Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 23, pp 24305–24312 | Cite as

Indirect source apportionment of methyl mercaptan using CMB and PMF models: a case study near a refining and petrochemical plant

  • Jingjing Feng
  • Song Gao
  • Qingyan Fu
  • Xiaojia Chen
  • Xiaolin Chen
  • Demin Han
  • Jinping Cheng
Short Research and Discussion Article

Abstract

Identifying the sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is key to air quality control and pollution prevention. Though receptor models have been widely used in source apportionment of VOCs, they are not applicable to identify the potential source of labile species. In this study, the potential source of methyl mercaptan (MeSH) near a large refining and petrochemical plant was identified using an indirect method. When wind directions were controlled, the study period was separated into two subperiods depending on the detection of MeSH. Relative contributions from potential sources were predicted by chemical mass balance model and positive matrix factorization model based on ambient concentrations of sulfur-free compounds. Both models predicted that petroleum refinery and petrochemical production were the dominant sources of VOCs in the study area. When MeSH was detected, the relative contribution from gasoline, liquefied petroleum gas, or crude oil increased by 7.4 to 26.8% point, depending on wind direction and the predictive model used, suggesting a close relationship between MeSH and the emission from petroleum refinery. Consistent with the indirect source apportionment, among the coexisting VOCs, MeSH was most highly correlated or associated with ethane, propane, isobutane, cis-2-pentente, and isoprene, which are major components of the products or by-products of petrochemical refining processes.

Keywords

Petrochemical industry CMB PMF Online data Source apportionment VOCs 

Notes

Funding information

Financial support was from Chinese National Natural Science Foundation (21577090 and 21777094), National Science and Technology Support Program (2014BAC22B07) and China Institute for Urban Governace (No. SJTU-2019UGBD-01).

Supplementary material

11356_2019_5728_MOESM1_ESM.doc (360 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 360 kb)

