Chih-Chung Lin1, Jen-Hsiung Tsai1, Yi-Chin Hsieh2, Shui-Jen Chen This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.1

1 Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, Pingtung 912, Taiwan
2 Department of Environmental Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan


 

Received: November 8, 2022
Revised: February 8, 2023
Accepted: February 13, 2023

 Copyright The Author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.


Download Citation: ||https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220389  


Cite this article:

Lin, C.C., Tsai, J.H., Hsieh, Y.C., Chen, S.J. (2023). Beehive Fireworks Festival Effect on the Nearby Atmospheric PM2.5 Level. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 23, 220389. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220389


HIGHLIGHTS

  • The PM2.5 level was significantly higher during the Beehive Firework Festival.
  • The PM2.5 hardly diffused to distant places and accumulated in the local area.
  • K+, Cl, Mg2+, and NO3 are related to firework release during the festival.
 

ABSTRACT


Sudden short-term air pollution episode is now widely considered to harm human health. Previous research has found that firework activities rapidly raise the PM2.5 level in the ambient air. This study investigates the influence of Yanshuei Beehive Fireworks Festival on atmospheric PM2.5 from February 9th to 12th, 2017. The PM2.5 samples were gathered at 8 sampling sites around Yanshuei and Xinying before (background (B)), trial (T), during (D), and after (A) beehive firework display periods during the Yanshuei Beehive Fireworks Festival. The temporospatial differences of atmospheric PM2.5 before and after fireworks activities were explored. The atmospheric PM2.5 level in major activity areas was significantly higher from the background level in the trial and festival periods, and even after the activity. The study revealed that PM2.5 level reached the highest value of 327 µg m–3 at the major activity areas, which is 6.6 and 5.9 times those at upwind (49.8 µg m–3) and downwind (55.5 µg m–3) sites, respectively. Additionally, the T/B and D/B ratios were 3.01 and 7.19, respectively, around the major activity area. Conversely, the wind rose diagrams and contour lines of PM2.5 concentrations evaluated using Surfer 10.0 around the ambient air demonstrate that the atmospheric PM2.5 levels at Yanshuei and Xinying were similar to each other (35–45 µg m–3). However, the PM2.5 hardly diffused to distant places and accumulated in the local area around the boundary between Yanshuei and Xinying during the Beehive Fireworks Festival, since the wind speed was usually low or even stayed calm. The iso-concentration contour maps show that K+, Cl, Mg2+, and NO3 are related to firework release during the festival.


Keywords: Beehive fireworks display, PM2.5, Water-soluble ions, Iso-concentration contour maps


1 INTRODUCTION


The health impacts of short-term air pollution (including fireworks, temple fair, vehicle exhaust at traffic intersections, welding fumes, incense smoke, and even fire smoke) have garnered significant attention in recent years, as evidenced by several investigations characterizing anthropogenic emissions, especially in densely populated urban regions (Chang et al., 2013; Kulshrestha et al., 2004; Lin et al., 2016; Ravindra et al., 2003; You et al., 2013; Tseng et al., 2022; Hien et al., 2022; Collado et al., 2023; Debnath et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022). The widespread application of pyrotechnics at massive celebratory events often deteriorates short-term air quality, potentially endangering public health (Gorbunov et al., 2013; Smith and Dinh, 1975; Pang et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021). Globally, the firework display has evolved as a source of atypical atmospheric pollution. A study on fireworks displays indicated that about 80% of the particulate matter emitted by the explosive content of the fireworks is in the PM2.5 fraction (Keller and Schragen, 2021).

Ambient fine particle concentrations surge with fireworks displays, as is well known (Vecchi et al., 2008). Fireworks burning may release large quantities of gaseous (e.g., SO2 and NO2) and particulate matter containing water-soluble ions, metallic elements and organic compounds (Vecchi et al., 2008; Cao et al., 2018; Drewnick et al., 2006; Kulshrestha et al., 2004; Liu et al., 1997Moreno et al., 2007; Ravindra et al., 2003; Steinhauser et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2007; Khedr et al., 2022). Zhang et al. (2010) observed a noticeable shift in particles from nuclei mode (10–20 nm) and Aitken mode (20–100 nm) to accumulation mode (0.5–1.0 µm) during the peak hour of a firework displays compared levels during the previous days. Investigations have indicated that firework display results in significant increases in the levels of PM2.5 bound elements and water-soluble ions, along with the number concentration of particles in the size range 100–500 nm (Chang et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2012; Tsai et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2007).

The physicochemical characteristics of fireworks have been studied extensively in numerous studies. Many investigations have observed that high concentrations of gaseous pollutants can be observed during firework periods (Ambade, 2018; Zhang et al., 2017). Some studies have investigated the formation of secondary inorganic ions during Spring Festival firework displays (Jiang et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019). The fine particulate nitrate formed during the firework display is mainly due to the heterogeneous reaction of HNO3 with NH3, which is similar to the nitrate formation mechanism during haze period (Tian et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2018).

