Carbonaceous species in PM <sub>2.5</sub> at a pair of rural/urban sites in Beijing, 2005–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. One-week integrated PM2.5 samples were collected over four years (2005–2008) at a pair of sites, one rural and one urban site, in the area of Beijing, China. Weekly organic and elemental carbon (OC and EC) concentrations from these samples were measured to investigate their atmospheric concentrations, temporal variation patterns and the factors influencing these aspects. A slightly systematic decrease in annual mean concentration of OC and an opposite trend for EC at both sites was observed. Since OC accounted for about 70 % of total carbon (TC, i.e. OC + EC) the total carbonaceous mass experienced a slight decline on a yearly basis over the study period. Its fraction of PM2.5 mass at the urban site in 2008 was significantly lower than observed 10 years earlier (1999), indicating that the relative importance of carbonaceous species in PM2.5 has decreased. In urban Beijing clear seasonal variations (by factors of 1.35 ~ 3.0) were shown in both OC and EC with higher weekly concentrations and fluctuations in winter and much lower values in summer and spring. The minimum seasonal urban excesses of OC (3.0 μg m−3) and EC (1.3 μg m−3) occurred in the summer of 2008, which were only one-ninth and one-seventh of their corresponding maximum values, respectively. This reduction in the urban-difference, coupled with more positive stable carbon isotope values of EC at the urban site in that summer relative to the preceding summers, supports that the special clean air campaign for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games very likely had noticeable impact on the ambient concentrations of carbonaceous aerosols in the Beijing area, particularly on the local urban scale. Less consistent seasonal patterns in OC and EC, their scattered correlation, and higher mass ratios of OC to EC (OC/EC) at the rural site indicate more complex and variable major sources regarding aerosol formation in the rural area. These emission sources include biomass burning during the harvest seasons, widely used high-polluting family stoves and small boilers for cooking and heating with high OC/EC ratios, and a greater relative quantity of secondary organic aerosols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".