Asian Journal of atmospheric environment
Asian Journal of atmospheric environment Asian Journal of atmospheric environment
Asian Journal of atmospheric environment
  Aims and Scope Type of Manuscripts Best Practices Contact Information  
  Editor-in-Chief Associate Editors Editorial Advisory Board  

Journal Archive

Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment - Vol. 11 , No. 3

[ Research Article ]
Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment - Vol. 11, No. 3
Abbreviation: Asian J. Atmos. Environ
ISSN: 1976-6912 (Print) 2287-1160 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Sep 2017
Received 03 Mar 2017 Revised 31 Mar 2017 Accepted 27 Apr 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5572/ajae.2017.11.3.165

Comparison of Plant-derived Carbonaceous Components (Organic Molecular Markers and 14carbon) in PM2.5 in Summer and Autumn at Kazo, Japan
Kouki Sasaka* ; Qingyue Wang1) ; Kazuhiko Sakamoto2)
Center for Environmental Science in Saitama, 914 Kamitanadare, Kazo 347-0115, Japan
1)Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saitama University, 255 Shimo-Okubo, Sakura-ku, Saitama 338-8570, Japan
2)Asia Center for Air Pollution Research, 1182 Sowa, Nishi-ku, Niigata 950-2144, Japan

Correspondence to : * Tel: +81-480-73-8352, E-mail: sasaka.koki@pref.saitama.lg.jp

Funding Information ▼

Abstract

In Japan, the primary carbonaceous particles emitted from motor vehicles and waste incinerators have been reduced due to strict regulations against exhaust gas. However, the relative contribution of carbonaceous particles derived from plants and biomass has been increasing. Accordingly, compositional analysis of carbonaceous particles has become increasingly important to determine the sources and types of particles produced. To reveal the sources of the organic particles contained in particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 μm (PM2.5) and the processes involved in their generation, we analyzed molecular marker compounds (2-methyltetrols, cis-pinonic acid, and levoglucosan) derived from the plants and biomass in the PM2.5 collected during daytime- and nighttime-sampling periods in summer (July and August) and autumn (November) in Kazo, which is in the northern area of Saitama prefecture, Japan. We also measured 14C carbonaceous concentrations in the same PM2.5 samples. The concentrations of 2-methyltetrols were higher in the summer than in the autumn. Because the deciduous period overlaps with this decrease in the levels of 2-methyltetrols, we considered the emission source to broad-leaved trees. In contrast, the emission source of the cispinonic acid precursor was considered to be conifers, because its concentration remained almost constant throughout the year. The concentration of levoglucosan was considerably increased in the autumn due to frequent biomass open burning. The ratio of plant-derived carbon to total carbon, obtained by measuring of 14C, in summer PM2.5 sample was higher in the nighttime, and could be influenced by anthropogenic sources during the daytime.


Keywords: Biomass burning, Carbon isotopic analysis, Fossil fuels, Molecular marker, Secondary formation

1. Introduction

In Japan, long-term vehicle emission regulations and the strengthening of soot and dust emission standards from waste incinerators as countermeasures against dioxin have achieved the desired effect of improving air quality (Takahashi et al., 2008). In addition, in September 2009, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (MOEJ) established the environmental quality standards for particulate matter with diameters of ≤ 2.5 μm (PM2.5) based on their mass concentration (MOEJ, 2009). However, this improvement trend has dulled in recent years. In the MOEJ report for the 2014 fiscal year (MOEJ, 2016), the PM2.5 environmental quality standards were met at only 37.8% (254/672) of ambient air pollution monitoring stations (APMSs) and 25.8% (51/198) of roadside APMSs. However, the difference in the mass concentration and the difference in chemical composition of PM2.5 at roadside APMSs compared with that at other APMSs, has reduced over time. Consequently, the relative contribution of carbonaceous particles derived from plants and biomass has been increasing throughout the year (Minoura et al., 2012; Takahashi et al., 2007).

Carbonaceous particles contribute considerably (20%-90%) to the PM2.5 mass (Kanakidou et al., 2005), and comprise many organic components. They are classified into primary particles emitted directly from the source and secondary particles that are formed by the photochemical conversion of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere (Turpin et al., 2000). However, the source and behavior of carbonaceous particles, especially secondary particles, are still not well understood. VOC emissions from plants, as with aromatic hydrocarbons from anthropogenic sources, have long been recognized as important precursors of carbonaceous particles (Kalberer et al., 2004; Anderson-Sköld and Simpson, 2001; Odum et al., 1997; Went, 1960).