Numerous works have documented elevated concentrations of water-soluble ions (K+ and Cl) in ambient aerosol particles during and shortly after fireworks displays (Drewnick et al., 2006; Godri et al., 2010; Moreno et al., 2007; Ravindra et al., 2003; Shen et al., 2009; Tsai et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2014; You et al., 2013). However, the impact of short-term air pollution of PM2.5 and chemical compositions (water-soluble ions components/concentrations) from beehive firework displays in the Yanshuei area of southern Taiwan have seldom been explored. Therefore, this study investigates the PM2.5 concentrations, and determines the water-soluble ion components (Na+, K+, NH4+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Cl, NO3, and SO42–) and concentrations from the samples gathered during Beehive firework displays in the Yanshuei area of southern Taiwan. The mass concentration and water-soluble ions for PM2.5 were determined from the samples accumulated by eight PQ200 samplers. This investigation adopted the pollution model (i.e., inverse distance to a power method) to analyze the water-soluble ions and PM2.5 around the Yanshuei area. Analytical results indicate that the impact range of PM2.5 from Beehive fireworks is approximately 4–6 km, while that of water-soluble ions is only 2 km. The beehive fireworks display degrades short-term air quality, thereby requiring attention to address health concerns.

 
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS



2.1 Collection of Particulates

Atmospheric particulate samples were collected in the Yanshuei area of southern Taiwan during the Lantern Festival from February 9 to 12 in 2017. The PM2.5 samplings were carried by PQ200 at 8 sampling sites, encompassing the concentrated fire area plus windward and leeward sites. The sampling sites of the concentrated fire area were the Wumiao Temple (Z1) and Yanshuei police office (Z2). The Wumiao Temple (Z1) sampling site was located on the roof of a three-story building (9 m height), roughly 50 m north of the major beehive fireworks display site, while the Yanshuei police office sampling site was located on the roof of a four-story building (12 m height), roughly 300 m south of the major beehive fireworks display site. The windward sampling sites were in the Nanrong University of Science and Technology (W1), Kwanai Elementary School (W2) and Xuesi Garden (W3), each located on the roof of a building (12 m, 8 m and ground height, respectively), roughly 850 m east, 850 m northwest and 550 m northwest of the major beehive fireworks display site, respectively. The leeward sampling sites were in the Mingda high school (L1), Prince Junior High (L2) and Renguang Elementary School (L3), each located on the roof of a building (12 m, 4 m and ground height, respectively), roughly 1,700 m southeast, 3,650 m south and 2,700 m south of the major beehive fireworks display site, respectively. Fig. 1 shows the locations of the sampling. The Yanshuei beehive fireworks display events occurred within the four stages of our experimental periods. This investigation considered February 9th (12:00)–10th (12:00), 10th (12:00)–11th (18:00), 11th (18:00–24:00) and 12th (0:00–12:00), 2017 as the Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive firework display periods, respectively. The average air temperature, relative humidity and wind speed during the sampling period were 13.8°C (10.2°C–20.9°C), 65.5% (49.0%–90.0%), and 0.25 m s1 (0.0 m s1–3.6 m s1), respectively (with no rain).

 Fig. 1. Location map of sampling sets (concentrated fire area: Z ◆; windward: W =; leeward ▲).Fig. 1. Location map of sampling sets (concentrated fire area: Z ◆; windward: W =; leeward ▲).
 

PM2.5 samples were accumulated using eight low-volume ambient air samplers (PQ200 by BGI, Inc., USA), equipped with Teflon (diameters, 47 mm). The PQ200 sampling flow rate for PM2.5 was 16.7 L per min. Before and after each sampling, filters were dried for 24 hours in a desiccator at 25°C ± 3°C and 40% ± 5% relative humidity. They were then weighed on an electronic balance (UXM2; Mettler Toledo) with a precision of 0.1 µg. Finally, the concentration of suspended particulate material was calculated by dividing the particle mass by the volume of tested air.

 
2.2 Meteorology Data Collection

Table 1 shows the weather data during the sampling period. These data were accumulated using Davis Vantage Pro 2 Weather Stations MODEL 6152C professional wired weather meter. The Davis Vantage Pro 2 weather monitoring system comprises an integrated weather sensor, which can record complete and real-time meteorological data (including time, wind direction, wind speed, temperature, relative humidity and atmospheric pressure) on the sampling periods. The wind speeds during the Background (B), Trial (T), During (D) and After (A) sampling periods were 0.0–3.6 m s1 (0.33 ± 0.61 m s-1), 0.0–0.9 m s1 (0.07 ± 0.20 m s1), 0.0–0.4 m s1 (0.07 ± 0.15 m s1), and 0.0–1.3 m s-1 (0.18 ± 0.31 m s1), respectively. The wind direction in each period was NNE, NNE, NW and NW, respectively; the static wind rate was 56%, 82%, 83% and 68%, respectively.

Table 1. Meteorological data during the sampling period.

 
2.3 Water-soluble Ion Analysis and Quality Control

To measure the levels of particle-bound water-soluble inorganic species (Na+, K+, NH4+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Cl, NO3, and SO42–) were determined, the PM2.5 samples were extracted from each Teflon fiber filter with 10 mL of ultra-pure water (specific resistance 18.3 MWcm). The water-soluble ions were extracted using an ultrasonic bath (UC-300) for 120 minutes. All extraction solutions were filtered through a cellulose acetate filter (ADVANTEC MFS, Inc., USA cat No., CO20A025A; pore size 0.2 µm; diameter 25 mm) and stored in plastic vials in a refrigerator at 4°C until they were chemically analyzed. The inorganic species were analyzed by ion chromatography (IC) (DIONEX ICS-3000 with conductivity detection (DC detector/chromatography module, P/N 061767)).

