BEGGE)LCA is to quantify the energy,greenhouse gas,and economicflows associated with biochar production for a range of feedstocks. The biochar system for the LCA has four coproducts:biomass waste management,C sequestration,energy generation,and soil amendment.The functional unit of the biochar-pyrolysis system is the management of1tonne of dry biomass.The referenceflows for this system are the mass and C in the biomass feedstock and the energy associated with biochar production.System Boundaries.The industrial-scale biochar pro-duction system boundaries are illustrated in Figure1a.The method of biomass production and collection is dependent on the feedstock(with more details provided in the individual process descriptions and in the online Supporting Informa-tion(SI)).Once the biomass is collected,it is transported to the pyrolysis facility where it is reduced in size and dried.*Corresponding author e-mail:kgr25@.†Department of Crop and Soil Sciences,Cornell University.‡Department of Applied Economics and Management,CornellUniversity.§University of New South Wales.⊥Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering,Cornell University.Environ.Sci.Technol.2010,44,827–83310.1021/es902266r 2010American Chemical Society VOL.44,NO.2,2010/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE&TECHNOLOGY9827 Published on Web12/23/2009The biomass undergoes slow pyrolysis,which produces biochar,syngas,and tarry oils.The syngas and oils are combusted on-site for heat applications.The biochar is transported to a farm and applied to annual crop fields.The production of equipment specific to pyrolysis and feedstock processing (the pyrolysis facility,feedstock pretreatment equipment,farming equipment)is included,but the pro-duction of transportation vehicles is not included.The greenhouse gases,regulated emissions,and energy use in transportation (GREET)1.8b (11)model for transportation fuel-cycles was used for compiling the upstream energy and air emissions for electricity generation,fossil fuel production and combustion,transportation,and agricultural inputs.The avoided processes incorporated into the analysis via system expansion are natural gas production and combustion,composting,and fertilizer production.Water consumption is not included in the LCA.The processes within the LCA are described in detail in the following section and the SI.Crop Residues.Multiple studies have analyzed the energy and emissions related to ethanol production from corn stover (12-15).For this assessment,the energy and greenhouse gas emissions are from the LCA of corn stover collection conducted by Kim,Dale,and Jenkins (15)in Fulton County,IL (see the SI).Weather and field conditions can influence corn stover harvest times (16,17),thus both late and early stover harvests are considered,with moisture contents (wet basis)of 15%and 30%mcwb,respectively (18).Bioenergy Crops.Switchgrass as a pyrolysis feedstock is modeled in two ways (scenarios A and B)to compare the effects of land-use change on climate change impacts.While both switchgrass A and B use the energy and agricultural inputs associated with switchgrass establishment and col-lection from the lifecycle emissions model (LEM)(19)(Table S1of the SI),the GHG emissions data are from two different models.The switchgrass A scenario uses LEM (19)for theland-use,fertilizer,and cultivation-related emissions of switchgrass production,with a net GHG of +406.8kg CO 2e t -1dry switchgrass (see SI).The switchgrass B scenario uses the results from a comprehensive worldwide agricultural model for land-use change from Searchinger et al.(20).Both the LEM and Searchinger et al.models account for the effects of cropland diversion from annual crops to perennial grass energy crops (direct land-use change)and land conversion to cropland to replace the crops lost to bioenergy crops (indirect land-use change).However,differences between the models arise in the indirect land-use change accounting methods.The net GHG emissions of scenario B are +886.0kg CO 2e t -1dry switchgrass (compared to +406.8kg CO 2e t -1for switchgrass A).There is an obvious difference between these two approaches to modeling land-use change emis-sions,and we have used both as a means of capturing the range of outcomes.Yard Waste Collection.The yard waste is assumed to be diverted from an industrial-scale composting facility,and no environmental burdens are assigned to the production of yard waste.The avoided compost process is included via the system expansion approach and is described in the SI.Slow Pyrolysis:Biochar and Syngas Production.A very limited number of LCA studies have been conducted on pyrolysis facilities.Examples include a hazardous waste management plant in The Netherlands (21),fast pyrolysis for biofuel production (22),and a micropyrolysis-gas turbine system (23).However,detailed analyses of the energy and emissions associated with biochar production from slow pyrolysis have been performed where both biochar produc-tion from bioenergy crops and from crop residues result in net energy production and avoided GHG emissions (3,24).The pyrolysis facility for this LCA is assumed to operate in a manner similar to industry prototypes under slow pyrolysis conditions as a continuous process with a biomass through-FIGURE 1.