In the United States (Wang et al., 2012; Kleindienst et al., 2007) and China (Hu et al., 2010, 2008), molecular marker compounds of secondary organic particles from biogenic VOCs (BVOCs), such as isoprene and terpenes released from terrestrial plants, have been identified. Conjecture regarding the contributions of BVOCs to PM2.5 has also been put forward. Yet, the behavior of BVOCs and their contribution to PM2.5 formation in Japan remain poorly understood. Therefore, compositional analyses of the organic particles have become increasingly important to determine the sources and types of particles produced (Sakamoto, 2013).

We analyzed carbonaceous particles derived from plants and biomass by using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and investigated their composition. To fully understand the contribution of plant-derived carbon components, we need to know not only the concentration of each molecular marker compound but also the ratio of the biogenic or anthropogenic carbon components to the total carbon component. In this paper, we focus on molecular marker compounds (2-methyltetrols, cis-pinonic acid, and levoglucosan) derived from plants and biomass, and carbon isotope (14C) found in PM2.5. We discuss the differences in the sources of the carbonaceous particles in PM2.5 and the contributions of plant-derived carbon to PM2.5 in summer and autumn.


2. METHODOLOGY
2. 1 Sampling Site and Duration

PM2.5 samples were collected on the campus of the Center for Environmental Science in Saitama at Kazo (36°05ʹ10ʺN, 139°33ʹ37ʺE) in Saitama Prefecture, Japan (Fig. 1). Kazo is the inland Kanto plain and is approximately 40 km north-northwest of the Tokyo metropolitan area. The sampling site is surrounded by a paddy field; there are no specific emission sources such as large-scale factories or traffic-laden roads nearby (Yonemochi et al., 2011). The sampling instrument was installed on a building rooftop, about 6 m above the ground. During summer, the country’s highest temperature is often recorded at the Kumagaya Local Meteorological Observatory (Kumagaya, Saitama Prefecture, Japan), which is located about 15 km northwest of the sampling site. In summer, anthropogenic pollutants, mostly emitted from the surrounded Tokyo bay area, are transported to this area by sea breezes and undergo various photochemical reactions during their transportation. Open burning of biomass such as withered grass is carried out near the sampling site after the autumn harvest (Yonemochi et al., 2011, 2007).


Fig. 1. 
Location of the observation site (Kazo).

Sample collections were carried out in summer (July 26-August 6, 2014), and autumn (October 29-November 13, 2014). The average temperature during the sampling period was 28.2°C in summer and 13.8°C in autumn; the average amounts of solar radiation during the sampling periods in summer and autumn were 24.5 and 8.1 MJ/m2/day, respectively. We obtained meteorological data for the sampling site from the local monitoring network, which is managed by the Saitama Prefectural Government. In addition, for the concentration of PM2.5, we used the monitoring data from the PM2.5/PM10-2.5/PM10/OBC Dichotomous Monitor (PM-712, Kimoto Electric Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan) located at this site.

2. 2 Sampling and Analysis

PM2.5 samples were collected on quartz fiber filters (20 cm×25 cm, Pallflex 2500QAT-UP, Pall Corp., Putnam, USA) with a high-volume air sampler (HV-1000R, Sibata Scientific Technology Ltd., Soka, Japan) attached to an impactor type PM2.5 classifier (HVI-2.5, Tokyo Dylec Corp., Tokyo, Japan) (Kaneyasu, 2010). A glass fiber filter (φ 130 mm, HV-F, Tokyo Dylec Corp.) was used as trapping material on the collision collecting plate in the classifier. The sampling period was 9:00-17:00 (daytime) and 21:00-5:00 (nighttime), and the airflow rate was 740 L/min. All filters were baked at 600°C for 6 h before use to remove organic contaminants. In the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WINS impactor and similar PM2.5 sampling devices authenticated by the US EPA, such trapping material filters are impregnated with oil to prevent blow off of the separated coarse particles. However, in this research, we used an untreated trapping material filter in an effort to avoid subsequent analytical obstacles. All samples were stored at -30°C until analyzed.