References

  1. An J, Wang J, Zhang Y, Zhu B (2017) Source apportionment of volatile organic compounds in an urban environment at the Yangtze River Delta, China. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 72(3):335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreae MO, Berresheim H, Bingemer H, Jacob DJ, Lewis BL, Li S-M, Talbot RW (1990) The atmospheric sulfur cycle over the Amazon Basin: 2. Wet season. J Geophys Res: Atmos 95(D10):16813–16824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnts RR, Seila RL, Bufalini JJ (1989) Determination of room temperature OH rate constants for acetylene, ethylene dichloride, ethylene dibromide, p-dichlorobenzene and carbon disulfide. Japca 39(4):453–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson R, Arey J (2003) Atmospheric degradation of volatile organic compounds. Chem Rev 103(12):4605–4638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substnaces & disease registry) (2011) Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH). https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MHMI/mmg139.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2018
  6. Aulich TR, He X, Grisanti AA, Knudson CL (1994) Gasoline evaporation–ethanol and nonethanol blends. Air Waste 44(8):1004–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Badol C, Locoge N, Galloo JC (2008) Using a source-receptor approach to characterise VOC behaviour in a French urban area influenced by industrial emissions: part II: source contribution assessment using the chemical mass balance (CMB) model. Sci Total Environ 389(2–3):429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bari MA, Kindzierski WB (2018a) Ambient volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in Calgary, Alberta: sources and screening health risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 631:627–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bari MA, Kindzierski WB (2018b) Ambient volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in communities of the Athabasca oil sands region : sources and screening health risk. Environ Pollut 235:60–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baudic A, Gros V, Sauvage S, Locoge N, Sanchez O, Sarda-Estève R, Kalogridis C, Petit J-E, Bonnaire N, Baisnée D, Favez O, Albinet A, Sciare J, Bonsang B (2016) Seasonal variability and source apportionment of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the Paris megacity (France). Atmos Chem Phys 16(18):11961–11989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bordado JCM, Gomes JFP (2003) Emission and odour control in Kraft pulp mills. J Clean Prod 11(7):797–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cai C, Geng F, Tie X, Yu Q, An J (2010) Characteristics and source apportionment of VOCs measured in Shanghai, China. Atmos Environ 44(38):5005–5014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cannella WJ (2000) Xylenes and ethylbenzene. Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical technology. John Wiley&Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen CL, Shu CM, Fang HY (2006) Location and characterization of VOC emissions at a petrochemical Plant in Taiwan. Environ Forensic 7(2):159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheng JH, Hsieh MJ, Chen KS (2016) Characteristics and source apportionment of ambient volatile organic compounds in a science park in Central Taiwan. Aerosol Air Qual Res 16:221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Contini D, Cesari D, Conte M, Donateo A (2016) Application of PMF and CMB receptor models for the evaluation of the contribution of a large coal-fired power plant to PM10 concentrations. Sci Total Environ 560-561:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coulter CT. 2004. EPA-CMB8.2 Users Manual. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/receptor/EPA-CMB82Manual.pdf Accessed on 25 Dec 2018
  18. Ezinkwo GO, Tretjakov VF, Talyshinky RM, Ilolov AM, Mutombo TA (2013) Overview of the catalytic production of isoprene from different raw materials; Prospects of Isoprene production from bio-ethanol. Catal Sustain Energy 2013(1):100–111Google Scholar
  19. Folkins HO, Miller EL (1962) Synthesis of mercaptans. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 1(4):271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glasson WA, Tuesday CS (1970) Hydrocarbon reactivity and the kinetics of the atmospheric photooxidation of nitric oxide. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 20(4):239–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gómez MC, Durana N, Navazo M, Alonso L, Garcı́a JA, Ilardia JL (2004) Application of validation data tests from an on-line volatile organic compound analyser to the detection of air pollution episodes in urban areas. Anal Chim Acta 524(1–2):41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hatakeyama S, Akimoto H (1983) Reactions of hydroxyl radicals with methanethiol, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide in air. J Phys Chem 87(13):2387–2395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hopke PK (2016) Review of receptor modeling methods for source apportionment. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 66(3):237–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karl T, Fall R, Jordan A, Lindinger W (2001) On-line analysis of reactive VOCs from urban lawn mowing. Environ Sci Technol 35(14):2926–2931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Li J, Xie SD, Zeng LM, Li LY, Li YQ, Wu RR (2015) Characterization of ambient volatile organic compounds and their sources in Beijing, before, during, and after Asia-Pacific economic cooperation China 2014. Atmos Chem Phys 15(8):12453–12490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu Y, Shao M, Fu L, Lu S, Zeng L, Tang D (2008) Source profiles of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) measured in China: part I. Atmos Environ 42(25):6247–6260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu S, Wei M, Qiao Y, Yang Z, Gui B, Yu Y, Xu M (2015) Release of organic sulfur as sulfur-containing gases during low temperature pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Proc Combust Inst 35(3):2767–2775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lu S, Bai Y, Zhang G, Li T (2006) Source apportionment of anthropogenic emissions of volatile organic compounds. Acta Sci Circumst 26(5):757–763Google Scholar
