查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 臺中發電廠煤塵逸散監測調查=Fugitive Coal Dust Monitoring of Taichung Power Plant |
---|---|
作者 | 吳棟湍; 張如良; 藍培修; 林瑞庭; 史文龍; 劉源隆; 陳惠陽; 王順德; 黃明裕; | 書刊名 | 台電工程月刊 |
卷期 | 689 民95.01 |
頁次 | 頁35-53 |
分類號 | 445.63 |
關鍵詞 | 兩段式燃燒法; 有機碳; 元素碳; 受體模式; Two-step combustion method; Organic carbon; Elemental carbon; Receptor model; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 臺電公司臺中發電廠為評估各項儲煤場煤塵逸散污染控制措施之成效,於儲煤場周圍進行粒狀污染物長期監測,工作包括落塵及高量採樣懸浮微粒樣品之化學分析、碳分析(總碳、有機碳暨元素碳分析)、含煤量、化性元素分析(ICP-AESICP-MS)指標物種鑑定等、配合氣象條件推估煤塵逸散量、受體模式推估各種污染源之貢獻比例。監測調查結果顯示,PM10年度平均測值,龍港國小測值與中區環保署測站測值相近,總懸浮微粒含煤率龍港國小站比其他測站低,但碼頭南方站則濃度較高。粒狀物連續自動監測結果,以防塵網南側站、馬達修理室測站及碼頭南方站較高;龍井場區則為龍井火車臺站較明顯偏高。落塵量監測結果顯示,麗水廠區測值比龍井場區高,其中以儲運場及碼頭地區濃度較高。麗水廠區各排放源之煤塵粒狀物排放量統計結果,總排放量降幅為29.4%。93年度龍井場區之煤塵粒狀物總逸散量上升28.1%。物種鑑定分析結果顯示,東北民宅及龍港國小之參考測站附近之稻草底灰及薰煙其主要元素及微量元素Mn、Zn與其落塵化學組成相似,而與煤樣組成大不相同;此兩參考測站之PM10及TSP則主要以S、Na、Fe、Ca、Al、K、Mg及微量元素Zn為主。TSP及PM10受體模式推估結果顯示,道路揚塵之貢獻較高,儲煤場之貢獻量則無分析值。 |
英文摘要 | Taiwan Power Company has been studying the fugitive coal dust fall of the open coal storage yard for years in order to assess the effectiveness of pollution control in the area. Some research results have been obrained by using dust fall analysis, total suspended particulate measurements, chemical analysis and species identification of dust and suspended particulate. Fugitive coal amount is assessed by using monitoring data and meteorological variables and receptor model to calculate the source contribution to TSP and PM10. The results indicate that PM10 concentration and coal content of Lung-Kang elementary school station have lower value while that of southern pier station are higher. Dust fall concentration and coal content of Lishui site are higher than Lungjing coal storage yard, especially at the vicinity of coal storage yard and zone of pier area. Mathematical model results show that fugitive coal dust from Lishui coal storage yard is estimated at 29.4% decrease, while 28.1% increase from Lungjing coal storage yard. Speciation identification results of straw-burnt fly ashes and smoke with major and minor components are similar to that of dust analysis, although the composition of coal is considerably different from that of dust, ashes and smoke. The result by using receptor model shows that the vehicle exhaust is the main contributory source, while the contribution emitted from coal storage yard is undetected. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。