Molecular marker compounds were assessed by using a derivatization-GC/MS method (Hu et al., 2008; Kleindienst et al., 2007; Hagino et al., 2006; Simoneit et al., 2004). The analytical target compounds were 2-methyltetrols (2-methylthreitol and 2-methylerythritol), cis-pinonic acid, and levoglucosan. 2-Methyltetrols and cis-pinonic acid are secondary molecular marker compounds derived from isoprene and α-pinene emitted from many plant species, respectively (Liang et al., 2012; Wagener et al., 2012; Fu and Kawamura, 2011; Fu et al., 2009; Bhat and Fraser, 2007; Kleindienst et al., 2007; Claeys et al., 2004). Levoglucosan is a primary molecular marker compound produced by biomass burning (Wagener et al., 2012; Offenberg et al., 2011; Kumagai et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2008; Bhat and Fraser, 2007; Hagino et al., 2006; Simoneit et al., 1999). Thirty punches of rounded pieces (φ 10 mm) were analyzed. Prior to extraction, the sample pieces were spiked with an internal recovery standard mixture (S-(+)-ketopinic acid and levoglucosan-d7, for each μg of equivalency). They were ultrasonically extracted for 20 min each in 10 mL of a dichloromethane and methanol mixture (2 : 1, v/v). The extracts were then filtered and dried by a gentle stream of ultrapure nitrogen in a reaction vial. For the derivatization, 50 μL of the reagent N,O-bis(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (BSTFA, including trimethylchlorosilane as a catalyst) was added to the dried samples. The samples were then reconstituted to 200 μL with a dichloromethane and hexane solution (1 : 1, v/v) and the reaction was carried out at 70°C for 2.5 h by using a dry bath. After the reaction, the resulting trimethylsilyl derivatives were evaluated by means of GC/MS (ISQ LT GC-MS, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, USA). The analytical conditions of the GC/MS analysis are summarized in Table 1. Reference compounds were available for the target compounds, compounds were identified by comparing the GC retention times with the mass chromatograms of the pure reference compounds. Alternatively, they were identified by comparing their mass spectra with previously reported data (Hu et al., 2008; Claeys et al., 2007; Kleindienst et al., 2007; Jaoui et al., 2004) and by examining their retention times relative to those of other known compounds in GC chromatograms. A procedural blank was analyzed for each PM2.5 filter sample, and the concentration estimate was adjusted accordingly.

Table 1. 
Analytical conditions used for the GC/MS analysis.
GC/MS Instrument ISQ LT GC-MS (Thermo Fisher Scientific)
Column Fused silica capillary Rtx-5ms
(0.25 mm i.d.×60 m×0.25 μm, RESTEK)
Oven Column, 60°C (hold for 1 min) to 200°C at 10°C/min
then to 300°C at 5°C/min (hold for 5 min)
Inlet temparature 270°C
Injection 1 μL Splitless
Carrier gas He, 1.0 mL/min
Ionization voltage 70 eV
Ion source temparature 230°C
MS mode SIM

Carbon component analysis was conducted using a thermal/optical carbon analyzer (DRI model 2001A, Atmoslytic Inc., Calabasas, CA, USA) with the IMPROVE Thermal-Optical-Reflectance Analysis method (Chow et al., 2001, 1993). A punch of a round piece (φ 8 mm) from each filter, sample was used to determine the carbon components. Blank filters were analyzed for all components, and blank values were subtracted from each detected component. We applied the definition of char-EC and soot-EC previously used by Han et al. (2007) to our results. The components of organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC), were classified as OC1, OC2, OC3, OC4, pyrolytic OC (PyOC), char-EC (=EC1-PyOC), soot-EC (=EC2) and EC3, and their behaviors were compared. Total carbon (TC) was defined as the sum of OC and EC.

Carbon isotopic analysis was carried out at the Paleo Labo Co. Ltd., Japan, using a compact 500 kV Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (1.5SDH, National Electrostatics Corp., Middleton, USA). To measure 14C by using an Accelerator Mass Spectrometer, 1 mg or more of carbon per sample is required. Therefore, the amount of carbon per filter was determined from the OC and EC concentrations of the PM2.5 samples collected in summer. Consequently, eleven summer samples (seven daytime samples and four nighttime samples) that contained sufficient TC components were selected, and 1/4 to 1/2 sheets were analyzed. The percent modern carbon (pMC), an index of plant origin, was estimated based on the 14C concentration (pMC=100%, Δ14C=0‰) in 1950 as the reference value. Sample activity was corrected for isotopic fractionation to δ13C=-25.0‰.