The cations were quantified using a DIONEX IonPac® 4 × 50 mm CG12A guard column, a DIONEX IonPac® 4 × 250 mm CS12A analytical column and a cation self-regenerating suppressor (CSRS® ULTRA II, 4 mm, AutoSuppression® Recycle Mode); The anions were quantified by a DIONEX IonPac® 4 × 50 mm AG11 guard column, a DIONEX IonPac® 4 × 250 mm AS11 analytical column and an anion self-regenerating suppressor (ASRS® ULTRA II, 4 mm, AutoSuppression® Recycle Mode). The eluents for the cation and anion analyses were mixed with 20 mM of methane sulfonic acid and 12 mM of NaOH, respectively. Analytical drift was monitored throughout the analytical procedures. Recovery efficiencies were then determined using diluted samples that were spiked with known quantities of the ions of interest. Recovery efficiencies ranged from 93% to 107%. The method detection limit (MDL) was estimated by repeatedly analyzing a control solution of known quality. Replicate analysis of IC measurements was performed to calculate the MDL of each element using MDL = 2.681 × Spooled, with SA2/ SB2 < 3.05. Spooled = [(6SA2 + 6SB2)/12]0.5, where Spooled denotes the pooled standard deviation; SA represents the standard deviation of the prepared sample with a larger F-test value, and SB is the standard deviation of the other sample. The detection limits were expressed in ng m–3 (estimated from MDL × volume of analyzed solution (10 mL)/average sampling volume (20 m3)) were Na+, 7.00 ng m–3; K+, 12.0 ng m–3; NH4+, 27.0 ng m–3; Mg2+, 13.0 ng m–3; Ca2+, 10.5 ng m–3; Cl, 46.6 ng m–3; NO3, 28.6 ng m–3, and SO42–, 61.6 ng m–3. Both field and laboratory blank samples were prepared and analyzed for each sampling and analysis. All data were corrected with blanks.

 
2.4 Data Processing

The wind rose analysis: Microsoft Excel was adopted to place wind rose figures in the sampling sites of concentrated fire areas based on data of wind direction, wind speed and frequency.

Trend analysis of PM and water-soluble ion: Surfer® 2D&3D mapping, modeling and analysis software (Version 10) was adopted to draw iso-concentration contour maps showing the trend of PM and water-soluble ions in the Yanshuei area. This investigation adopted the gridding method of inverse distance to power to paint an iso-concentration contour map by gathering all data of PM and water-soluble ions.

 
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS


 
3.1 Concentrations of PM2.5

Table 2 shows the concentration of PM2.5 around the Yanshui area (i.e., leeward sites (L), windward sites (W) and central zone (Z)) at 4 events (i.e., Background (B), Trial (T), During (D) and, After (A)). These results indicate that the concentrations of PM2.5 during monitoring period were sequentially 35.3–45.4 µg m–3 (40.4 ± 4.20 µg m–3 (mean), n = 8), 51.4–137 µg m–3 (68.1 ± 42.2 µg m–3 (mean), n = 8), 47.3–327 µg m–3 (94.3 ± 135 µg m–3 (mean), n = 7), and 31.7–124 µg m–3 (49.3 ± 45.6 µg m–3 (mean), n = 7). The highest concentration of PM2.5 was recorded during period D, followed by periods T, A and B.

Table 2. The concentration of PM2.5 at each sampling site during the Yanshui Beehive Fireworks.

Fig. 2 displays the concentration trend of PM2.5 during the Yanshuei Beehive Fireworks Festival around the Yanshuei area. These results indicate that the concentration of PM2.5 at each site during periods T and D exceeded the air quality standard of Taiwan (35 µg m–3). The concentration of PM2.5 during B period in the Z2 site (Yanshuei police station) was 45.4 µg m–3 which is higher than the windward (mean 42.4 µg m–3) and leeward (mean 38.5 µg m–3) sites. This could be a consequence of the number of PM emission sources in the central zone. During periods T and D, the concentration of PM2.5 increased in site Z2. The concentration of PM2.5 during D periods was 327 µg m–3, which is 6.6 and 5.9 times the windward (mean 49.8 µg m–3) and leeward (mean 55.5 µg m–3) sites.

Fig. 2. The variations of PM2.5 concentrations at each sampling site during the Yanshui Beehive Fireworks Festival.
Fig. 2. The variations of PM2.5 concentrations at each sampling site during the Yanshui Beehive Fireworks Festival.

Li et al. (2013) adopted MOUDI to investigate the concentration of PM2.5 around the Huanghe river delta during the Chinese New Year in 2011. These results revealed that the concentration of PM2.5 was 183 µg m–3, which was six times that before and after the Chinese New Year. Zhang et al. (2017) investigated the concentration of PM2.5 around Xiping (XP), Heze (HZ), Liaocheng (LC), Qingzhou (QZ) during the Chinese New Year in 2016, revealing that the quantity of PM2.5 was higher during the fireworks display than at other times, significantly at the HZ site, where it rose by a factor of 3, indicating that the air quality had deteriorated owing to the fireworks display. Ye et al. (2016) conducted AQI monitoring on Aotizhongxin, TianTan, Wanliu and Guanyuan in Beijing, China from 2010 to 2013. The higher AQI was obtained during the Chinese New Year, especially on New Year’s Eve, New Year and Lantern Festival. The concentration of PM2.5 on the leeward site (L2) was significantly higher than on windward sites (W1–W3). Lin et al. (2014) used MOUDI to monitor concentrations of PM2.5 in Z1 (windward) and Z2 (leeward) sites which were 165 µg m–3 and 437 µg m–3, respectively.