(a)System boundaries for the LCA of a biochar system with bioenergy production are denoted by the dashed box.Dashed arrows with (-)indicate avoided processes.The “T”represents transportation.The avoided compost process applies to the yard waste scenario only.(b)Energy flows (MJ t -1dry feedstock)of a pyrolysis system for biochar with bioenergy production using the late stover functional unit.8289ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY /VOL.44,NO.2,2010put of10dry t hr-1.A Sankey diagram of the energyflows of the biomass pyrolysis process is shown in Figure1b. Pyrolysis is an exothermic process,and only a small amount of natural gas is used for the initial start-up of the pyrolysis kiln burner which is estimated at58MJ t-1feedstock(21). The feedstock is pyrolyzed at450°C,and the pyrolysis gases flow into a thermal oxidizer which combusts the gases and oils at high temperature achieving clean combustion.A heat exchanger and air ducting system transfer the heat from the combustion gases to heating applications on-site.Exhaust heat from the facility is used for drying the incoming biomass. As a significant portion of the feedstock energy is in the biochar(∼50%assuming a lower heating value of30MJ kg-1 for charcoal(25)),the overall efficiency from feedstock to available heat is37%.More information on the pyrolysis process can be found in the SI.As reported in ref25,the yields of biochar from slow pyrolysis at0.1MPa(atmospheric pressure)have been found to range from28.8(birch wood)to33.0wt.%(spruce wood). The biochar yields,ash content of the biochar,and syngas energy yields are listed in Table S2.All of the ash(mineral elements except N and S)in the feedstock is assumed to remain in the biochar,and the mass of the biochar product includes the mass of the stable carbon,ash,and volatile matter.Stable Carbon in Biochar.Of the C in the biochar,the majority is in a highly stable state and has a mean residence time of1000years or longer at10°C mean annual temperature (1,26-31).However,the stability of the biochar does vary with feedstock,processing,and environmental conditions. For this assessment we assume that the slow-pyrolysis process has been optimized for high yields of stable C.With this in mind,we use a conservative estimate of80%of the C in the biochar as stable(28,32).The remaining20%of the C is labile and released into the atmosphere as biogenic CO2 within thefirst few years of applying it to the soil.Improved Fertilizer Use Efficiency.As part of the application to the soil,the biochar not only sequesters C,but also improves crop performance.Although increased crop yields with biochar additions are reported in many cases, the greatest and most consistent yields are found on highly degraded soils(4-7).In the present analysis,the biochar is applied to comparatively productive soils in the U.S.Corn Belt,and therefore we do not consider crop yield increases with biochar.However,we do include improved fertilizer use efficiency(33)which enhances crop performance and thus reduces the amount of commercial chemical fertilizers applied.The difference of7.2%between total N recovery in soils fertilized with biochar and the control(33)is used as the baseline scenario for improved N,P,and K fertilizer use efficiency.Soil N2O Emissions.In addition to the reduced need for chemical fertilizers,biochar reportedly reduces N2O soil emissions that result from N fertilizer application(34-37). For this analysis,the baseline scenario assumes that the biochar processing is done under conditions such that soil N2O emissions from N fertilizer applications are reduced by 50%.Impact Assessment.The net energy of the functional unit incorporates all energy inputs to the system and energy produced by the system.Energy produced by the system includes syngas energy and energy from avoided processes such as fossil fuel production,fertilizer production,and composting.The100year global warming potential of CO2, CH4,and N2O(1,25,and298CO2e,respectively)from the IPCC for2007(38)were used to calculate the climate change impacts of each process.The net climate change impact is the sum of the“net GHG reductions”and the net GHG emissions.To be consistent with terminology,the“net GHG reductions”are the sum of the“CO2e sequestered”and the “avoided CO2e emissions”.The C sequestration is a direct result of the stable C in the biochar,while the avoided emissions are from the avoided processes such as fossil fuel production and combustion,soil N2O emissions,fertilizer production,and composting.The biogenic CO2emissions are accounted for in the C balance of each biomass-to-biochar system(illustrated in Figure S1for late stover).It is important to also note that improvements to the soil structure and fertility upon biochar application are not included in this analysis.These soil improvements could further reduce GHG emissions and energy consumption,while potentially adding value to the biochar product because of enhanced crop productivity.Economic Assessment.The primary costs of biochar production are the feedstock collection and pyrolysis,while the feedstock transport,biochar transport,and biochar application have small contributions to the total(see Table S5for a summary of the costs and revenues for each feedstock).The revenues come from the biochar