In PM10 factor analysis, four factors explained 75% of total variance. The loading for this PM fraction are shown in Figure 3. The strongest Factor 1 explained 39.1% of variance and was rich in Al, Si, and Fe, and, similarly to PM2.5, was identified as resuspended soil. Overall, this factor contributed to 64% of PM10 mass (or 55 μg m–3), although there were significant spatial and temporal variations (Table 5). Sites 3 and 7 were affected the most by soil, but, we believe, for different reasons as confirmed by comparison to concurrent sampling at Site 4 (Table 5). Site 3 was downwind of a major highway, open dirt areas, numerous marble and granite workshops, and ongoing construction projects, and, therefore, had significantly higher soil factor contribution (128 μg m–3, or 87% of overall PM10 mass) than at Site 4 (37 μg m–3, or 49% mass). However, while at Site 7 soil contribution was 78 μg m–3, the concurrent Site 4 samples were also of comparable 82 μg m–3, thus indicating regional dust episode rather than influence of local source. There is no spike for soil under south–east winds at site 4 soil pollution rose because we did not collect the PM10 samples on 7/30 and 8/3 (the days for high soil mass in PM2.5 samples). We believe significant contribution from re‐suspended soil comes from traffic transporting goods from the seaport, sugar plant, also located near the seaport, and refinery.
In PM10 factor analysis, four factors explained 75% of total variance. The loading for this PM fraction are shown in Figure 3. The strongest Factor 1 explained 39.1% of variance and was rich in Al, Si, and Fe, and, similarly to PM2.5, was identified as resuspended soil. Overall, this factor contributed to 64% of PM10 mass (or 55 μg m–3), although there were significant spatial and temporal variations (Table 5). Sites 3 and 7 were affected the most by soil, but, we believe, for different reasons as confirmed by comparison to concurrent sampling at Site 4 (Table 5). Site 3 was downwind of a major highway, open dirt areas, numerous marble and granite workshops, and ongoing construction projects, and, therefore, had significantly higher soil factor contribution (128 μg m–3, or 87% of overall PM10 mass) than at Site 4 (37 μg m–3, or 49% mass). However, while at Site 7 soil contribution was 78 μg m–3, the concurrent Site 4 samples were also of comparable 82 μg m–3, thus indicating regional dust episode rather than influence of local source. There is no spike for soil under south–east winds at site 4 soil pollution rose because we did not collect the PM10 samples on 7/30 and 8/3 (the days for high soil mass in PM2.5 samples). We believe significant contribution from re‐suspended soil comes from traffic transporting goods from the seaport, sugar plant, also located near the seaport, and refinery.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