The graphs in Fig. 2 indicate that PM2.5 concentration was higher in period T than in D in the windward and leeward sites, except the W3 site (near the central zone). The reason may be to avoid disturbance from major fireworks in the central zone during the firework trial. In addition, the concentration of PM2.5 in the central zone was highest during period D. The concentrations of PM2,5 from the EPA monitoring stations (i.e., SY, AN, SH and TN) were also compared. The concentration of PM2,5 was sequentially T > D > A > B periods in the SY and SH stations. The concentration in the AN and TN stations was in the order D > T > A > B periods sequentially. The reason for the difference in sequence is that the SY and SH stations are closer to the Yanshuei area, resulting in a higher concentration of PM2.5 during period T than during period D.

 
3.2 Trial/Background (T/B), During/Background (D/B) and After/Background (A/B) Ratios of PM2.5 Concentration

To investigate the concentration trend of PM2.5, results from the background period were compared with the results from the trial (i.e., T/B ratio), during (i.e., D/B ratio) and after (i.e., A/B ratio) periods, as presented in Table 3. The T/B and D/B ratio ranges at windward sites were 1.22–1.33 and 1.11–1.26, respectively. The T/B and D/B ratios from site Z2 were 3.01 and 7.19, respectively. The T/B and D/B ratio ranges at the leeward sites were 1.49–1.74 and 1.41–1.44, respectively. The T/B and D/B ratios were significantly higher at Z2 than at the windward and leeward sites, and the leeward sites had higher ratios than the windward sites. Lin et al. (2014)  found that the T/B and D/B ratios during the Yanshuei beehive firework display in 2013 were 4.3 and 15.5, respectively at site Z2, and 1.8 and 6.3 at site Z1, and thus were higher than our results (1.53 and 2.05, respectively). The amount of garbage generated by fireworks during the Yanshuei beehive firework performance increased by a factor of 3.21 between 2013 and 2016, from 29.4 tons to 94.5 tons. These findings suggest that fewer fireworks were used during the firework performance in 2013 than in 2016, resulting in reduced PM2.5 concentrations. Pervez et al. (2016) monitored the impact of firework displays on air quality during the Diwali festival in India, and found that concentration of PM2.5 reached 1,501.20 µg m–3, 831.98 µg m–3 and 397.12 µg m–3 from November 13 to 15, respectively, which was 2 to 8 times that on typical days (i.e., without any firework display).

Table 3. T/B, D/B, and A/B values of PM2.5 concentration at each sampling site during the sampling period.

From Table 3, A/B < 1 at all sites except Z2 and L2. The T/B and D/B obtained from the EPA monitor station ranged from 1.35 to 1.65 (mean 1.48), revealing that the beehive firework display significantly affected the air quality around the Yanshui area, increasing the concentration of PM2.5 by about 48%.

 
3.3 The Iso-concentration Contour Map of PM2.5

Fig. 3 shows the wind roses and iso-concentration contour maps combining the wind direction with. In period B, the PM2.5 concentrations ranged from 35 µg m–3 to 45 µg m–3, and the wind rose had six areas of higher concentration, all with similar concentration levels. The PM2.5 concentration in period T ranged from 40 µg m–3 to 130 µg m–3, and the highest concentration was recorded in the Z2 site. The concentration gradient during period T was about −45 µg m–3 km–1 and the impact distance was about 2 km. In the D periods, the PM2.5 concentration ranged from 60 µg mto 320 µg m–3. The concentration gradient during the D period was about −65 µg m–3 km–1 and the impact distance was 4 km. The concentrations of PM2.5 in period A ranged from 50 µg m–3 to 145 µg m–3. The concentration gradient during the period A was about −32 µg m–3 km–1, and the impact distance was around 3 km. Owing to the high static wind ratio and slow wind speed during the beehive firework display, the PM2.5 particles were not easy to diffuse. Therefore, the beehive fireworks mainly affected the Yanshuei area and the junction within the Xinying district.

Fig. 3. Wind roses and iso-concentration contour maps of PM2.5 during the Yanshui Beehive Firework Festival.Fig. 3. Wind roses and iso-concentration contour maps of PM2.5 during the Yanshui Beehive Firework Festival.