3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSSION
3. 1 Changes Overtime in the Concentrations of Molecular Marker Compounds in PM2.5 during the Summer and Autumn

The atmospheric concentrations of the molecular marker compounds (2-methyltetrols, cis-pinonic acid, and levoglucosan) are shown in Table 2. The concentration of the 2-methyltetols, derived from isoprene, was higher in the summer than in the autumn (November). Because the deciduous period overlaps with this decrease in the levels of the 2-methyltetrols, we considered the emission source to be broad-leaved tree. In contrast, the concentration of cis-pinonic acid, derived from α-pinene, remained almost constatnt throughout the summer and autumn. Therefore, we considered its emission source to be conifers, which undergo less defoliation. The concentration of levoglucosan was considerably increased in the autumn due to frequent biomass open burning. It is well known that the concentration of levoglucosan increases during harvest season because of the outdoor burning of rice husks and straw, and our results support this conventional wisdom.

Table 2. 
Atmospheric concentrations of molecular marker compounds . (unit: ng/m3)
Summer samples Autumn samples
Daytime (n=12) Nighttime (n=12) Daytime (n=16) Nighttime (n=16)
2-Methyltetrols* 42.2±11.1 16.3±7.8 4.7±3.2 2.4±1.6
cis-Pinonic acid 16.7±1.9 6.5±1.5 10.6±3.2 5.3±1.4
Levoglucosan 64.5±38.1 43.4±21.1 805.9±423.7 400.6±224.2
*The concentration of the 2-methyltetrols is the sum of the concentrations of 2-methylthreitol and 2-methylerythritol. (95% CI)

The change over time in the atmospheric concentrations of the molecular marker compounds during the summer and autumn are shown in Fig. 2. In summer, the concentrations of the 2-methyltetrols and cis-pinonic acid increased during the daytime, but decreased during the nighttime. Similar, but weaker, trends were found in the autumn, suggesting weak secondary production.


Fig. 2. 
Changes over time in the concentrations of molecular marker compounds in PM2.5 during summer and autumn. The concentration of the 2-methyltetrols is the sum of the concentrations of 2-methylthreitol and 2-methylerythritol. The white background indicates daytime, and the gray background indicates nighttime.

3. 2 Behavior of the Carbon Component

The change over time in the concentrations of total carbon (TC), elemental carbon (EC=char-EC+soot-EC+EC3), and organic carbon (OC=OC1+OC2+OC3+OC4+PyOC) during the summer and autumn are shown in Fig. 3. In summer, the weather was almost always fine, except for at the beginning of sample collection on the night of August 1. In contrast, it occasionally rained during the autumn sampling period (Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 6, 9, and 11-12), and high concentrations were observed in the intervals between the rain. Although the concentrations of the carbon components in the autumn may be slightly underestimated due to rainfall, they were higher than those in the summer and higher in the daytime than in the nighttime. In addition, on days when the concentrations of the carbonaceous components were high, the concentration of levoglucosan was also high. This increase in the concentrations of the carbon components may also be the result of biomass burning in autumn. Moreover, the high concentrations on days with no rainfall may also reflect a situation as outdoor burning.


Fig. 3. 
Changes over time in the concentrations of the carbonaceous components (total carbon: TC, elemental carbon: EC, and organic carbon; OC) of PM2.5. The white background indicates daytime, and the gray background indicates nighttime.