value,the energy produced,and the tipping fee(in the case of the yard waste).The value assigned to the biochar is based on three components:(i)the P and K content of the biochar,(ii)the improved fertilizer use efficiency,and(iii)the GHG emission reduction.For valuing the GHG offsets,there are two approaches one can use:either to value only the stable C in the biochar,or to value the total life-cycle GHG emission reduction in the entire biochar system.For this analysis,we use the life-cycle C emission reduction to calculate the GHG offset,adding more value to the biochar because it incor-porates the emission offsets from avoided fossil fuels, fertilizers,reduced soil N2O emissions,etc.The SI provides results on valuing the stable C in the biochar only.The other variable in the GHG offsets is in the value assigned per t of CO2e emission reduction.Low and high revenue scenarios are considered,where values of$20and$80t-1CO2e are used,based on the IPCC recommendations(39).The syngas value per MJ is assumed equivalent to natural gas.All costs and revenues are described in more detail in the SI. Results and DiscussionEnergy.For each feedstock assessed,the net energy of the system is positive,i.e.,more energy is generated than consumed(Figure2a).The net energy of1dry tonne of late stover,early stover,switchgrass,and yard waste is+4116, +3044,+4899,and+4043MJ,respectively.The excess syngasheat energy produced per tonne of feedstock is+4859,+4002, +5787,and+3507MJ for the late stover,early stover, switchgrass,and yard waste,respectively.Early stover consumes the most fossil fuels(-1007MJ),while yard waste actually yields a net+424MJ of fossil fuels due to the avoided composting process.The late stover functional unit consumes the least amount of energy of all feedstocks.Drying,agro-chemicals,andfield operations are the highest energy consuming processes for stover and switchgrass.The role of the feedstock moisture content on the energy consumed in drying is evident,as the early stover clearly consumes more energy in drying than the late stover,and yard waste(45% mcwb)consumes the most energy for drying.The energy associated with the feedstock production and collection is highest for switchgrass,as shown by the agrochemicals(44% of the total)andfield operations(27%).For energy generation, the heat energy produced has the highest contribution for all feedstocks,at90-94%of the total energy generated. Avoided fossil fuel production is only a small fraction of the total,from4-6%of the total energy generated.The con-tribution analysis also highlights the relatively small impact that the biomass transport(2-3%)and the plant construction (2-4%)each have on the energy consumption.The“other processes”category,aggregated in Figure2a for clarity, includes the processes that contribute only a minor amountVOL.44,NO.2,2010/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE&TECHNOLOGY9829to the energy consumption or production:biochar transport,plant dismantling,farm equipment,biochar application and avoided fertilizer production.Climate Change -Emission Balance.For climate change impacts,net negative GHG emissions imply more CO 2e reductions than emissions.The net GHG emissions for late stover,early stover,and yard waste are -864,-793,and -885kg CO 2e t -1dry biomass (Figure 2b).Of all of the biomass sources,the yard waste system results in the most GHG emissions reductions per functional unit,primarily because there are no emissions associated with the yard waste production or collection but only for transport.The switchgrass results demonstrate the critical role that land-use change plays in the life-cycle climate change impacts of bioenergy crops.For the switchgrass A scenario,the net GHG emissions are negative (-442kg CO 2e t -1),while for the switchgrass B scenario the net GHG emissions are positive (+36kg CO 2e t -1).By estimating the GHG emissions from a global approach which accounts for land conversion as discussed in the Methodology and SI,the impact assessment reveals the potential consequences of using U.S.croplands for biofuels.Even for a strategy as promising as biochar forC sequestration,the net GHG emissions of the global system do not favor the switchgrass scenario when these energy crops are grown predominantly on existing cropland.Carbon sequestration in one place may be replaced by land-use change emissions in another location.Although the switch-grass A scenario could reduce GHG emissions by 442kg CO 2e t -1switchgrass,this would only be applicable for land conversion that is predominantly temperate grasses and existing croplands,rather than temperate,tropical,or boreal forests (see SI).In an attempt to globally sequester C,it would be undesirable to generate GHG elsewhere as an unintended consequence of domestic industrial activities (40).Although a recent report by Kim et al.