 
3.4 The Concentration of Water-Soluble Ions in PM2.5 during the Yanshui Beehive Fireworks

Figs. 4–7 show the concentration of K+, Cl, Mg2+, and NO3, which indicated that the concentration distributions of Cl, K+, and Mg2+ were similar during the 4 periods and the highest concentration of water-soluble ions was observed in site Z2. The concentration of K+ in PM2.5 during the 4 periods (B, T, D, A) were sequentially 2.29 µg m–3, 23.8 µg m–3, 99.1 µg m–3, and 33.4 µg m–3 in the Z2 site. These results surpass those of other sites (without Z2) by a factor of 4.32, 13.2, 39.7 and 25.0, respectively. In the Z2 site, the concentration of Cl- in PM2.5 during the 4 periods were sequentially 1.01 µg m–3, 14.1 µg m–3, 46.1 µg m–3, and 16.8 µg m–3 which is 1.47, 8.20, 16.2, and 13.6 times those of other sites, respectively. Additionally, the concentration of Mg2+ in PM2.5 during the 4 periods were sequentially 0.0526 µg m–3, 0.0996 µg m–3, 0.2998 µg m–3, and 0.1252 µg m–3 which is 0.91, 12, 10 and 5.9 times those in other sites, respectively. Wilkin et al. (2007) and Shi et al. (2011) observed a large amount of Cl in the particles after a firework display in the urban area. Li et al. (2013) and Wu et al. (2018) pointed a larger amount of K+ in the particles corresponds to a large amount of Cl, because the particles from fireworks contain KCl, KClO4 and chlorine organics. KNO3 was used as a propellant, while Al and Mg were commonly used as fuels and white luminous agent in fireworks (Lorenzo et al., 2021). Some research from Beijing (Cheng et al., 2014), Taiwan (Tsai et al., 2012) and New Delhi (Kumar et al., 2016) indicated that the concentration of Cl and K+ increased rapidly after a firework display, since compounds of potassium with nitrate, chlorate and perchlorate are widely adopted as oxidizers in fireworks. The T/B, D/B and A/B of Cl, K+, and Mg2+ in PM2.5 from the Z2 site were sequentially 14, 46, and 18 for Cl; 10, 43 and 15 for K+, and 25, 64 and 25 for Mg2+.

Fig. 4. Concentration of K+ in PM2.5 collected at each sampling site for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.Fig. 4. Concentration of K+ in PM2.5 collected at each sampling site for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.

 Fig. 5. Concentration of Cl– in PM2.5 collected at each sampling site for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.Fig. 5. Concentration of Cl in PM2.5 collected at each sampling site for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.

 Fig. 6. Concentration of Mg2+ in PM2.5 collected at each sampling site for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.Fig. 6. Concentration of Mg2+ in PM2.5 collected at each sampling site for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.

Fig. 7. Concentration of NO– in PM2.5 collected at each sampling site for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.Fig. 7. Concentration of NO in PM2.5 collected at each sampling site for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.

Fig. 7 shows the iso-concentration contour map of NO3 in PM2.5, indicating that NO3 concentration was higher in periods T and D than in B and A. The concentration of NO3 was obviously 7.9 times higher than other sites (mean 8.61 µg m–3) than in Z2 (67.7 µg m–3). The T/B, D/B, and A/B of NO3 in PM2.5 from the Z2 site were 1.8, 4.9 and 1.5 respectively. This may be attributed to the large amount of beehive fireworks the Z2 site, and the fireworks may contain a small amount of Ba(NO3)2. The concentration of NO3 in Z2 was 1.1 and 3.1 times that than other sites during periods T and A. In the other sites, the concentration of NO3 was lower in periods D and A than in period B. The reason may be that the proportion of static wind was relatively high, and pollutants did not diffuse easily, thus leading secondary pollutants to be generated in situ. The concentration of SO42–, NH4+, Na+, and Ca2+ did not increase significantly in the Z2 site (Figs. S1–S4; Figure numbers preceded by an “S” are in the Supplementary Materials).

 
3.5 The Iso-concentration Contour Map of Water-Soluble Ions in PM2.5 during the Yanshui Beehive Fireworks

To study the influence of the Yanshui beehive firework display on air quality around the Yanshui area, the concentration of water-soluble ions in PM2.5 was monitored. Figs. 8–11 show the iso-concentration contour maps of K+, Cl, Mg2+, and NO3. These results indicated that iso-concentration contour maps of K+, Cl, Mg2+, and NO3- during periods T, D, and A were different from those in period B, and the concentration gradually reduced from Z2 to the periphery, which was more consistent with the iso-concentration contour map of PM2.5. However, the range of the iso-concentration contour line from Z2 was about 2 km, which is smaller than the 3–4 km range of PM2.5. The possible reason is that the average wind speed was around 0.07 m s-1 during period D, and the static wind ratio was as high as 83%. The resulting indicator pollutant accumulated in Z2 and formed a secondary pollutant; its range of influence was only 2 km. The SO42– and NH4+ ions in the secondary aerosol behaved similarly, but do not have significantly higher concentrations than other iso-concentration groups (Figs. S7–S8; Figure numbers preceded by an “S” are in the Supplementary Materials). This may be attributed to the reason that thermal NOx emitted by the beehive fireworks display is converted into NO3 at a faster rate than SO42– and NH4+, and it is mainly distributed on ultrafine particles (Liu et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2009). The iso-concentration group of NO3 in Z2 were higher than in surrounding areas during periods T, D and A, while iso-concentration group of SO42– and NH4+ showed the opposite trend (i.e., concentration was higher in the surrounding than in the central zone).

Fig. 8. Iso-concentration contour map of K+ in PM2.5 for before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods. Fig. 8. Iso-concentration contour map of K+ in PM2.5 for before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods. 

Fig. 9. Iso-concentration contour map of Cl– in PM2.5 for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.Fig. 9. Iso-concentration contour map of Cl in PM2.5 for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.

 Fig. 10. Iso-concentration contour map of Mg2+ in PM2.5 for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.Fig. 10. Iso-concentration contour map of Mg2+ in PM2.5 for Before (background), Trial, During and After beehive fireworks display periods.
 

 Fig. 11. Iso-concentration contour map of NO3– in PM2.5 for before (background), trial, during and after beehive fireworks display periods.Fig. 11. Iso-concentration contour map of NO3 in PM2.5 for before (background), trial, during and after beehive fireworks display periods.