  29. Mo Z, Shao M, Lu S, Qu H, Zhou M, Sun J, Gou B (2015) Process-specific emission characteristics of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from petrochemical facilities in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Sci Total Environ 533:422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morino Y, Ohara T, Yokouchi Y (2011) Comprehensive source apportionment of volatile organic compounds using observational data, two receptor models, and an emission inventory in Tokyo metropolitan area. J Geophys Res: Atmos 116:D02311Google Scholar
  31. Na K, Kim YP (2007) Chemical mass balance receptor model applied to ambient C2–C9 VOC concentration in Seoul, Korea: effect of chemical reaction losses. Atmos Environ 41(32):6715–6728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Norris GA, Duvall R, Brown S, Bai S (2014) EPA positive matrix factorization (PMF) 5.0 fundamentals and user guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Östermark U, Petersson G (1992) Assessment of hydrocarbons in vapours of conventional and alkylate-based petrol. Chemosphere 25(6):763–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ou J, Zheng J, Yuan Z, Guan D, Huang Z, Yu F, Shao M, Louie PKK (2018) Reconciling discrepancies in the source characterization of VOCs between emission inventories and receptor modeling. Sci Total Environ 628:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Qu J, Feng X, Liu Y, Gao Z, Yang Y, Zhang Z, Wang M, Zhen J (2014) Source characteristics of VOCs emissions from vehicular exhaust in the Pearl River Delta region. Acta Sci Circumst 34(4):826–834Google Scholar
  36. Ramanujam VK, Mccaulley M, Gentry JC (2015) Process for recovering isoprene from pyrolysis gasoline. U.S. patent application 14/680,967 https://patents.glgoo.top/patent/US20150283478A1/en Accessed 25 May 2019
  37. Saeaw N, Thepanondh S (2015) Source apportionment analysis of airborne VOCs using positive matrix factorization in industrial and urban areas in Thailand. Atmos Pollut Res 6(4):644–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shao P, An J, Xin J, Wu F, Wang J, Ji D, Wang Y (2016) Source apportionment of VOCs and the contribution to photochemical ozone formation during summer in the typical industrial area in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Atmos Res 176:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simpson IJ, Blake NJ, Barletta B, Diskin GS, Fuelberg HE, Gorham K, Huey LG, Meinardi S, Rowland FS, Vay SA, Weinheimer AJ, Yang M, Blake DR (2010) Characterization of trace gases measured over Alberta oil sands mining operations: 76 speciated C2-C10 volatile organic compounds. Atmos Chem Phys 10:11931–11954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Song Y, Dai W, Shao M, Liu Y, Lu S, Kuster W, Goldan P (2008) Comparison of receptor models for source apportionment of volatile organic compounds in Beijing, China. Environ Pollut 156(1):174–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tian X, Zhou M, Feng B (2004) Hydrogenation and fractionation of whole range raffinate from reformer for production of hexane and 120# solvent naphtha. Pet Process Petrochem 35(11):25–28Google Scholar
  42. Viswanath RS (1994) Characteristics of oil field emissions in the vicinity of Tulsa, Oklahoma. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 44:989–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang Y, Xing J (2002) Status quo and development trends of petroleum hydrocarbon solvent oils. Pet Refin Eng 32(10):44–47Google Scholar
  44. Wang G, Cheng S, Wei W, Zhou Y, Yao S, Zhang H (2016) Characteristics and source apportionment of VOCs in the suburban area of Beijing, China. Atmos Pollut Res 7(4):711–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watson JG, Chow JC, Fujita EM (2004) Protocol for applying and validating the CMB model for PM2.5 and VOC. Research Triangle Park, NCGoogle Scholar
  46. Wine PH, Kreutter NM, Gump CA, Ravishankara AR (1981) Kinetics of OH reactions with the atmospheric sulfur compounds H2S, CH3SH, CH3SCH3, and CH3SSCH3. J Phys Chem 85:2660–2665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wittcoff HA, Reuben BG, Plotkin JS (2013) Industrial organic chemicals. John Wiley & Sons.Inc, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  48. Yuan B, Shao M, Lu S, Wang B (2010) Source profiles of volatile organic compounds associated with solvent use in Beijing, China. Atmos Environ 44(15):1919–1926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang J, Sun Y, Wu F, Sun J, Wang Y (2014) The characteristics, seasonal variation and source apportionment of VOCs at Gongga Mountain, China. Atmos Environ 88:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jingjing Feng
    • 1
  • Song Gao
    • 2
  • Qingyan Fu
    • 2
  • Xiaojia Chen
    • 1
  • Xiaolin Chen
    • 1
  • Demin Han
    • 1
  • Jinping Cheng
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environmental Science and EngineeringShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Shanghai Environmental Monitoring CenterShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations