Effects of Six Pure Forest Structures on Reducing TSP, PM2.5 and Characteristics of Heavy Metal Changes in PM2.5

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0651

Abstract

Abstract:

Landscape plants can intercept and retain atmospheric dust, which are important filters for purifying the city. In order to address the pollution issues of TSP and PM_2.5, an experiment was taken using Rizhao Botanical Garden as the research object. Through the determination of the concentration of TSP and PM_2.5 in the park and the survey of plant groups, it quantitatively analyzed the reduction effects of different plant groups on the concentration of TSP and PM_2.5, the diurnal and seasonal changes of TSP and PM_2.5 concentrations, the relationship between the changes of TSP and PM_2.5 concentrations and the characteristics of plant communities, and the changes of heavy metals in PM_2.5 under different populations. The results showed that: (1) the effect of plant population structure on the reduction of TSP and PM_2.5 in different seasons was significantly different. However, the order was consistent as Weigela florida ‘Red Prince’> Ligustrum compactum> Platanus orientalis> Fraxinus pennsylvanica> Prunus lannesiana ‘Hatzakura’> grassland. In summer, the highest reduction rates of TSP and PM_2.5 were 21.2% and 36.5%, respectively, in the pure forest of the W. florida ‘Red Prince’ belt. (2) The diurnal variation of TSP and PM_2.5 concentrations showed a “W” pattern, which gradually decreased from 8:00 to 16:00, then began to rise, reached a small peak at 20:00, then decreased, and gradually increased after 24:00. The seasonal variation rule was that the concentrations of TSP and PM_2.5 were the lowest in summer and the highest in winter. (3) The concentrations of TSP and PM_2.5 in summer were significantly positively correlated with tree canopy density, average height and planting density. (4) The total mass concentration of 12 heavy metals in summer was grassland (813.2 ng/m³)> pure forest of P. lannesiana ‘Hatzakura’ (754.2 ng/m³)> F. pennsylvanica (724.5 ng/m³)> P. orientalis (658.9 ng/m³)> L. compactum (626.7 ng/m³)> W. florida ‘Red Prince’ (587.2 ng/m³), the changes in heavy metal concentration and PM_2.5 concentration were basically consistent. The mass concentration of Zn and Pb was the highest, and the mass concentration of Cd, Ni, V and Co was relatively low. The conclusion is that the W. florida ‘Red Prince’ pure forest has a strong effect on reducing TSP and PM_2.5, and the heavy metal content in PM_2.5 is low. It can be used as an effective pure forest structure to improve urban air quality and reduce TSP and PM_2.5 concentrations.

Key words: plant community, TSP, PM_2.5, structural characteristic, season, heavy metals, city, reduction rate

XU Xiaoyan, LI Wenbin, WANG Lei, SUN Li. Effects of Six Pure Forest Structures on Reducing TSP, PM_2.5 and Characteristics of Heavy Metal Changes in PM_2.5[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2025, 41(13): 19-25.

Figures/Tables 6

References 38

[1]	FERMO P, COMITE V, CIANTELLI C, et al. A multi-analytical approach to study the chemical composition of total suspended particulate matter (TSP) to assess the impact on urban monumental heritage in Florence[J]. Science of the total environment, 2020, 5:740.
[2]	PÉREZVIDAL H, LUNAGÓMEZROCHA M, ACOSTAPÉREZ L. Analysis of total suspended particles (TSP) and breathable fraction-particulate matter (PM₁₀) in Cunduacan, Tabasco[J]. Universidad Y Ciencia, 2010, 26(2):151-162.
[3]	INDONESIA Y P, TASRIF M, INDONESIA Y P. Group model building intervention in developing country: Lesson learned from developing strategies for clean air[J]. Discover the world's research, 2014, 12:1-8.
[4]	LIN C W, YEH J F, KAO T C. Source characterization of total suspended particulate matter near a riverbed in central Taiwan[J]. Journal of hazardous materials, 2008, 157(2-3):418-422.
[5]	武媛媛, 李如梅, 彭林, 等. 运城市道路扬尘化学组成特征及来源分析[J]. 环境科学, 2017, 38(5):1799-1806.
[6]	张启钧, 吴琳, 张衍杰, 等. 隧道环境PM_2.5载带重金属污染特征与健康风险[J]. 中国环境科学, 2018, 38(12):4706-4712.
[7]	刘立, 胡辉, 李娴, 等. 东莞市PM₁中重金属元素的污染特征及来源解析[J]. 环境科学学报, 2014, 34(2):303-309.
[8]	陈衍婷, 杜文娇, 陈进生, 等. 海西城市群PM_2.5中重金属元素的污染特征及健康风险评价[J]. 环境科学, 2017, 38(2):429-437.
[9]	ZHA Y, LIU X, TANG J, et al. PAHs in foliage dust of typical tree species with urbanization gradient in Nanjing, China[J]. Polish journal of environmental studies, 2018, 27(3):1359-1370.
[10]	赵松婷, 李新宇, 李延明. 园林植物滞留不同粒径大气颗粒物的特征及规律[J]. 生态环境学报, 2014, 23(2):271-276.
[11]	吕晓倩, 张银龙. 城市攀缘植物对大气颗粒物的吸附效果及重金属累积研究[J]. 中国园林, 2020, 36(12):101-105.
[12]	李朝梅, 王军梦, 王腾飞, 等. 郑州市常见公园绿化植物的滞尘能力及叶片性状分析[J]. 西北林学院学报, 2021, 36(2):123-129.
[13]	郭伟, 申屠雅瑾, 郑述强, 等. 城市绿地滞尘作用机理和规律的研究进展[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(6):1465-1470. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906(2010)06-1465-06
[14]	QIU L, LIU F, ZHANG X, et al. The reducing effect of green spaces with different vegetation structure on atmospheric particulate matter concentration in Baoji city, China[J]. Atmosphere, 2018, 9:332.
[15]	KATUL G G, GRÖNHOLM T, LAUNIAINEN S, et al. The effects of the canopy medium on dry deposition velocities of aerosol particles in the canopy sub-layer above forested ecosystems[J]. Atmospheric environment, 2011, 45:1203-1212.
[16]	王柄权, 赵佳伦, 孙晓燕, 等. 郑州市数码公园不同植物群落对PM_2.5和PM₁₀浓度的影响研究[J]. 林业调查规划, 2023, 48(5):70-82.
[17]	顾康康, 钱兆, 方云皓, 等. 基于ENVI-met的城市道路绿地植物配置对PM_2.5的影响研究[J]. 生态学报, 2020, 40(13):4340-4350.
[18]	樊艺, 徐程扬. 城市森林结构与削减空气中PM_2.5和PM₁₀的耦合关系-以北京市海淀区中关村森林公园为例[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2023, 46(5):118-128.
[19]	刘畅, 胡尚春, 唐立娜. 寒地校园植物群落对大气细颗粒物浓度的消减作用[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(15):6227-6233.
[20]	杜万光. 不同尺度下北京公园绿地颗粒物变化特征及影响因子研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2017.
[21]	桂艳, 王海洋, 陈红, 等. 不同城市绿地类型对PM_2.5、PM₁₀以及TSP的消减效应研究[J]. 西部人居环境学刊, 2021, 36(5):50-57.
[22]	张桂香, 闫雨龙, 郭利利, 等. 太原市大气PM_2.5中碳质组成及变化特征[J]. 环境科学, 2015, 3:780-786.
[23]	王振波, 方创琳, 许光, 等. 2014年中国城市PM_2.5浓度的时空变化规律[J]. 地理学报, 2015, 70(11):1720-1734. doi: 10.11821/dlxb201511003
[24]	王飞, 韩业林, 赵颖. 太原市大气颗粒物PM₁₀和PM_2.5多时间尺度变化规律研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2017, 26(9):1521-1528. doi: 10.16258/j.cnki.1674-5906.2017.09.010
[25]	李新宇, 赵松婷, 李延明, 等. 北京市不同主干道绿地群落对大气PM_2.5浓度消减作用的影响[J]. 生态环境学报, 2014, 4:615-621.
[26]	王琴, 谢梦婷, 沈秋月, 等. 城市园林绿地消减大气PM_2.5浓度研究进展[J]. 世界林业研究, 2021, 34(3):46-51.
[27]	中日友好环境保护中心, 国家环境分析测试中心. HJ618—2011,环境空气PM₁₀和PM_2.5的测定重量法[S]. 北京: 中国环境科学出版社, 2011.
[28]	NGUYEN T, YU X X, ZHANG Z M, et al. Relationship between types of urban forest and PM_2.5 capture at three growth stages of leaves[J]. Journal of environmental sciences, 2015, 27:33-41.
[29]	李惠玲, 何秉宇, 玉米提哈力克, 等. 乌鲁木齐城市森林对大气微颗粒物的削减效应[J]. 西南农业学报, 2020, 33(11):2648-2654.
[30]	齐冰, 杜荣光, 于之锋, 等. 杭州地区大气细颗粒物浓度变化特征分析[J]. 环境化学, 2015, 34(1):77-82.
[31]	傅伟聪, 董嘉莹, 王茜, 等. 福州市冬季若干典型游憩地大气颗粒物浓度日变化规律研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2014, 35(2):348-354.
[32]	范舒欣, 李逸伦, 李坤, 等. 城市绿地植物群落特征对亚微米颗粒物的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2021, 41(1):213-223.
[33]	张斌斌. 浙江农林大学校园不同植物群落类型内PM_2.5浓度的变化规律研究[D]. 杭州: 浙江农林大学, 2019.
[34]	邵锋. 园林树木对PM_2.5等大气颗粒物浓度和成分的影响及滞尘效应研究——以浙江农林大学为例[D]. 北京: 北京林业大学, 2020.
[35]	陶俊, 张仁健, 段菁春, 等. 北京城区PM_2.5中致癌重金属季节变化特征及其来源分析[J]. 环境科学, 2014, 35(2):411-417.
[36]	胡子梅, 王军, 陶征楷, 等. 上海市PM_2.5重金属污染水平与健康风险评价[J]. 环境科学学报, 2013, 33(12):3399-3406.
[37]	杨勇杰, 王跃思, 温天雪, 等. 鼎湖山PM_2.5中化学元素的组成及浓度特征和来源[J]. 环境科学, 2009, 30(4):988-992.
[38]	杨貌, 张志强, 陈立欣, 等. 春季城区道路不同绿地配置模式对大气颗粒物的削减作用[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(7):2076-2083.

样地	郁闭度/%	乔木平均高度/m	种植密度/(株/hm²)
三球悬铃木纯林	80~85	10~12	1275
‘红王子’锦带纯林	10~15	2~3	120
大叶女贞纯林	85~90	5~6	2430
美国红梣纯林	80~85	8~10	3840
日本晚樱纯林	65~70	3~5	300
草地	10~15	5~7	45

样地	郁闭度/%	乔木平均高度/m	种植密度/(株/hm²)
三球悬铃木纯林	80~85	10~12	1275
‘红王子’锦带纯林	10~15	2~3	120
大叶女贞纯林	85~90	5~6	2430
美国红梣纯林	80~85	8~10	3840
日本晚樱纯林	65~70	3~5	300
草地	10~15	5~7	45

大气颗粒物	郁闭度	乔木平均高度	种植密度
TSP浓度	0.315^*	0.537^*	0.345^*
PM_2.5浓度	0.416^*	0.442^*	0.357^*

大气颗粒物	郁闭度	乔木平均高度	种植密度
TSP浓度	0.315^*	0.537^*	0.345^*
PM_2.5浓度	0.416^*	0.442^*	0.357^*

重金属	三球悬铃木纯林	‘红王子’锦带纯林	大叶女贞纯林	美国红梣纯林	日本晚樱纯林	草地
锌	278.9±12.6	256.4±14.9	270.6±15.9	323.3±10.6	335.6±18.7	350.4±25.3
铅	206.8±31.2	184.6±16.3	198.6±15.4	213.7±16.9	215.6±12.5	231.5±22.1
锰	48.6±6.4	35.3±5.4	41.5±5.2	51.3±10.2	56.4±7.2	65.3±8.6
铜	35.9±7.6	32.6±5.7	33.8±6.7	42.3±10.8	45.8±15.4	52.6±11.3
铬	30.5±4.2	26.4±2.1	28.7±2.3	32.4±3.6	33.5±3.5	37.6±8.4
砷	21.6±1.9	19.5±1.7	21.4±3.1	22.5±3.0	24.6±3.5	28.9±2.6
锑	12.8±1.6	10.2±2.1	9.6±1.6	13.2±1.5	15.4±1.6	16.7±2.3
镉	8.5±1.3	8.2±0.6	7.5±0.3	9.1±0.2	9.4±0.4	10.6±1.3
镍	6.1±0.3	5.8±0.3	6.1±0.2	6.5±0.2	7.1±0.4	7.6±0.6
钒	5.1±0.3	4.5±0.3	4.9±0.3	5.4±0.2	5.8±0.6	6.1±0.3
硒	2.3±0.3	2.1±0.3	2.4±0.1	2.7±0.2	2.9±0.1	3.4±0.2
钴	1.8±0.4	1.6±0.2	1.6±0.1	2.1±0.2	2.1±0.3	2.5±0.2