 
4 CONCLUSION


The concentrations of fine particles were significant higher during the Yanshuei Beehive Firework Festival than in non-festival times. The PM2.5 level reached the highest value in the central area of the firework display (Z2) of 327 µg m–3, which was 6.6 and 5.9 times than that of levels at upwind (49.8 µg m–3) and downwind (55.5 µg m–3) sites, respectively. Additionally, the T/B and D/B ratios were 3.01 and 7.19, respectively, around the major activity area. The concentration distributions of Cl, K+, and Mg2+ were similar during the 4 periods and the highest concentration of water-soluble ion was observed in the Z2 site. The secondary aerosol concentration of NO3 in Z2 (67.7 µg m–3) was 7.9 times that in other sites (mean 8.61 µg m–3). The iso-concentration contour maps also show that the beehive firework festival produced K+, Cl, Mg2+, and NO3.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China, Taiwan, for financially supporting this research under contract MOST 105-2221-E-020 -002.


REFERENCES


  1. Ambade, B. (2018). The air pollution during Diwali festival by the burning of fireworks in Jamshedpur city, India. Urban Clim. 26, 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2018.08.009

  2. Cao, X., Zhang, X., Tong, D.Q., Chen, W., Zhang, S., Zhao, H., Xiu, A. (2018). Review on physicochemical properties of pollutants released from fireworks: Environmental and health effects and prevention. Environ. Rev. 26, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0063

  3. Chang, S.C., Lin, T.H., Young, C.Y., Lee, C.T. (2011). The impact of ground-level fireworks (13 km long) display on the air quality during the traditional Yanshui Lantern Festival in Taiwan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 172, 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1347-1

  4. Chang, S.Y., Chou, C.C.K., Liu, S., Zhang, Y. (2013). The characteristics of PM2.5 and its chemical compositions between different prevailing wind patterns in Guangzhou. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 13, 1373–1383. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2012.09.0253

  5. Cheng, Y., Engling, G., He, K., Duan, F., Du, Z., Ma, Y., Liang, L., Lu, Z., Liu, J., Zheng, M., Weber, R.J. (2014). The characteristics of Beijing aerosol during two distinct episodes: Impacts of biomass burning and fireworks. Environ. Pollut. 185, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.​10.037

  6. Collado, J.T., Abalos, J.G., de los Reyes, I., Cruz, M.T., Leung, G.F., Abenojar, K., Manalo, C.R., Go, B., Chan, C.L., Gonzales, C.K.G., Simpas, J.B.B., Porio, E.E., Wong, J.Q., Lung, S.C.C., Cambaliza, M.O.L. (2023). Spatiotemporal assessment of PM2.5 exposure of a high-risk occupational group in a Southeast Asian megacity. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 23, 220134. https://doi.org/10.4209/​aaqr.220134

  7. Debnath, S., Karumuri, R.K., Govardhan, G., Jat, R., Saini, H., Vispute, A., Kulkarni, S.H., Jena, C., Kumar, R., Chate, D.M., Ghude, S.D. (2022). Implications of implementing promulgated and prospective emission regulations on air quality and health in India during 2030. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 22, 220112. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220112

  8. Drewnick, F., Hings, S.S., Curtius, J., Eerdekens, G., Williams, J. (2006). Measurement of fine particulate and gas-phase species during the New Year’s fireworks 2005 in Mainz, Germany. Atmos. Environ. 40, 4316–4327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.03.040

  9. Godri, K.J., Green, D.C., Fuller, G.W., Dall’Osto, M., Beddows, D.C., Kelly, F.J., Harrison, R.M., Mudway, I.S. (2010). Particulate oxidative burden associated with firework activity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 8295–8301. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1016284

  10. Gorbunov, B., Muir, R., Jackson, P., Priest, N.D. (2013). Evaluation of the airborne particles fraction responsible for adverse health effects. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 13, 1678–1692. https://doi.org/​10.4209/aaqr.2013.02.0039

  11. Hien, T.T., Ngo, T.H., Lung, S.C.C., Ngan, T.A., Minh, T.H., Cong-Thanh, T., Nguyen, L.S.P., Chi, N.D.T. (2022). Characterization of particulate matter (PM1 and PM2.5) from incense burning activities in temples in Vietnam and Taiwan. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 22, 220193. https://doi.org/​10.4209/aaqr.220193

  12. Huang, K., Zhuang, G., Lin, Y., Wang, Q., Fu, J.S., Zhang, R., Li, J., Deng, C., Fu, Q. (2012). Impact of anthropogenic emission on air quality over a megacity – revealed from an intensive atmospheric campaign during the Chinese Spring Festival. Atmos. Chem. and Phys. 12, 11631–11645. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-11631-2012

  13. Jiang, Q., Sun, Y.L., Wang, Z., Yin, Y. (2015). Aerosol composition and sources during the Chinese Spring Festival: Fireworks, secondary aerosol, and holiday effects. Atmos. Chem. and Phys. 15, 6023–6034. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-6023-2015

  14. Keller, F., Schragen, C. (2021). Determination of particulate matter emission factors of common pyrotechnic articles. Propellants Explos. Pyrotech. 46, 825–842. https://doi.org/10.1002/prep.​202000292

  15. Khedr, M., Liu, X., Hadiatullah, H., Orasche, J., Zhang X., Cyrys, J., Michalke, B., Zimmermann, R., Schnelle-Kreis, J. (2022). Influence of New Year's fireworks on air quality – A case study from 2010 to 2021 in Augsburg, Germany. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 13, 101341. https://doi.org/10.1016/​j.apr.2022.101341