(41)indicates that it is inappropriate to assign the entirety of indirect land-use change emissions to biofuels,it is a potential consequence that must be considered.Despite the fact that land-use change decisions in other countries are complex and have multiple influences,the pressures of large biofuel industries and agricultural markets have significant influences on land-use change in developing countries (40).Contribution Analysis.The contribution analysis for climate change impacts (Figure 2b)illustrates that land-use change and field emissions associated with feedstock pro-duction are the dominant processes for both the A and B switchgrass scenarios,contributing 83%and 91%of the GHG emissions,respectively.For both stover and switchgrass,agrochemical production and field operations are responsible for a large proportion of GHG emissions.The “other processes”category is an aggregation of those processes contributing a minor amount of GHG emissions or reduc-tions,including biomass transport,biochar transport,chip-ping,plant construction and dismantling,farm equipment,biochar application,and avoided fertilizer production.For the late stover scenario,biomass transport 15km to the facility contributes <4%of the total GHG emissions,while biochar transport 15km to the field contributes ∼1%.For the net GHG emissions reductions,the stable C sequestered in the biochar contributes the largest percentage for all feedstocks:66%and 62%for early and late stover,56%and 54%for switchgrass A and B,and 63%for yard waste.However,the avoided fossil fuel production and combustion also accounts for a significant portion,between 26and 40%depending on the nd-use change for the switchgrass A and B scenarios contributes another 2%and 5%,respectively,of the reduced GHG emissions due to CO 2sequestration in biomass and soils.Reduced N 2O emissions from the soil upon biochar application to the soil contribute only 2-4%of the total emission reduction.A biochar greenhouse gas accounting analysis by Gaunt and Cowie (24)has calculated the total emissions abatement of biomass pyrolysis with biochar applied to soil to be between 2.6and 16t CO 2e t -1biochar,depending on the feedstock,its conventional management practice,fossil fuel substitu-tion,and cropland to which biochar is applied.For wheat straw residue and natural gas substitution,the result is 2.6-7.6t CO 2e t -1biochar,while yard waste (diverted from composting)ranges from 7.4to 12.5t CO 2e t -1biochar.Converting our results for the late stover and yard waste to similar units,we find 2.9and 3.0t CO 2e t -1biochar,respectively,which fall on the lower end of the range found in their accounting.Another detailed analysis from Gaunt and Lehmann (3)calculated the avoided GHG emissions for biochar production and found 10.7t CO 2e ha -1yr -1for corn stover and 12.6t CO 2e ha -1yr -1for switchgrass.Converting our results to these units,we find 7.0and 5.3t CO 2e ha -1yr -1for stover and switchgrass (scenario A),respectively.Dif-ferences in our LCA results and the calculations from both Gaunt and Cowie (24)and Gaunt and Lehmann (3)arise primarily due to their higher estimates for avoided CH 4and N 2O emissions in composting;avoided emissions whenFIGURE 2.(a)Contribution analysis for the net energy per dry tonne of late stover,early stover,switchgrass,and yard waste in biochar systems with bioenergy production.Each pair of bars is associated with a feedstock,where the top bar represents the energy consumption,the bottom bar is energy generated,and the difference represents the net energy of the system.Switchgrass A and B have the same energy contribution profile,and only scenario A is shown.(b)Contribution analysis for the net climate change impact per dry tonne of late stover,early stover,switchgrass,and yard waste in biochar systems with bioenergy production.Each pair of bars is associated with a feedstock,where the top bar represents the GHG emissions,the bottom bar is GHG emission reduction,and the difference represents the net GHG emission balance of the system.(LUC )land-use change.)8309ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY /VOL.44,NO.2,2010biochar is used as a soil amendment;as well as their not accounting for emissions associated with other processes (harvesting the wheat straw,land-use change effects,or nutrient losses in residue removal).(See the SI for further discussion comparing energy yields.)Alternative Biomass Uses.We can also compare the scenario of biochar-to-soil to that of biochar-as-fuel,assuming the biochar is replacing coal combusted in an integrated gasification combined cycle(IGCC)plant.For the late stover scenario,the avoided emissions for biochar production followed by biochar combustion(assuming an energy content of∼30MJ kg-1biochar,i.e.,8880MJ per functional unit)in replacement of coal are-617kg CO2e t-1dry stover.This comparison illustrates that29%more GHG emissions reductions are made when the biochar is applied to soil(-864 kg CO2e t-1dry stover)rather than used as a fuel.If we compare biomass direct combustion to biomass-to-biochar-to-soil(where the avoided fossil fuels impacts are not included for either scenario),the resulting net GHG for biomass direct combustion is+74kg CO2e t-1stover and for biomass-to-biochar-to-soil is-542kg CO2e.This indicates that emission reductions are greater for a biochar system than for direct combustion.If natural gas is used as the avoided fossil fuel in both scenarios,the net GHG are-987 and-864kg CO2e t-1dry stover for the biomass combustion and biomass-to-biochar-to-soil,respectively.When viewed in this light the net GHG look comparable.However,in the biomass-to-biochar-to-soil,589kg of CO2are actually removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in soil,whereas the biomass combustion benefits from the avoidance of future fossil fuel emissions only.This example highlights the need for transparent system boundaries when comparing between biomass management alternatives.Large-Scale Emission Reductions.As afirst approxima-tion to potential GHG reductions on a larger scale,we use the late stover baseline model for biomass residues.On a global scale,using50%of the1.5billion tonnes of currently unused crop residues annually(42),the net GHG reductions are0.65Gt CO2e per year.