济南市大气PM_(2.5)铅污染特征、变化趋势与风险评估  

Pollution characteristics, long-term variation trend, and health risk assessment of lead in ambient PM_(2.5) in Jinan

作　　者：王燕[1] 高衍新[1] 李仁波[1] 江媛媛[1] 隋少峰 WANG Yan;GAO Yanxin;LI Renbo;JIANG Yuanyuan;SUI Shaofeng(Department of Public Health Surveillance and Evaluation,Shandong Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Jinan,Shandong 250014,China;Division of Health Risk Factors Monitoring and Control,Shanghai Municipal Center for Disease Control and Prevention,Shanghai 200336,China)

机构地区：[1]山东省疾病预防控制中心公共卫生监测评价所,山东济南250014 [2]上海市疾病预防控制中心健康危害因素监测与控制所,上海200336

出　　处：《环境与职业医学》2023年第7期811-816,共6页Journal of Environmental and Occupational Medicine

基　　金：国家科技基础资源调查专项子课题(2017FY101200-09)。

摘　　要：[背景]多项研究表明大气PM_(2.5)中重金属对人群健康有影响,而PM_(2.5)中铅污染长期低浓度暴露对人群健康影响的研究有限。[目的]探讨济南市大气PM_(2.5)中铅污染特征,评估其慢性健康风险。[方法]收集济南市2014—2019年逐日PM_(2.5)质量浓度(后称浓度)数据,分析PM_(2.5)浓度的逐年变化趋势;另在济南市的主要工业区(历城区)和生活区(市中区)分别设置一个监测点,于2014—2019年的每个月10—16日采样(共采样493 d,部分缺失;其中采暖期172 d,非采暖期321 d)。每个监测点每天采集2个PM_(2.5)样品,分别采用石英纤维滤膜用于铅的检测,玻璃纤维滤膜用于PM_(2.5)浓度测定,共采集986份样品。采样仪器为100 L·min^(−1)的大流量PM2.5采样器,每天累计采样时间为20~24 h。采用称重法测量PM_(2.5)浓度,电感耦合等离子体质谱法测定PM2.5样品中铅浓度。分析2014—2019年PM_(2.5)中铅的年平均浓度、富集因子水平与单位质量PM_(2.5)中铅水平变化趋势以及采暖期与非采暖期的差异等。利用WS/T777—2021《化学物质环境健康风险评估技术指南》评估大气PM_(2.5)中铅的健康风险。[结果] PM_(2.5)中铅的年平均浓度范围为23.2~154.7 ng·m^(−3);2015—2019年采暖期平均浓度高于非采暖期,2015年、2017—2019年差异有统计学意义(P <0.01或0.001)。2014—2019年铅的富集因子范围为200~1 342;在2015年、2017—2018年采暖期该因子高于非采暖期,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05或0.001)。单位质量PM2.5中铅水平为493~1 944 ng·mg^(-1),2014年、2017—2018年采暖期和非采暖期其均值的差异均有统计学意义(P <0.05或0.001)。PM_(2.5)中铅的年平均浓度和富集水平的年度变化呈下降趋势,单位质量PM_(2.5)中铅水平也呈下降趋势。2014—2019年,济南市PM_(2.5)中铅的致癌风险范围为1.69×10^(-8)~2.45×10^(-6),整体趋势逐年下降,第95百分位数环比下降3%~46%。2017年以后,PM_(2.5Background A number of studies have shown that heavy metals in atmospheric PM_(2.5) have impacts on human health,while studies on the impact of long-term and low-concentration exposure to lead in PM_(2.5) on human health are limited.ObjectiveTo investigate the pollution characteristics of lead in ambient PM_(2.5) and assess its chronic health risks.MethodsDaily PM_(2.5) concentration data in Jinan from 2014 to 2019 were collected,and the year-by-year trend of PM_(2.5) concentration was analyzed.Licheng District(an industrial area)and Shizhong District(a residential area)were elected to install an ambient PM_(2.5) monitoring stationrespectively.The sampling instrument was a 100 L·min^(−1) high-flow PM_(2.5) sampler,with a cumulative sampling time of 20-24 h per day,using a quartz fiber filter membrane for lead detection and a glass fiber filter membrane for PM_(2.5) determination.The sampling frequency was 7 consecutive days per month from the 10th to the 16th(A total of 493 d were sampled and some were missing;172 d during the heating period and 321 d during the non-heating period).Two PM_(2.5) samples were collected in one monitoring site each day.A total of 986 samples were collected in one monitoring site.The lead content in PM_(2.5) samples was detected by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.The concentration of PM_(2.5) was measured by weighing method.The annual average concentration and enrichment factor of lead in PM_(2.5),the change trend of lead content per unit mass of PM_(2.5),and the difference between heating period and non-heating period from 2014 to 2019 were estimated.Technical guide for environment health risk assessment of chemical exposure(WS/T 777-2021)was used to assess the health risks of exposure to lead in PM_(2.5).ResultsThe average annual concentration of lead in PM_(2.5) ranged from 23.2 ng·m^(−3) to 154.7 ng·m^(−3).The average concentration in heating period from 2015 to 2019 was higher than that in non-heating period,and the differences in 2015,2017,and 2019 were sta

关 键 词：大气污染 PM_(2.5) 铅 污染特征 风险评估 

分 类 号：R122.2[医药卫生—环境卫生学]