固定污染源废气中硫酸雾监测方法的差异性  

Study on the differences of monitoring methods for sulfuric acid mist from stationary sources

作　　者：陈圆圆 CHEN Yuanyuan(Beijing Key Laboratory of Airborne Particulate Matter Monitoring Technology,Beijing Municipal Ecological and Environmental Monitoring Centre,Beijing,100048,China)

机构地区：[1]北京市生态环境监测中心,大气颗粒物监测技术北京市重点实验室,北京100048

出　　处：《环境化学》2024年第8期2869-2872,共4页Environmental Chemistry

基　　金：国家环境保护标准制修订项目(2020-L-8)资助.

摘　　要：在调研国内外标准方法及相关文献的基础上,通过实验对不同监测方法进行比对.实验表明,美国国家环境保护局(USEPA)采用高温过滤装置去除颗粒物,然后利用控温冷凝法或吸收液法收集硫酸雾,目标组分为气液态硫酸,采样仪器复杂、操作难度大且没有实现国产化,现阶段在国内不宜推广使用.我国国标方法HJ 544及GB/T 38685—2020采用滤筒串联吸收液的模式采集硫酸雾,目标组分为气液态硫酸(HJ544还包括颗粒物中可溶性硫酸盐).采样仪器轻便,操作简便,国产化仪器普及度高.国内外标准方法HJ 544与EPA 8A对比结果显示,当废气中可溶性硫酸盐占比在20%左右时,两种方法无显著性差异.国内两种标准方法HJ 544与GB/T 38685—2020对比发现,方法间存在显著性差异,其原因为HJ 544测定目标物包含了可溶性硫酸盐,以及GB/T 38685—2020测定物质包括滤筒上收集的所有酸性物质所致.As an important air pollution control object,sulfuric acid mist has been paid much attention.The monitoring methods of sulfuric acid mist emitted from fixed pollution sources are different at home and abroad,and the corresponding measurement objects are also different.Based on the investigation of domestic and foreign standard methods and related literature,the advantages and disadvantages of monitoring methods are judged by comparison experiments.Practice shows that,USEPA uses high-temperature filtration devices to remove particles,and then collects sulfuric acid mist by temperature-controlled condensation or absorption liquid method,the target group is gas-liquid sulfuric acid.The sampling instrument is complicated,difficult to operate and has not been made in China,so it is not suitable to be popularized in China at present.The national standard method of our country adopts the filter cylinder with absorption bottle to collect sulfuric acid mist.The target group is gas-liquid sulfuric acid and soluble sulfate in particulate matter.The sampling instrument is light,easy to operate,and the popularity of domestic instruments is high.The comparison of domestic and foreign methods shows that the national standard method HJ 544 and EPA 8A have no significant difference when the proportion of soluble sulfate is about 20%.The comparison between the two domestic standard methods HJ544 and GB/T38685-2020 found that there were significant differences between the methods,which was caused by the fact that the determination target of HJ544 contained soluble sulfate,and the determination substance of GB/T 38685-2020 included all the acidic substances collected on the filter cartridge.

关 键 词：固定污染源 硫酸雾 监测方法 比对实验. 

分 类 号：X-1[环境科学与工程] O6[理学—化学]