(The amount of global unused residues is calculated as the difference between the available residues and the used portion,which are dependent on the crop,region,harvest factor,and recovery rate.)With a goal of reducing global fossil fuel GHG emissions from the2007 level(31Gt CO2e(43))by50%in2050(according to IPCC recommendation to stabilize warming at2.0-2.4°C(39)),biochar would provide∼4%of these emissions reductions with50%of crop residues alone.Or,for the U.S.,assuming 141.1million tonnes of currently unused crop residues and 124.7million tonnes of currently unexploited forest residues annually(44),the net GHG reductions are230Mt CO2e per year.(The amount of unused crop residues in the U.S.is calculated as80%of the currently available residues(20% are currently used),and a40%residue recovery potential.) If the U.S.were to adopt policies aiming to reduce fossil fuel GHG emissions by50%of the2007level(5820Mt CO2e(43)) by2050,222.6Mt CO2e from sustainable biochar production could contribute∼8%of these annual emissions reductions. These estimates demonstrate that sustainable biochar pro-duction from unused biomass waste resources may play a significant role in mitigating climate change on a global level. Future studies will seek to evaluate these larger scale scenarios.Economic Analysis.The economic analysis indicates that the uncertainty in the value of sequestered CO2e creates a large variability in the net profitability.Each feedstock shown in Figure3a has a high and low revenue scenario,according to an$80t-1CO2e versus a$20t-1CO2e GHG offset value. The high revenue of late stover(+$35t-1stover)indicates a moderate potential for economic viability.Neither the switchgrass A nor B scenarios are profitable in the low revenue scenario due to the lower C revenues for A and the C costs for B,while switchgrass A has marginal potential for profitability(+$8t-1)in the high revenue scenario.Despite the revenues from the biochar and energy products for all feedstocks,the overall profitability is hindered by the cost of feedstock collection and pyrolysis,even when C is valued at$80t-1CO2e.A breakeven analysis reveals that the minimum CO2e price would need to be$40t-1CO2e for late stover,$62t-1CO2e for switchgrass A,and only$2t-1CO2e for yard waste.Due to the net GHG emissions for switchgrass B there is no price for GHG offsets that would make it profitable.The overall economic results highlight the potential revenue for waste stream feedstocks such as yard waste(net +$69and+$16for the high and low scenarios)when thereis a tipping fee or cost associated with managing the waste under current practices.Other biomass waste resources that may be promising for biochar production are livestock manures such as poultry,horse,and cattle.However, challenges arise if the feedstock has a high moisture content, such as in dairy manure.Sensitivity Analysis.The sensitivity to variations or uncertainties is significantly different for various process parameters.The GHG balance is relatively insensitive to rather large changes in biochar properties such as between80and FIGURE3.(a)Contribution analysis for the economic costs per tonne dry feedstock for the late stover,switchgrass A and B, and yard waste in biochar systems with bioenergy production. Each pair of bars is associated with a feedstock,where the top bar represents the high revenue scenario,and the bottom bar is the low revenue scenario.The net revenue(+)or cost(-)is indicated adjacent to each.(b)Effect of transportation distance in biochar systems with bioenergy production using the example of late stover feedstock(high revenue scenario)on net GHG(blue circles),net energy(black squares),and net revenue (red circles).VOL.44,NO.2,2010/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE&TECHNOLOGY9831。

中国环境科学 2018,38(5)：1653~1662 China Environmental Science 深圳市城区和郊区黑碳气溶胶对比研究程丁1,2,吴晟1,2*,吴兑1,2,3**,刘建3,宋烺1,2,孙天林1,2,毛夏4,江崟4,刘爱明4(1.暨南大学质谱仪器与大气环境研究所,广东广州 510632；2.暨南大学广东省大气污染在线源解析系统工程技术研究中心,广东广州 510632；3.中山大学大气科学学院,广东广州 510275；4.深圳市气象局,广东深圳 518040)摘要：为了解深圳地区黑碳气溶胶(BC)的污染特征,使用深圳市西涌(XC)站点(郊区) 和竹子林(ZZL)站点(城区)2014年1月1日~2015年6月30日测得的BC浓度及常规气象资料,对比研究了深圳地区两个不同代表性站点的BC变化特征.结果表明:在观测期间,郊区XC和城区ZZL站点BC小时平均浓度分别为(1.12±0.90),(2.58±2.00)µg/m3,本底浓度分别为(0.27±1.31),(1.07±0.85)µg/m3,气溶胶吸收系数σabs分别为(5.87±4.81),(13.47±10.50)Mm-1,城区站点值均高于郊区站点.两站点BC浓度分布均为对数正态分布,且都呈现干季高、湿季低的季节变化特点.日变化分析表明ZZL站点BC浓度呈现明显的双峰结构,XC站点日变化不明显.通过计算两地的气溶胶波长吸收指数AAE值,发现两地AAE值均接近1,说明两地BC污染主要来源于化石燃料的燃烧.进一步分析可知XC站点西北方向32km处是世界第三大集装箱码头,当西北风达到一定程度时(10~20m/s),码头排放的污染物将严重影响XC站点的BC浓度.后向轨迹聚类分析结果表明,XC站点主要受中远距离输送影响,ZZL站点主要受周边及本地污染源排放影响.