The changes over time in the concentrations of the carbon fractions during summer and autumn are shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5, respectively. In summer, the components of the carbon fraction were, in order of daytime concentration (highest to lowest), OC2 [3.2±0.4 μgC/m3 (daytime), 1.4±0.3 μgC/m3 (nighttime)], OC3 [2.7±0.4 μgC/m3 (daytime), 1.5±0.5 μgC/m3 (nighttime)], char-EC [2.3±0.6 μgC/m3 (daytime), 1.1±0.4 μgC/m3 (nighttime)], and PyOC [1.9±0.4 μgC/m3 (daytime), 0.8±0.3 μgC/m3 (nighttime)]. In contrast, in autumn, the order became OC3 [3.5±1.4 μgC/m3 (daytime), 2.0±0.7 μgC/m3 (nighttime)], char-EC [3.4±1.6 μgC/m3 (daytime), 1.9±0.8 μgC/m3 (nighttime)], OC2 [2.5±1.0 μgC/m3 (daytime), 1.7±0.5 μgC/m3 (nighttime)], and PyOC [2.1±1.0 μgC/m3 (daytime), 1.0±0.4 μgC/m3 (nighttime)]. With the exception of OC1 and OC3, the fraction concentrations showed a significant correlation with the average concentration of PM2.5 during the daytime in summer [r=0.60-0.90 (n=12, p< 0.05)]. This trend was almost the same for the maximum concentration of photochemical oxidant [r=0.63-0.78 (n=12, p< 0.05)], suggesting the influence of photochemical secondary production. In the nighttime, the correlation was weaker as a whole, but the concentrations of OC2, PyOC, and soot-EC each showed a significant correlation with the average concentration of PM2.5 [r=0.55-0.65 (n=12, p<0.05)]. In contrast, during autumn, there was a significant strong correlation between all fractions and the average concentration of PM2.5 during both the daytime [r=0.52-0.97 (n=15, p<0.05)] and nighttime [r=0.70-0.97 (n=16, p<0.01)]. However, the highest concentration of photochemical oxidant showed a moderate correlation with only the PyOC concentration [r=0.61 (n=16, p<0.05)] in the daytime, and the influence of photochemical secondary production was considered to be small.


Fig. 4. 
Changes in the concentrations of the carbonaceous fractions during the summer. The white background indicates daytime, and the gray background indicates nighttime.


Fig. 5. 
Changes in the concentrations of the carbonaceous fractions during the autumn. The white background indicates daytime, and the gray background indicates nighttime.

The changes over time in the ratio of the char-EC concentration to the soot-EC concentration are shown in Fig. 6. The ratio was 2.0±0.4 (daytime) and 1.6±0.4 (nighttime) in summer, and 2.8±0.8 (daytime) and 2.6±1.0 (nighttime) in autumn. During rainfall, when the influence of outdoor burning would be considered small, the soot-EC, which was likely derived from automobiles, would be expected to be dominant, and this ratio was around 1 in some cases. On the other hand, when high concentrations of carbon components are observed in autumn, the ratio is significantly higher (5 and above). The one exception to this finding, on Oct. 30 when the ratio was low despite the high concentration of levoglucosan, does not negate the impact of biomass burning. This low ratio is due to a considerably high concentration of soot-EC. Consequently, we consider that one of the emission source was car exhaust gas. Although other emission sources are not clear, soot-EC may be formed by outdoor burning of plastic products (e.g., agricultural materials, domestic waste). Han et al. (2007) define char-EC as derived from low-temperature incomplete combustion, and soot-EC as particleized after gasification by high-temperature incomplete combustion. In other words, the higher ratio of char-EC concentration to soot-EC concentration means that the contribution of low-temperature incomplete combustion (e.g., biomass burning), is greater than that of high-temperature incomplete combustion (e.g., discharge from an internal combustion engine), so the value of this ratio can be considered an indicator of outdoor open burning.


Fig. 6. 
Changes over time in the ratios of the char-EC concentration to the soot-EC concentration during the summer and autumn. The white background indicates daytime, and the gray background indicates nighttime.

3. 3 The Proportion of Plant-derived Carbon for TC in PM2.5 Samples of Summer

The 14C analysis revealed that the pMC for TC in the PM2.5 collected in summer ranged from 50.7% to 74.4 % in the daytime (average, 62%), and from 60.3% to 92.9% in the nighttime (average, 77%). In other words, the ratio of plant-derived carbon to TC in the PM2.5 was higher than that of fossil fuel-derived carbon during the daytime and nighttime, indicating that the plant-derived carbon contributes greatly to PM2.5. The difference between the daytime and the nighttime values was likely due to anthropogenic sources from social activities during the daytime. A similar trend was seen in a summer survey in Maebashi, Japan (Fushimi et al., 2011).

Diurnal changes in the carbonaceous concentrations derived from fossil fuel (CFF) and non-fossil fuel (CNFF) in summer PM2.5 samples are shown in Fig. 7. The CFF and CNFF increased during the daytime, but decreased during the nighttime. This variation in CFF demonstrates the influence of anthropogenic sources from social activities during the daytime. The variation in CNFF was in good agreement with the changes in the atmospheric concentrations of the 2-methyltetrols and cis-pinonic acid in summer (Fig. 2). There was one exception to this finding: CNFF during the nighttime on July 29 was higher than that during the daytime. This was consistent with the changes in the ratios of the char-EC concentration to the soot-EC concentration (Fig. 6) but was not very consistent with the change in the concentration of levoglucosan. Since the cause is unclear, it should be investigated further by extending the analysis to new samples.


