北方农村不同取暖方式家庭室内PM_(2.5)污染差异及清洁取暖效果  

Variability in indoor PM_(2.5) from homes using different heating energies and impacts of clean heating in rural northern China

作　　者：李尧捷 门亚泰 罗智瀚 刘新蕾 程和发 陶澍[1] 沈国锋[1] LI Yaojie;MEN Yatai;LUO Zhihan;LIU Xinlei;CHENG Hefa;TAO Shu;SHEN Guofeng(Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes,College of Urban and Environmental Sciences,Peking University,Beijing 100871,China)

机构地区：[1]北京大学城市与环境学院地表过程分析与模拟教育部重点实验室,北京100871

出　　处：《地理学报》2024年第1期17-27,共11页Acta Geographica Sinica

基　　金：中国科学院战略性先导科技专项(XDA23010100)。

摘　　要：农村散煤使用对冬季重污染等贡献显著,更会直接污染室内空气,影响人群健康。除了“煤改电、煤改气”之外,清洁煤和成型生物质也被认为是降低散煤污染的有效途径,在一些政策和行动中被推广。然而,目前还缺乏不同取暖模式下居民室内空气质量差异及取暖排放贡献的定量研究,是清洁取暖环境效益评估中的短板。本文在北方农村地区开展了覆盖1600户整个取暖季的细颗粒物(PM_(2.5))实地监测,分析了居民室内PM_(2.5)污染的空间差异及不同取暖方式的影响。研究表明,北方农村取暖季室内PM_(2.5)浓度均值为102μg/m^(3),但户间差异很大,从19μg/m^(3)到497μg/m^(3)。使用传统散煤和生物质取暖的家庭,取暖季室内PM_(2.5)浓度高达162μg/m^(3)和144μg/m^(3)。而使用清洁煤或成型生物质取暖的家庭,室内PM_(2.5)显著降低,约为84μg/m^(3),且有56%的时间日均浓度超过国家标准(50μg/m^(3))。电或气取暖的家庭,室内PM_(2.5)浓度最低。受人为活动强度和气象条件等因素影响,居民室内PM_(2.5)浓度的户内变异也很明显,使用固体燃料的家庭相对变异系数约为76%,远大于使用清洁燃料的家庭(53%)。室内传统固体燃料燃烧排放对室内PM_(2.5)的贡献约60%,而随着取暖燃料的清洁化,室内燃烧源贡献逐渐降低。若仅考虑降低室内PM_(2.5),使用成型生物质或清洁煤替代传统散煤可取得显著的减污效果,电替代的降污效果最大。研究为认识室内空气污染变化规律和空间异质性,全面客观地评估清洁取暖对人群健康影响提供了基础数据和科学支撑。Indoor combustion of low-quality coal chunks significantly contributes to wintertime haze episodes and directly affects indoor air quality,posing high risks to human health.Besides electricity or gaseous fuels,clean coals and pelletized biofuels have been proposed as alternative fuels to reduce pollutant emissions associated with raw coal burning in some policies and pilot projects.However,there is still a lack of quantitative evaluation on realworld indoor air quality from homes using different heating fuels.This limits a comprehensive understanding of the environmental and health co-benefits of clean heating policy.In this study,indoor fine particulate matter(PM_(2.5))was measured from 1600 households located in rural north China.The aim was to assess indoor PM_(2.5) variations within and between different homes and attribute the pollution differences to heating types.The study found that the average indoor PM_(2.5) during the heating period was 102μg/m^(3),but it varied greatly from 19 to 497μg/m^(3).In the home burning traditional coals and biomass fuels,the indoor PM_(2.5) concentrations were as high as 162μg/m^(3) and 144μg/m^(3),respectively,while in the home using clean coals or biomass pellets,the indoor PM_(2.5) levels were significantly lower,at about 84μg/m^(3),although this still exceeded the national standard(50μg/m^(3))during more than 56%of the entire monitoring period.The lowest indoor PM_(2.5) levels were observed in the home using clean modern energies like electricity or gas for heating.Due to distinct human activity intensities and meteorological conditions,the indoor PM_(2.5) also varied greatly from day to day.The coefficient of variation(COV)in indoor PM_(2.5) from different days was approximately 76%in the home using solid fuels,while it averaged 53%in the home using clean energies.Internal combustion sources contributed to about 60%of indoor PM_(2.5) in the home burning traditional solid fuels.When switching to cleaner household energies,internal combustion emission contributions d

关 键 词：农村 室内PM_(2.5) 户间户内差异 固体燃料 清洁取暖 

分 类 号：X513[环境科学与工程—环境工程] TU832[建筑科学—供热、供燃气、通风及空调工程]