关键词：黑碳气溶胶(BC)；深圳市；质量浓度；波长吸收指数(AAE)中图分类号：X513 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1000-6923(2018)05-1653-10Comparative study on the characteristics of black carbon aerosol in urban and suburban areas of Shenzhen. CHENG Ding1,2, WU Cheng1,2*, WU Dui1,2,3**, LIU Jian3, SONG Lang1,2, SUN Tian-lin1,2, MAO Xia4, JIANG Yin4, LIU Ai-ming4 (1.Institute of Mass Spectrometer and Atmospheric Environment, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China；2.Guangdong Engineering Research Centre for Online Atmospheric P ollution Source Appointment Mass Spectrometry System, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China；3.School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Y at-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China；4.Shenzhen Meteorological Bureau, Shenzhen 518040, China.). China Environmental Science, 2018,38(5)：1653~1662 Abstract：To better understand the pollution characteristics of black carbon (BC) in Shenzhen, BC and meteorological factors were measured from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015 at XC (suburban site) and ZZL (urban site) in Shenzhen. The results showed the average mass concentrations of BC at XC and ZZL sites during the campaign were (1.12±0.90) µg/m3 and (2.58±2.00) µg/m3 respectively. The background concentrations of BC at the two sites were (0.27±1.31) µg/m3 and (1.07±0.85) µg/m3 respectively. The σabs at XC site was (5.87±4.81) Mm-1 while at ZZL site was (13.47±10.50) Mm-1. It was found that the values at the urban site were much higher than those at the suburban site. The BC concentrations at both sites were following the logarithmic normal distribution with higher concentrations in the dry season than that in the rainy season. A distinct diurnal pattern of BC with two peaks was observed at ZZL site. In contrast, XC site did not show obvious diurnal variations. The Absorption Angstrom Exponent (AAE) can be considered as an indicator of BC mixing state. It was found to be close to 1at both sites, indicating that BC at the two sites were dominated by fossil fuel combustion.Further study suggested high BC concentrations at XC site were usually associated with northwest wind (10~20m/s) when polluted aerosols were transported from the Shenzhen container wharf, which is the world's third largest container terminal. The backward trajectories clusters analysis indicated that BC at XC site was mainly affected by the long-range transport. WhileBC at the ZZL site was affected by the surrounding areas and local emissions.Key words：BC；Shenzhen；mass concentration；AAE收稿日期：2017-09-20基金项目：国家自然科学基金资助项目(41475004,40775011)* 责任作者, 博士后, wucheng.vip@; ** 教授, wudui.vip@1654 中国环境科学 38卷黑碳气溶胶(BC)是大气气溶胶的重要组成部分,主要是由含碳物质的不完全燃烧产生,它对全球气候变化、区域环境空气质量和人体健康均有重要影响.近年来,关于BC的研究已经成为国际和国内关于大气研究的热点内容.国际上对BC研究开展得相对较早,西方国家早在20世纪70年代就已经开始对BC进行观测研究[1],1973年Smith等最早发现海洋沉积物中有黑碳的存在[2],并发现黑碳可以在土壤和海洋中贮存停留几千年到上万年[3],可根据沉积物中的黑碳成分作为示踪物推断地球曾经发生过的重大事件.此外,科学研究发现BC造成的直接辐射强迫介于IPCC报告中的CH4和CO2之间而成为全球变暖的第二影响因子[4].到20世纪80年代,世界气象组织(WMO)开展的全球大气监测网(GAW)将BC作为一个重要的气溶胶观测项目.90年代起,中国逐渐开展了关于BC的观测研究,发现东部地区的BC排放量大于西部地区,且BC的排放具有较强的季节性[5].吴兑等[6-7]从2003年开始在珠三角地区开展对BC连续多年的观测,得出了珠三角地区BC浓度在干季较高,湿季较低,BC浓度在近地面较高,山顶大气成分站浓度较低.随着我国工业化的高速发展,能源消耗急剧增加,环境空气质量不断恶化,针对我国珠江三角洲[8-9]、长江三角洲[10-12]、京津冀[13-14]及其他地区[15-16]的BC研究逐渐增多.有研究指出,目前在粤港地区的气溶胶污染中,主要是细粒子的污染,尤其BC污染很严重[17].深圳位于广东省南部,地处珠江三角洲东岸,北临东莞、惠州,南与香港一水之隔,东西两侧均与海洋相接,是重要的边境口岸城市.以往有研究者对深圳地区BC开展过观测研究,但是仅仅基于单个站点且采样时间较短,本研究于2014年1月1日~2015年6月30日在深圳市西涌和竹子林开展为期一年半的BC同步观测,结合常规气象资料,探讨了深圳市城区和郊区的BC污染特征及影响因素,通过后向轨迹聚类分析,探讨了不同方向气流对深圳市城区和郊区BC的影响特征. 1研究方法1.1观测站点本研究的采样站点分别是深圳市西涌站(XC,郊区)和竹子林站(ZZL,城区),如图1所示.两站点之间的直线距离为57km.深圳市西涌站(114°33′E,22°29′N,海拔172m)位于深圳市大鹏半岛临海一山顶处,离海岸不到1km,远离深圳市城区,受人为活动影响较小,属于深圳市郊区,观测数据在一定程度上代表了深圳市郊区背景大气中的BC浓度.竹子林站(114°03′E,22°32′N,海拔63m)位于深圳市福田区,是深圳市市中心所在地,周边是居民生活区和商贸区,受人为活动影响较大,具有城市站点的典型特征,观测数据在一定程度上代表了深圳市城区大气中BC污染状况.图1 观测站点位置示意Fig.1 Location of the measurement sites1.2观测仪器与原理本实验观测采用的仪器是美国Magee公司生产研发的AE-31型黑碳仪(Aethelometer Model 31,Magee Science Company),其拥有7个测量通道,波长分别为370、470、520、590、660、880及940nm,仪器经自动流量计校准后的流量为5.0L/min.黑碳仪测量大气中BC的基本原理是建立在石英滤膜所收集的气溶胶粒子对光吸收造成的衰减上[18],BC对可见光具有较强的吸收性,当用一束光照射到附有BC粒子的滤膜时,透过采样滤膜的光会产生衰减,黑碳仪通过测量不同波长光的光学衰减量ATN,经过一系列运算就可以确定样品中BC的含量.本文在分析仪器观测数据时,对其存在的误差进行校正[19-22].用黑碳仪观测大气中BC含量5期 程 丁等：深圳市城区和郊区黑碳气溶胶对比研究 1655时,存在以下几个方面的误差:①除去一些特殊天气状况(如沙尘),BC 对总的光吸收贡献在90%以上[23-24],其他成分的气溶胶对光的吸收占比很小,可忽略不计;因此用黑碳仪收集的气溶胶粒子,本文近似地认为全部是黑碳粒子.②BC 是悬浮在空气中的胶体分散系统,在大气中发生多向散射效应.当黑碳仪把大气中的BC 粒子收集到滤膜上时,BC 由悬浮态转变为压缩态,其性状发生改变,从而散射效应也发生改变.黑碳仪测得的是气溶胶在滤膜上的光衰减系数σatn ,需要对其进行计算校正,转变为气溶胶在大气中的吸收系数σabs .③黑碳仪是基于滤带监测的仪器,在进行连续监测时,由于滤带上负载物质逐渐增加,沉积在滤膜上的BC 粒子前后会产生遮挡,造成仪器对光透射信号的非线性响应,随着采样点处“负载效应”的增加,仪器测得的数据会显示出系统性的减少.本文对其他成分的气溶胶造成的光的衰减忽略不计,对②③产生的仪器检测误差进行校正.计算光学衰减量ATN 的公式如下:o ATN 100ln I I =−⋅ (1) 式中:I 为采样点处光学衰减增量;I o 为参照点处光学衰减增量.一个测量周期中,当滤膜采样点收集的粒子达到一定程度,透过光的光学衰减量达到设置的阈值时,该周期结束,仪器进行下个采样周期. σatn 是气溶胶在滤膜上的光吸收系数,计算公式如下:atn ATN A V σ=Δ⋅ (2) 式中:ΔATN 是指某一个测量周期与上一个测量周期间的采样点光学衰减量的增量,与采样点的BC 质量的增量成正比;A 是气溶胶沉积物的斑点面积;V 是在每个测量周期中通过滤膜的空气体积.气溶胶的吸收系数σabs 与气溶胶在滤膜上的衰减系数σatn 有一定的关系,可以由Weingartner 提出的校正算法求出[19]: atnabs ref (ATN)C R σσ=⋅ (3)式中:C ref 是多向散射校正参数; R (ATN)是用于修正“负载效应”的ATN 的函数,可用下列公式计算得出[20]: 1ln(ATN%)ln(10%)(ATN)1ln(50%)ln(10%)R f ⎛⎞−=−⎜⎟−⎝⎠(4) 式中:f 是可调的,为了实现数据不连续性的最小化.本次研究的黑碳仪数据采用的C ref 为3.48[22]、f 为1.20,使用Aethlometer date processor 程序实现数据的订正[24].在已知吸收系数的情况下,BC 质量浓度的计算公式为:abs BC λσσ= (5) 式中:σλ表示单位面积沉积在滤膜上的单位质量的黑碳气溶胶对光的衰减率,m 2/g.得到采样时间间隔Δt 内采样的空气体积V ,结合(1)~(5)式通过计算即可得到该时间段内空气样品中的BC 含量.本文中的直方图和箱式图使用Histbox 程序绘制[25]. 2 结果与讨论2.1 观测结果频率分布 图2所示为深圳市XC 和ZZL 站点2014年1月1日~2015年6月30日观测得到的BC 逐时浓度和气溶胶吸收系数σabs 的频率分布图,吸收系数σabs 是在波长520nm 处测得,记为σabs520.