Fig. 7. 
Diurnal changes of the carbonaceous concentrations derived from fossil fuel (CFF) and non-fossil fuel (CNFF) in summer PM2.5 samples. The white background indicates daytime, and the gray background indicates nighttime.


4. Conclusion

PM2.5 sample evaluation was conducted in Kazo in Saitama Prefecture, the inland Kanto plain, during the daytime and nighttime in the summer and autumn of 2014. The characteristics of the carbonaceous aerosol were obtained by using carbon profile analysis and GC-MS analysis of molecular marker compounds (2-methyltetrols, cis-pinonic acid, and levoglucosan), including source information such as fossil fuel emission origin, plant origin, biomass open burning products, and photochemical reaction products. In addition, the 14C carbonaceous concentrations in the same PM2.5 samples were measured.

1) The change over time in concentration of the 2-methyltetrols and cis-pinonic acid showed that their emission sources were deciduous trees and conifers, respectively. In summer, the concentrations of these compounds increased during the daytime, and reduced during the nighttime. Similar, albeit weaker, trends were found in autumn suggesting weak secondary production. The concentration of levoglucosan increased considerably during after the autumn harvest due to frequent biomass open burning.

2) The concentrations of the carbonaceous components were higher in the autumn than in the summer, and higher in the daytime than in the nighttime. Most of the fractions showed a significant correlation with the maximum concentration of photochemical oxidant during the daytime in summer, suggesting the influence of photochemical secondary production. In autumn, the ratio of the char-EC concentration to the soot-EC concentration was significantly higher due to the increase in the concentrations of the carbon components as a result of biomass open burning, accordingly, this ratio could be used as an indicator of outdoor open burning.

3) The proportion of plant-derived carbon for TC in the PM2.5 was higher than that of fossil fuel-derived carbon during the daytime and nighttime, indicating that the plant-derived carbon greatly contributes to PM2.5. The difference between the daytime and the nighttime likely stemmed from anthropogenic sources due to social activities during the daytime. The carbonaceous concentrations derived from fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel increased during the daytime, but decreased during the nighttime. The variations in carbonaceous concentrations derived from non-fossil fuel were in good agreement with the changes in the atmospheric concentrations of 2-methyltetrols and cispinonic acid in summer. Exceptionally, the high CNFF at night was consistent with the changes in the ratios of the char-EC concentration to the soot-EC concentration but was not very consistent with the change in the concentration of levoglucosan. This suggests that the carbonaceous component derived from non-fossil fuel at night is mainly due to biomass open burning, and this should be investigated further by extending the analysis to new samples.


Acknowledgments

Part of this work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP15H02812 and through contract research sponsored by the Japan Automobile Research Institute.