  16. Kulshrestha, U.C., Nageswara Rao, T., Azhaguvel, S., Kulshrestha, M.J. (2004). Emissions and accumulation of metals in the atmosphere due to crackers and sparkles during Diwali festival in India. Atmos. Environ. 38, 4421–4425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.05.044

  17. Kumar, M., Singh, R.K., Murari, V., Singh, A.K., Singh, R.S., Banerjee, T. (2016). Fireworks induced particle pollution: A spatio-temporal analysis. Atmos. Res. 180, 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/​j.atmosres.2016.05.014

  18. Li, W., Shi, Z., Yan, C., Yang, L., Dong, C., Wang, W. (2013). Individual metal-bearing particles in a regional haze caused by firecracker and firework emissions. Sci. Total Environ. 443, 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.10.109

  19. Lin, C.C., Huang, K.L., Chen, S.J., Liu, SC., Tsai, J.H., Lin, Y.C., Lin, W.Y. (2009). NH4+, NO3-, and SO42- in roadside and rural size-resolved particles and transformation of NO2/SO2 to nanoparticle-bound NO3-/SO42-. Atmos. Environ. 43, 2731-2736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.​02.058

  20. Lin, C.C., Huang, K.L., Chen, H.L., Tsai, J.H., Chiu, Y.P., Lee, J.T., Chen, S.J. (2014). Influences of beehive firework displays on ambient fine particles during the lantern festival in the YanShuei area of southern Taiwan. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 14, 1998–2009. https://doi.org/10.4209/​aaqr.2014.09.0201

  21. Lin, C.C., Tsai, J.H., Huang, K.L., Yeh, C.K.J., Chen, H.L., Chen, S.J., Lee, J.T., Hsieh, Y.C. (2016). Characteristics of respirable particulate metals emitted by a beehive firework display in YanShuei area of southern Taiwan. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 16, 2227–2236. https://doi.org/​10.4209/aaqr.2016.08.0346

  22. Liu, D.Y., Rutherford, D., Kinsey, M., Prather, K.A. (1997). Real-time monitoring of pyrotechnically derived aerosol particles in the troposphere. Anal. Chem. 69, 1808–1814. https://doi.org/​10.1021/ac9612988

  23. Liu, X., Schnelle-Kreis, J., Schloter-Hai, B., Ma, L., Tai, P., Cao, X., Yu, C., Adam, T. and Zimmermann, R. (2019). Analysis of PAHs associated with PM10 and PM2.5 from different districts in Nanjing. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 19, 2294–2307. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2019.06.0301

  24. Lorenzo, G.R., Banaga, P.A., Cambaliza, M.O., Cruz, M.T., Azadiaghdam, M., Arellano, A., Betito, G., Braun, R., Corral, A.F., Dadashazar, H., Edwards, E., Eloranta, E., Holz, R., Leung, G., Ma, L., Macdonald, A.B., Reid, J.S., Simpas, J.B., Stahl, C., Visaga, S.M., Sorooshian, A. (2021). Measurement report: Firework impacts on air quality in metro Manila, Philippines, during the 2019 New year revelry. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 21, 6155–6173. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6155-2021

  25. Moreno, T., Querol, X., Alastuey, A., Cruz Minguillón, M., Pey, J., Rodriguez, S., Vicente Miró, J., Felis, C., Gibbons, W. (2007). Recreational atmospheric pollution episodes: Inhalable metalliferous particles from firework displays. Atmos. Environ. 41, 913–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.​atmosenv.2006.09.019

  26. Pang, N.N., Gao, J., Zhao, P.S., Wang, Y.L., Xu, Z.J., Chai, F.H. (2021). The impact of fireworks control on air quality in four Northern Chinese cities during the Spring Festival. Atmos. Environ. 244, 117958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117958

  27. Pervez, S., Chakrabarty, R.K., Dewangan, S., Watson, J.G., Chow, J.C., Matawle, J.L. (2016). Chemical speciation of aerosols and air quality degradation during the festival of lights (Diwali). Atmos. Pollut. Res. 7, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apr.2015.09.002

  28. Ravindra, K., Mor, S., Kaushik, C.P. (2003). Short-term variation in air quality associated with firework events: A case study. J. Environ. Monit. 5, 260–264. https://doi.org/10.1039/B211943A

  29. Shen, Z., Cao, J., Arimoto, R., Han, Z., Zhang, R., Han, Y., Liu, S., Okuda, T., Nakao, S., Tanaka, S. (2009). Ionic composition of TSP and PM2.5 during dust storms and air pollution episodes at Xi’an, China. Atmos. Environ. 43, 2911–2918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.03.005

  30. Shi, Y., Zhang, N., Gao, J., Li, X., Cai, Y. (2011). Effect of fireworks display on perchlorate in air aerosols during the Spring Festival. Atmos. Environ. 45, 1323–1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/​j.atmosenv.2010.11.056

  31. Smith, R.M., Dinh, V.D. (1975). Changes in forced expiratory flow due to air pollution from fireworks: Preliminary report. Environ. Res. 9, 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-9351​(75)90012-2