由图2可知,观测期间XC 站点的BC 平均浓度和气溶胶吸收系数σabs520分别为 (1.12±0.90)μg/m 3、(5.87±4.81)Mm -1,ZZL 站点对应的值分别为(2.58±2.00)μg/m 3、(13.47±10.50)Mm -1,深圳市城区BC 浓度和气溶胶吸收系数σabs 均超过郊区值的2倍多,说明深圳市城区细粒子污染更严重.平均浓度只能反映某地污染物在一段时期的浓度平均值,无法衡量本地长时间污染物背景浓度值.本底浓度是指大气中某物质基本混合均匀后的浓度,能够反映某一尺度区域内处于均匀混合状态的某种成分的大气浓度水平,把出现频率最大的峰值浓度作为该地区的本底浓度,用来反映本地污染背景值[26].进一步采用多参数对数正态分布函数对两个站点的BC 频数分布拟合,通过拟合后的函数求得两个站点BC 的本底浓度分别为:XC 站点(0.27±1.31)μg/m 3、ZZL 站点(1.07±0.85)μg/m 3,两个站点的本底1656 中国环境科学 38卷浓度都小于该站点的平均浓度,两个站点BC浓度分布均为对数正态分布.XC站点低浓度出现的频率要远大于ZZL站点,说明城区BC污染比郊区严重.BC(µg/m3)BC(µg/m3)图2 XC、ZZL站点BC浓度和气溶胶吸收系数频率分布Fig.2 Frequency distributions ofσabs520 and BC at XC and ZZL sites2.2深圳市BC浓度水平表1所示为本次观测BC浓度和我国其他站点的比较结果.同中国北方城市比较,深圳市城区BC浓度明显低于北京[31]、成都[33]、重庆[34]、合肥[36]、上海[37]、兰州[38]等北方城区BC值,也低于珠三角城市东莞[35]城区BC值,同2009年深圳城区[27]观测的数据对比,本次测得的值下降明显,说明近年来深圳市城区空气质量有一定的改善;而深圳市郊区BC浓度低于南京[30]、北京[32]、广州[35]、上海[38]等郊区BC值,和海洋大气背景海南西沙永兴岛[29]的BC浓度相比,其本底浓度值较接近,说明深圳市XC站点作为一个区域本底站具有较好的代表性,XC站点可作为珠三角地区大气成分背景站点.表1我国不同站点BC浓度对比(µg/m3)Table 1 Comparison of BC in different sites in China (µg/m3)观测站点站点类型观测时间平均浓度本底浓度深圳西涌(本研究) 郊区 2014-01~2015-06 1.12±0.90 0.30±1.16深圳竹子林(本研究) 城区 2014-01~2015-06 2.58±1.91 1.13±0.81 深圳[27]城区 2009-01~2009-12 5.70±4.60 2.50青海瓦里关[28]全球本底 1994-07~1999-12 0.13~0.3 0.05~0.13海南西沙永兴岛[29]海洋背景 2012-05 0.6 0.2~0.5 江苏南京[30]郊区 2015-01~2015-10 2.52±1.75 1.43北京[31]城区 2013-11~2015-10 4.77±4.49 /北京[32]郊区 2010-7~2010-8 2.89±1.62 / 四川成都[33]城区 2013-09~2014-07 7.32 2.43~5.05期 程 丁等：深圳市城区和郊区黑碳气溶胶对比研究 1657续表1观测站点 站点类型观测时间 平均浓度 本底浓度重庆市[34]城区 2013-04~2014-02 4.86±2.373.0~3.5 广州帽峰山[35]东莞[35]郊区 城区2009-01~2009-12 2009-01~2009-122.43 5.271.42.3安徽合肥[36] 城区 2013-06~2014-05 4.88±2.99 2.0~3.0 上海浦东[37] 城区 2007-12~2008-11 3.80±3.20 / 上海东滩[37] 郊区 2007-12~2008-11 1.70±2.30 / 甘肃兰州[38]郊区 2007-01~2009-08 1.571.02.3 日变化分析图3所示为XC 和ZZL 站点BC 浓度的日均变化图,图中圆圈代表平均值,直线的上下边代表95和5分位数,柱形上下边代表75和25分位数,中心线代表中位数.由图可知,整个观测期间XC 站点的BC 浓度日变化波动范围较小,呈平滑稳定状态,没有明显的峰值和谷值,仅在18:00(北京时间,下同)时刻略微上升;ZZL 站点的BC 浓度日变化波动范围较大,具有明显的双峰结构,两个峰值分别出现在早上08:00和下午19:00~21:00时刻,双峰出现的时间与市中心机动车排放源的早晚高峰对应.谷值出现的时间大约是在中午13:00和夜间04:00左右,第一个谷值出现的时间与边界层的抬升息息相关.BC 的日变化特征是由气象条件的日变化和人为活动的日变化规律共同影响决定,能反映出人为活动及大气边界层的日变化特征.XC 站点日变化波动较小主要有两方面原因:一是由于XC 站点的大气环境质量受污染程度较轻,空气比较洁净,环境中BC 浓度本身就比较低;二是由于XC 站点远离人为源和交通源,受人类活动影响较少,因此XC 站点BC 浓度日变化波动较小. XC 站点在18:00时刻BC 浓度略微上升,可能是受傍晚气温下降、边界层顶层降低的原因使得大气中污染物扩散能力下降,导致BC 有微弱累积.B C (µg /m 3)B C (µg /m 3)图3 XC 、ZZL 站点BC 浓度的日平均变化 Fig.3 BC diurnal pattern at XC and ZZL sitesZZL 站点东北方向垂直距离200m 是京港澳高速公路,公路偏北、东北方向都是居民生活区,站点靠近人为源和交通源,受人类活动影响较大.夜间至早晨时间段大气条件相对稳定,高速公路车辆行驶较少,ZZL 站点夜间BC 浓度呈下降趋势.随着天亮后人类活动增强以及车辆早高峰的到来,BC 浓度在短期内迅速积累,达到峰值.待早高峰结束后车辆逐渐减少,午后太阳辐射、大气湍流活动都达到最大值,同时加上边界层的抬升,这些因素均有利于BC 的稀释,因此在中午13:00时刻BC 浓度达到最小值.下午随着晚高峰来临, BC 浓度持续上升,在20:00时刻达到第二个峰值.峰值和谷值出现的时间与上下班高峰、机动车行驶规律及大气边界层运动规律相吻合.1658 中 国 环 境 科 学 38卷2.4 干湿季变化分析深圳是珠江三角洲核心城市,位于华南地区,由于深圳独特的地理位置使得它气候环境的四季变化不明显,根据湿度和降水量,把华南地区全年划分为干季和湿季[39].其中湿季是4~9月,干季是10月~次年3月,湿季伴随着较高温度和较多雨量,太阳辐射和日照时间均较干季大,干季气候相对干燥,温度也较低.表2统计了XC 和ZZL 站点观测期间干湿季BC 浓度特征.由表2可知:XC 站点干湿季BC 平均浓度分别为(1.55±0.91),(0.69±0.71) μg/m 3,本底浓度分别为(1.00±0.65),(0.21±0.91) μg/m 3, 干季BC 平均浓度为湿季的2.2倍,干季BC 本底浓度大约是湿季的5.0倍;ZZL 站点干湿季BC 平均浓度分别为(3.26±2.13),(1.91±1.60) μg/m 3,本底浓度分别为(1.92±0.63),(0.83±0.69) μg/m 3,干季BC 平均浓度是湿季的1.7倍,干季BC 本底浓度是湿季的2.3倍.ZZL 站点的BC 平均浓度在干湿季分别是XC 站点的2.1倍和2.8倍;本底浓度分别为1.9倍和4.0倍.表2 两站点BC 浓度干湿季对比(µg/m 3) Table 2 The comparison of BC in different sites in dryand rainy seasons (µg/m 3)站点 季节平均浓度本底浓度干季 1.55±0.91 1.00±0.65 XC 湿季 0.69±0.71 0.21±0.91 干季 3.26±2.13 1.92±0.63 ZZL湿季 1.91±1.60 0.83±0.69数据反映两地干湿季BC 浓度差异较大,干季明显高于湿季.干湿季节BC 浓度差异受多方面因素控制,首先珠三角地区干湿季节大尺度背景风向不同,干季受东北季风影响为主,吹偏北风,在污染物远距离传输过程中有长三角及闽浙沿海一带污染物与本地污染物叠加导致干季BC 浓度偏高,湿季受南海季风影响为主,吹偏南风,来自南海的气流比较清洁导致湿季BC 浓度偏低;其次,干季有微弱的下沉气流,有利于污染物不断在低层堆积,湿季垂直向上的热力输送较强,有利于污染物向高层扩散,加上湿季降雨较多,BC 粒子受雨水冲刷发生吸湿增长,加速湿沉降过程,这些因素均造成湿季BC 浓度低于干季. 2.5 年变化分析图4所示为XC 和ZZL 站点BC 浓度年变化特征,图中随着颜色由蓝到红表示BC 浓度逐渐增大.由图4可知,XC 站点BC 浓度受人为活动影响较小,在水平方向上颜色变化较稳定,在7~10月傍晚18:00~21:00时段有微弱的增大趋势;ZZL 站点受人为活动影响较大,在水平方向变化剧烈,早晚都有较强的颜色变化趋势,在10月~次年1月傍晚浓度都处于较高水平.图4 XC 、ZZL 站点逐时BC 浓度年变化Fig.4 Annual variations of hourly black carbon aerosol atXC and ZZL sitesBC 浓度变化主要受局地污染源和气象条件的共同作用.两个站点的BC 浓度逐月波动都较大,造成一年中的不同月份BC 浓度变化的原因是多方面的,除受当地排放源和排放强度不同影响外,还受到大气湍流变化强度的影响.每年2~8月珠三角地区日照时间较长,地面接收到的能量较多,大气湍流垂直运动较为剧烈,有利于污染物稀释,该段时期BC 浓度较低;9月~次年1月珠三5期 程 丁等：深圳市城区和郊区黑碳气溶胶对比研究 1659角地区日照时间较短,大气湍流发展弱,且逆温层出现的频率较高,不利于污染物稀释,因此这段时期BC 浓度处于较高水平. 2.6 波长吸收指数波长吸收指数(AAE)可以用来分析气溶胶的混合状态,它是由两个不同波长(α1的α2)的吸收系数的比值和波长比值求出的负指数:AAE1122()()()()αλλαλλ−=(6) 式中:α(λ)表示吸收系数,λ1和λ2表示不同波长,通过上式可得该组波长的AAE 值:121212ln(())ln(())AAE(,)ln()ln()αλαλλλλλ−=−− (7) 有研究指出,大气中纯净的黑碳气溶胶的AAE 值接近1.0[41];Kirchstetter 等[42]计算了接近排放BC 源的AAE 值大约为0.7~1.3,Chung 等[43]计算的AAE 值大约为0.7~1.0,并推测距离BC 排放源的真实AAE 值要小于1.如果BC 中混合了棕碳气溶胶(BrC)、硫酸盐气溶胶、沙尘气溶胶,其值就会增大[43-44];大气中生物质燃烧产生的BC 的AAE 值要比化石燃料燃烧产生的BC 的AAE 值大[45];基于Sandradewi 等[46]的计算模型,化石燃料燃烧的AAE 值大约为1.1,生物质燃烧的AAE 值大约为1.8~1.9. 本文分别用可见光波段470nm 和660nm 两个波长的吸收系数计算了XC 和ZZL 两站点的日平均AAE 值,XC 站点的AAE 值变化范围在0.56~1.75之间,平均值为(0.94±0.16);ZZL 站点AAE 值日变化范围在0.74~1.29之间,平均值为(0.92±0.08).XC 站点的AAE 值日变化范围、标准差均大于ZZL 站点,说明XC 站点的BC 污染排放源对当地BC 的贡献较不稳定,增加或减少某个排放源,BC 受影响较大,而ZZL 站点的BC 污染排放源对当地BC 的贡献比较稳定,增加或减少某个排放源,BC 受影响较小. 表3所示为XC 和ZZL 两地不同月份的AAE 值比较.由表可知,XC 和ZZL 两地AAE 值均在9月达到最小值,分别为0.77、0.85,在12月达到最大值,分别为1.16、1.03,此结果说明两地在9月份BC 排放源对BC 的贡献比较单一,BC 中所含其他类型的气溶胶较少.华南地区在12月份天气开始变冷, 生物质燃烧及其它含碳物质的燃烧事件增多使得BC 中混杂了其他类型的气溶胶导致AAE 值变大.