REFERENCES
1. Anderson-Sköld, Y., Simpson, D., (2001), Secondary organic aerosol formation in northern Europe: A model study, Journal of Geophysical Research, 106, p7357-7374.
2. Bhat, S., Fraser, M.P., (2007), Primary source attribution and analysis of α-pinene photooxidation products in Duck Forest, North Carolina, Atmospheric Environment, 27, p2958-2966.
3. Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Pritchett, L.C., Pierson, W.R., Frazier, C.A., Purcell, R.G., (1993), The DRI thermal/optical reflectance carbon analysis system: description, evaluation and applications in U.S. air quality studies, Atmospheric Environment, 27, p1185-1201.
4. Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Crow, D., Lowenthal, D.H., Merrifield, T., (2001), Comparison of IMPROVE and NIOSH carbon measurements, Aerosol Science and Technology, 34, p23-34.
5. Claeys, M., Graham, B., Vas, G., Wang, W., Vermeylen, R., Pashynska, V., Cafmeyer, J., Guyon, P., Andreae, M.O., Artaxo, P., Maenhaut, W., (2004), Formation of secondary organic aerosols through photooxidation of isoprene, Science, 303, p1173-1176.
6. Claeys, M., Szmigielski, R., Kourtchev, I., Van der Veken, P., Vermeylen, R., Maenhaut, W., Jaoui, M., Kleindienst, T.E., Lewandowski, M., Offenberg, J.H., Edney, E.O., (2007), Hydroxydicarboxylic acids: markers for secondary organic aerosol from the photooxidation of α-pinene, Environmental Science & Technology, 41, p1628-1634.
7. Fu, P., Kawamura, K., Chen, J., Barrie, L.A., (2009), Isoprene, monoterpene, and sesquiterpene oxidation products in the high arctic aerosols during late winter to early summer, Environmental Science & Technology, 43, p4022-4028.
8. Fu, P., Kawamura, K., (2011), Diurnal variations of polar organic tracers in summer forest aerosols: A case study of a Quercus and Picea mixed forest in Hokkaido, Japan, Geochemical Journal, 45, p297-308.
9. Fushimi, A., Wagai, R., Uchida, M., Hasegawa, S., Takahashi, K., Kondo, M., Hirabayashi, M., Morino, Y., Shibata, Y., Ohara, T., Kobayashi, S., Tanabe, K., (2011), Radiocarbon (14C) diurnal variations in fine particles at sites downwind from Tokyo, Japan in Summer, Environmental Science & Technology, 45, p6784-6792.
10. Hagino, H., Kotaki, M., Sakamoto, K., (2006), Levoglucosan and carbonaceous components for fine particles in early winter at Saitama, Earozol KenKyu (Journal of Aerosol Research), 21, p38-44, (published in Japanese).
11. Han, Y., Cao, J., Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., An, Z., Jin, Z., Fung, K., Liu, S., (2007), Evaluation of the thermal/optical reflectance method for discrimination between char- and soot-EC, Chemosphere, 69, p569-574.
12. Hu, D., Bian, Q., Li, T.W.Y., Lau, A.K.H., Yu, J.Z., (2008), Contributions of isoprene, monoterpenes, β-caryophyllene, and toluene to secondary organic aerosols in Hong Kong during the summer of 2006, Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, D22206.
13. Hu, D., Bian, Q., Lau, A.K., Yu, J.Z., (2010), Source apportioning of primary and secondary organic carbon in summer PM2.5 in Hong Kong using positive matrix factorization of secondary and primary organic tracer data, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 115(D16).
14. Jaoui, M., Kleindienst, T.E., Lewandowski, M., Edney, E.O., (2004), Identification and quantification of aerosol polar oxygenated compounds bearing carboxylic or hydroxyl groups. 1. Method development, Analytical Chemistry, 76, p4765-4778.
15. Kalberer, M., Paulsen, D., Sax, M., Steinbacher, M., Dommen, J., Prevot, A.S.H., Fisseha, R., Weingartner, E., Frankevich, V., Zenobi, R., Baltensperger, U., (2004), Identification of polymers as major components of atmospheric organic aerosols, Science, 303, p1659-1662.
16. Kanakidou, M., Seinfeld, J.H., Pandis, S.N., Barnes, I., Dentener, F.J., Facchini, M.C., Dingenen, R.V., Ervens, B., Nenes, A., Nielsen, C.J., Swietlicki, E., Putaud, J.P., Balkanski, Y., Fuzzi, S., Horth, J., Moortgat, G.K., Winterhalter, R., Myhre, C.E.L., Tsigaridis, K., Vignati, E., Stephanou, E.G., Wilson, J., (2005), Organic aerosol and global climate modelling: A review, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 5, p1053-1123.
17. Kaneyasu, N., (2010), Development of PM2.5 impactor for the conventional high-volume air sampler, Journal of Japan Society for Atmospheric Environment, 45, p171-174, (published in Japanese).
18. Kleindienst, T.E., Jaoui, M., Lewandowski, M., Offenberg, J.H., Lewis, C.W., Bhave, P.V., Edney, E.O., (2007), Estimates of the contributions of biogenic and anthropogenic hydrocarbons to secondary organic aerosol at a southeastern US location, Atmospheric Environment, 41, p8288-8300.
