MASS CONCENTRATION AND ELEMENTAL COMPOSITION OF THE FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (MP2.5) ANALYSIS IN CACHOEIRA PAULISTA, SÃO PAULO: FROM AUGUST 2010 TO OCTOBER 2011
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16221Keywords:
Poluição do ar, material particulado fino, MP2, 5, concentração em massa, composição elementar.Abstract
http://dx.doi.org/10.5902/2179460X16221
The MP2.5 has been subject of various studies about air pollution, due to its negative effect on human health, as well asthe direct and indirect effects on the climate energetic balance. The Paraíba Valley is a region that presents serious atmospheric pollution problems, considering its location, topography and economic activities. MP2.55 was sampled daily from August 2010 to October 2011 in Cachoeira Paulista city, located in the north of the Valley, and close to Via-Dutra highway which is characterized by intense traffic mainly trucks. The mass and elemental concentrations were determined bygravimetric and x-rays fluorescence techniques, respectively. The daily average value of 25 µg/m3recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) exceeded in 71 days during the period of study,while the annual average concentration of 19.8 µg/m³ was almost twice the value of the WHO recommendation (10 µg/m3). The elemental concentration analysis showed high average values of sulfur (462 ng/m³), silicon (332 ng/m³), aluminum (187 ng/m³), potassium (163 ng/m³), iron (137 ng/m³), calcium (42,4 ng/m³) and zinc (35,4 ng/m³) to all the period. The variability of potassium concentrations was related to the biomass burning observed in the region. The occurrence of raining was a favorable aspect to the decrease of the MP2.5 concentrations, reaching the average value of 14.68 ± 12.27 µg/m³, lower than 21.54± 1.,31µg/m³ in the dry period.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