虽受不同排放源影响,但两地每月AAE 值都在1附近波动,此结果表明造成两地BC 污染的主要来源是相同的,均源于化石燃料的燃烧,不同的是,ZZL 站点受机动车尾气排放影响较大,而XC 站点受码头船舶排放的污染物影响较大. 2.7 风场对BC 浓度的影响XC 站点海拔较ZZL 站点高,视野比较开阔,对风的遮挡和阻碍较少,而ZZL 站点海拔较低,建筑物多造成城市下垫面粗糙度较大,对风的遮挡和阻碍较大,因此XC 站点常年风速较ZZL 地区大.较大的风速能使得污染物较快的被输送,这也是造成XC 站点BC 浓度较ZZL 站点低的一个原因. 图5所示为BC 浓度随近地面风场的变化图.图中由圆心到外表示风速逐渐增大,随着颜色由浅到深表示BC 浓度逐渐增大,虚线圆圈代表风速.由图5发现,XC 站点颜色最深的位置在西北方向,而ZZL 站点颜色最深的位置靠近圆心处.这种现象提示了码头船舶可能是XC 地区BC 的重要排放源,而ZZL 地区则受本地排放源影响较大. 受近地面风场影响,污染物的输送在不同站点间影响显著,下风向地区易受上风向地区传输影响[40].XC 站点正南方向临海,人类活动较少,海面没有较大的污染源,从海面吹来的风较清洁,气流中污染物携带较少,因此当吹南风时,XC 站点BC 浓度始终保持在较低水平;XC 站点的偏北方向是陆地,伴随较多的人类活动,且西北方是深圳盐田港(距XC 站点大约32km),为世界第三大集装箱码头,干季盛行偏北风,当吹西北风时,XC 站点正好位于盐田港的下风向,风速较小时,污染物传输速度较慢,XC 站点BC 浓度没有明显的增加;当风速达到10~20m/s 时,污染物传输速度较快,此时码头排放的污染物源源不断的被输送到XC 地区导致XC 地区BC 浓度急剧升高;当风速超过20m/s 时,传输到XC 站点的污染物随着强气流在1660 中 国 环 境 科 学 38卷短时间内被清除,此时BC 浓度变小.ZZL 站点人类活动较频繁,BC 浓度受局地污染源和城区污染物输送的双重影响.当无风或者风速较小时,污染物在城区容易积累不易扩散,此时BC 浓度最高;当风速逐渐增大时,城区污染物输送速度加快,此时BC 浓度变小.表3 XC 、ZZL 站点不同月份AAE 值比较 Table 3 Comparison of monthly AAE at XC and ZZL sites站点 1月2月3月4月5月6月7月8月9月 10月11月 12月平均值平均值1.04 0.97 0.910.87 0.93 0.970.930.850.770.830.93 1.16 0.94 XC 标准差 0.13 0.14 0.120.14 0.14 0.200.200.110.120.090.08 0.12 0.16 平均值 1.00 0.95 0.920.90 0.91 0.910.870.890.850.890.88 1.03 0.92 ZZL标准差 0.08 0.09 0.080.07 0.07 0.070.050.070.050.040.040.10 0.08图5 XC 、ZZL 站点BC 浓度随风速和风向的变化Fig.5 Variations of the BC with wind speed and wind direction at XC and ZZL sites2.8 后向轨迹聚类分析为了更进一步研究两个站点的风场对BC 浓度的长期影响,利用美国国家海洋和大气管理局(NOAA ARL)提供的GDAS 数据,结合TrajStat 软件对XC 和ZZL 站点2014年1月1日~2015年6月30日00:00~23:00逐时气流来源进行48h 后向轨迹反演,根据两站点海拔高度不同分别选择200m 和100m 高度进行计算,并根据计算结果对轨迹进行聚类分析.本研究中根据计算结果将两个站点的轨迹都分为4类(Cluster 1~4,C1~C4),图6所示为XC 和ZZL 站点48h 后向轨迹聚类以及每条聚类对应的BC 浓度分布图.图中每条聚类对应的百分数表示不同方向的气流比例,其大小反映了XC 站点受中远距离传输影响较大,ZZL 站点受周边地区及本地排放源影响较大.图中还统计了两站点不同聚类下对应的BC 浓度.由图可知,XC 站点不同聚类下对应的BC 平均浓度由大到小依次排列为:C1(1.76±1.05) >C4(1.39±0.80)>C3 (1.07±0.76)>C2(0.54±0.55) μg/m 3;ZZL 站点不同聚类下对应的BC 平均浓度由大到小依次排列为:C4(3.50±2.26)>C1(3.25±1.72)>C3(2.63±1.89)>C2(1.62±1.33) μg/m 3.来自于华中地区和海岸线的气流携带污染物较多且污染较大,当受其控制时, XC 和ZZL 地区BC 浓度偏大;来自南海的气流较清洁,当受其控制时, XC 和ZZL 地区BC 浓度偏小.两站点C4轨迹差异较大,ZZL 站点的C4轨迹明显较XC 站点的C4轨迹短,这是由于当ZZL 地区受周边地区及本地排放源共同影响时,在珠三角地区形成小尺度涡旋,其排放的污染物在原地打转造成局地污染,这种现象和吴兑课题组在珠三角核心区发现的性状是一致的[47-48],进一步表明城区站点本地排放源对城5期 程 丁等：深圳市城区和郊区黑碳气溶胶对比研究 1661区BC 的影响较大.图6 XC 、ZZL 站点48h 后向轨迹聚类及不同聚类对应的BC 浓度分布Fig.6 48h average backward trajectories at XC and ZZL, and showing the BC concentrations by different clusters.3 结论3.1 观测期间,深圳市城区和郊区的BC 平均浓度分别为(2.58±1.91),(1.12±0.90)μg/m 3,本底浓度分别为(1.13±0.81),(0.30±1.16)μg/m 3,大气气溶胶吸收系数σabs 分别为(13.47±10.50)Mm -1、(5.87±4.81)Mm -1,城区BC 值和σabs 值均高于郊区值,深圳市BC 浓度分布都是对数正态分布.XC 站点BC 浓度与海洋大气背景区海南西沙永兴岛的BC 浓度较接近,说明深圳市XC 站点作为一个区域本底站具有较好的代表性.3.2 XC 站点作为区域背景站,BC 日变化没有明显的峰值和谷值,ZZL 站点BC 日变化具有明显的峰值和谷值.峰值和谷值出现的时间与上下班高峰、机动车行驶规律及大气边界层运动规律相吻合.两站点BC 浓度均呈干季高、湿季低的特征.3.3 通过分析两站点AAE 值变化特征,发现两地AAE 值均接近1,说明两地BC 污染均主要来源于化石燃料的燃烧,XC 地区受码头船舶排放的污染物影响较大,而ZZL 地区受本地机动车排放的污染物影响较大.3.4 根据后向轨迹聚类分析,XC 站点主要受中远距离输送影响,ZZL 站点主要受本地排放源影响.来自华中地区和海岸线的气流携带污染物较多且污染较大,受其控制时,XC 和ZZL 地区BC 浓度偏大;来自南海的气流较清洁,受其控制时, XC 和ZZL 地区BC 浓度偏小.ZZL 站点受珠三角地区形成小尺度涡旋气流影响,周边和本地排放的污染物较易积聚,具有与珠三角核心区类似的性状.参考文献：[1] Wolff G T. Particulate elemental carbon in the atmosphere [J]. Journalof the Air Pollution Control Association, 1981,31(9):935-938. [2] Smith D M, Griffin J J, Goldberg E D. Elemental carbon inmarine sediments: A baseline for burning [J]. Nature, 1973, 241(5387):268-270.[3] Masiello C A, Druffel E R M. Black carbon in deep -seasediments [J]. Science, 1998,280(5371):1911.[4] Jacobson M Z. Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of blackcarbon in atmospheric aerosols. [J]. Nature, 2001,409(6821):695. [5] 许 黎,王亚强,陈振林,等.黑碳气溶胶研究进展Ⅰ:排放、清除和浓度 [J]. 地球科学进展, 2006,21(4):352-360.[6] 吴 兑,毛节泰,邓雪娇,等.珠江三角洲黑碳气溶胶及其辐射特性的观测研究 [J]. 中国科学D 辑, 2009,39(11):1542-1553. [7] 吴 兑,廖碧婷,陈慧忠,等.珠江三角洲地区的灰霾天气研究进展 [J]. 气候与环境研究, 2014,19(2):248-264.[8] 陶 俊,朱李华,韩静磊,等.2007年春季广州城区黑碳气溶胶污染特征的初步研究 [J]. 气候与环境研究, 2008,13(5):658-662. [9] Wu C, Ng W M, Huang J, et al. Determination of elemental andorganic carbon in PM 2.5 in the Pearl River Delta Region: Inter -instrument (Sunset vs. DRI Model 2001 Thermal. O ptical Carbon Analyzer) and Inter -Protocol Comparisons (IMPRO VE vs. ACE -Asia Protocol) [J]. Aerosol Science & Technology, 2012,46(6):610-621.[10] 徐 昶,沈建东,叶 辉,等.杭州黑碳气溶胶污染特性及来源研究 [J]. 中国环境科学, 2014,34(12):3026-3033.[11] 王洪强,贺千山,陈勇航,等.2008~2012年上海黑碳浓度变化特征分析 [J]. 环境科学, 2014,35(4):1215-1222.[12] 丁 铭,邹 强,葛 顺,等.苏州市黑碳气溶胶的污染特征分析[J]. 中国环境监测, 2014,30(6):67-71.。

专利名称：Method for producing carbon black, carbonblack and rubber composition发明人：鶴田 雅志,赤羽 岳志,内山 央己申请号：JP2015528058申请日：20130724公开号：JPWO2015011796A1公开日：20170302专利内容由知识产权出版社提供专利附图：摘要： It can be used as a compounding ingredient of the rubber composition toimprove the processability and reinforcement of the obtained rubber and to improve the heat generation characteristics of the obtained rubber and to have a high wear resistance like the tire tread portion Carbon black which can be preferably used for a rubbermember or the like to be provided. The average particle diameter of primary particles is15 to 35 nm, the Stokes mode diameter of aggregate measured by centrifugal sedimentation analysis method is 140 to 180 nm, and the aggregate shape observed by transmission electron microscope is spherical shape The carbon black is characterized by being characterized in that it is carbon black.申请人：東海カーボン株式会社地址：東京都港区北青山１丁目２番３号代理人：赤塚 賢次,阪田 泰之,渋谷 健更多信息请下载全文后查看。