19. Kourtchev, I., Ruuskanen, T., Maenhaut, W., Kulmala, M., Claeys, M., (2005), Observation of 2-methyltetrols and related photo-oxidation products of isoprene in boreal forest aerosols from Hyytiälä, Finland, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 5, p2761-2770.
20. Kumagai, K., Iijima, A., Shimoda, M., Saitoh, Y., Kozawa, K., Hagino, H., Sakamoto, K., (2010), Determination of dicarboxylic acids and levoglucosan in fine particles in the Kanto plain, Japan, for source apportionment of organic aerosols, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 10, p282-291.
21. Lee, J.J., Engling, G., Lung, S.C., Lee, K., (2008), Particle size characteristics of levoglucosan in ambient aerosols from rice straw burning, Atmospheric Environment, 42, p8300-8308.
22. Liang, L., Engling, G., Duan, F., Cheng, Y., He, K., (2012), Characteristics of 2-methyltetrols in ambient aerosol in Beijing, China, Atmospheric Environment, 59, p376-381.
23. Minoura, H., Morikawa, T., Mizohata, A., Sakamoto, K., (2012), Carbonaceous aerosol and its characteristics observed in Tokyo and south Kanto region, Atmospheric Environment, 61, p605-613.
24. Odum, J.R., Jungkamp, T.P.W., Griffin, R.J., Flagan, R.C., Seinfeld, J.H., (1997), The atmospheric aerosol-forming potential of whole gasoline vapor, Science, 276, p96-99.
25. Offenberg, J.H., Lewandowski, M., Jaoui, M., Kleindienst, T.E., (2011), Contributions of biogenic and anthropogenic hydrocarbons to secondary organic aerosol during 2006 in Research Triangle Park, NC, Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 11, p99-108.
26. Sakamoto, K., (2013), The background and current situation of the problem of fine particulate matter, Kankyokanri, 49(6), p4-13, (published in Japanese).
27. Simoneit, B.R.T., Schauer, J.J., Nolte, C.G., Oros, D.R., Elias, V.O., Fraser, M.P., Rogge, W.F., Cass, G.R., (1999), Levoglucosan, a tracer for cellulose in biomass burning and atmospheric particles, Atmospheric Environment, 33, p173-182.
28. Simoneit, B.R.T., Kobayashi, M., Mochida, M., Kawamura, K., Lee, M., Lim, H.-J., Turpin, B.J., Komazaki, Y., (2004), Composition and major sources of organic compounds of aerosol particulate matter sampled during the ACE-Asia campaign, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D19S10.
29. Takahashi, K., Hirabayashi, M., Tanabe, K., Shibata, Y., Nishikawa, M., Sakamoto, K., (2007), Radiocarbon content in urban atmospheric aerosols, Water Air and Soil Pollution, 185, p305-310.
30. Takahashi, K., Minoura, H., Kunimi, H., Sakamoto, K., (2008), Long-term (1994-2004) Variation in atmospheric aerosols and their chemical components in the Tokyo metropolitan area, Journal of Japan Society for Atmospheric Environment, 43, p315-322, (published in Japanese).
31. The Japanese Ministry of Environment, (2009), Establishment of the environmental quality standards for the PM2.5, https://www.env.go.jp/en/headline/1156.html, last accessed 2016/11/1.
32. The Japanese Ministry of Environment, (2016), FY 2014 status of air pollution (Monitoring report of the observation at ambient air pollution monitoring stations and roadside air pollution monitoring stations), https://www.env.go.jp/en/headline/1156.html, last accessed 2016/11/1, (provided in Japanese).
33. Turpin, B.J., Huntzicker, J.J., (1991), Secondary formation of organic aerosol in the Los Angeles basin: a descriptive analysis of organic and elemental carbon concentrations, Atmospheric Environment, 25, p207-215.
34. Wagener, S., Langner, M., Endlicher, W.R., Moriske, H., Hansen, U., (2012), Source apportionment of organic compounds in Berlin using positive matrix factorization - Assessing the impact of biogenic aerosol and biomass burning on urban particulate matter, Science of the Total Environment, 435-436, p392-401.
35. Wang, Y., Hopke, P.K., Xia, X., Rattigan, O.V., Chalupa, D.C., Utell, M.J., (2012), Source apportionment of airborne particulate matter using inorganic and organic species as tracers, Atmospheric Environment, 55, p525-532.
36. Went, F.W., (1960), Blue haze in the atmosphere, Nature, 187, p641-643.
37. Yonemochi, S., Umezawa, N., Matsumoto, R., (2007), Evaluation of mass concentrations and chemical compositions of PM2.5 for five years in the north Saitama region, Journal of Japan Society for Atmospheric Environment, 42, p129-142, (published in Japanese).
38. Yonemochi, S., Umezawa, N., Hasegawa, S., Matsumoto, R., (2011), Comparison of PM2.5 concentration by different measurement methods, Journal of Japan Society for Atmospheric Environment, 46, p131-138, (published in Japanese).