  32. Steinhauser, G., Sterba, J.H., Foster, M., Grass, F., Bichler, M. (2008). Heavy metals from pyrotechnics in New Years Eve snow. Atmos. Environ. 42, 8616–8622. https://doi.org/10.1016/​j.atmosenv.2008.08.023

  33. Tian, M., Liu, Y., Yang, F., Zhang, L., Peng, C., Chen, Y., Shi, G., Wang, H., Luo, B., Jiang, C., Li, B., Takeda, N., Koizumi, K. (2019). Increasing importance of nitrate formation for heavy aerosol pollution in two megacities in Sichuan Basin, southwest China. Environ. Pollut. 250, 898–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.098

  34. Tsai, H.H., Chien, L.H., Yuan, C.S., Lin, Y.C., Jen, Y.H., Ie, I.R. (2012). Influences of fireworks on chemical characteristics of atmospheric fine and coarse particles during Taiwan’s Lantern Festival. Atmos. Environ. 62, 256–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.08.012

  35. Tseng, W.J., Lu, J.H., Chao, H.R., Tsai, M.., Chang, Y.T., Wang, L.J., Chen, C.C., Mansor, W.N.W., Jalaludin, J., Wang, C.L., Tsai, Y.I. (2022). Associations between children's exposure to PM2.5 and their serum inflammatory responses in Taiwan. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 22, 220288. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220288

  36. Vecchi, R., Bernardoni, V., Cricchio, D., D’Alessandro, A., Fermo, P., Lucarelli, F., Nava, S., Piazzalunga, A., Valli, G. (2008). The impact of fireworks on airborne particles. Atmos. Environ. 42, 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.10.047

  37. Wang, B., Wang, B., Lv, B., Wang, R. (2022). Impact of motor vehicle exhaust on the air quality of an urban city. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 22, 220213. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.220213

  38. Wang, S., Yu, R., Shen, H., Wang, S., Hu, Q., Cui, J., Yan, Y., Huang, H., Hu, G. (2019). Chemical characteristics, sources, and formation mechanisms of PM2.5 before and during the Spring Festival in a coastal city in Southeast China. Environ. Pollut. 251, 442–452. https://doi.org/​10.1016/j.envpol.2019.04.050

  39. Wang, Y., Zhuang, G., Xu, C., An, Z. (2007). The air pollution caused by the burning of fireworks during the lantern festival in Beijing. Atmos. Environ. 41, 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.​atmosenv.2006.07.043

  40. Wilkin, R.T., Fine, D.D., Burnett, N.G. (2007). Perchlorate behavior in a municipal lake following fireworks displays. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 3966–3971. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0700698

  41. Wu, C., Wang, G., Wang, J., Li, J., Ren, Y., Zhang, L., Cao, C., Li, J., Ge, S., Xie, Y., Wang, X., Xue, G. (2018). Chemical characteristics of haze particles in Xi’an during Chinese Spring Festival: Impact of fireworks burning. J. Environ. Sci. 71, 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2018.04.008

  42. Yang, L., Gao, X., Wang, X., Nie, W., Wang, J., Gao, R., Xu, P., Shou, Y., Zhang, Q., Wang, W. (2014). Impacts of firecracker burning on aerosol chemical characteristics and human health risk levels during the Chinese New Year Celebration in Jinan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 476–477, 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.12.110

  43. Ye, C., Chen, R., Chen, M. (2016). The impacts of Chinese Nian culture on air pollution. J. Cleaner Prod. 112, 1740–1745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.113

  44. You, R., Cui, W., Chen, C., Zhao, B. (2013). Measuring the short-term emission rates of particles in the “personal cloud” with different clothes and activity intensities in a sealed chamber. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 13, 911–921. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2012.03.0061

  45. Yu, S.K., Wang, C.X., Liu, K., Zhang, S., Dou, W.S. (2021). Environmental effects of prohibiting urban fireworks and firecrackers in Jinan, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 193, 512. https://doi.org/​10.1007/s10661-021-09315-4

  46. Zhang, J., Yang, L., Chen, J., Mellouki, A., Jiang, P., Gao, Y., Li, Y., Yang, Y., Wang, W. (2017). Influence of fireworks displays on the chemical characteristics of PM2.5 in rural and suburban areas in Central and East China. Sci. Total Environ. 578, 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.​2016.10.212

  47. Zhang, M., Wang, X., Chen, J., Cheng, T., Wang, T., Yang, X., Gong, Y., Geng, F., Chen, C. (2010). Physical characterization of aerosol particles during the Chinese New Year’s firework events. Atmos. Environ. 44, 5191–5198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.08.048


Share this article with your colleagues 

 

Subscribe to our Newsletter 

Aerosol and Air Quality Research has published over 2,000 peer-reviewed articles. Enter your email address to receive latest updates and research articles to your inbox every second week.

7.3
2022CiteScore
 
 
77st percentile
Powered by
Scopus
 
   SCImago Journal & Country Rank

2022 Impact Factor: 4.0
5-Year Impact Factor: 3.4

Call for Papers for the special issue on: "Carbonaceous Aerosols in the Atmosphere"

Aerosol and Air Quality Research partners with Publons

CLOCKSS system has permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit
CLOCKSS system has permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit

Aerosol and Air Quality Research (AAQR) is an independently-run non-profit journal that promotes submissions of high-quality research and strives to be one of the leading aerosol and air quality open-access journals in the world. We use cookies on this website to personalize content to improve your user experience and analyze our traffic. By using this site you agree to its use of cookies.