Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Anthropogenic VOC Emissions on Atmospheric Pollution: A Case Study of a Typical Industrialized Area in China
Previous Article in Journal
Preliminary Survey of Exposure to Indoor Radon in al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Kazakhstan
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Temporal Variation and Potential Sources of Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions in PM2.5 in Two Sites of Mexico City

by
Fernando Millán-Vázquez
1,
Rodolfo Sosa-Echevería
2,
Ana Luisa Alarcón-Jiménez
2,
José de Jesús Figueroa-Lara
1,
Miguel Torres-Rodríguez
1,
Brenda Liz Valle-Hernández
1 and
Violeta Mugica-Álvarez
1,*
1
Basic Sciences Department, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Campus Azcapotzalco, Av. San Pablo No. 420, Col. Nueva el Rosario C.P., Alcaldía Azcapotzalco, Mexico City 02128, Mexico
2
Sección de Contaminación Ambiental, Instituto de Ciencias de la Atmósfera y Cambio Climático, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México City 04510, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Atmosphere 2023, 14(10), 1585; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14101585
Submission received: 16 September 2023 / Revised: 16 October 2023 / Accepted: 16 October 2023 / Published: 20 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Aerosols)

Abstract

:
This study presents the characterization and source apportionment of water-soluble inorganic ions (WSII), contained in particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 μm (PM2.5), performed using the positive matrix factorization model (PMF). PM2.5 were collected in Mexico City from two sites: at Merced (MER), which is a residential location with commercial activities, and at Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM), which is located in an industrial area. The monitoring campaign was carried out across three seasons named Hot Dry (HD) (March–June), Rain (RA) (July–October), and Cold Dry (CD) (November-February). PM2.5 concentration behavior in both sites was similar, following the order: CD > HD > RA. The UAM site exhibited higher concentrations of PM2.5, of the five cations (Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+, K+ and NH4+), and of the four anions (Cl, SO42−, NO3 and PO43−) than MER, since the UAM site is surrounded by several industrial zones. PM2.5 average concentrations for UAM and MER were 28.4 ± 11.2 and 20.7 ± 8.4 μg m−3, respectively. The ratio of cation equivalent to anion equivalent (CE/AC) showed that aerosol pH is acidic, which was confirmed by direct pH measurements. The sulfur oxidation rate (SOR) was 20 times larger than the nitrogen oxidation rate (NOR). Additionally, SO42− was the most abundant ion during the whole year, especially during the CD season with 5.13 ± 2.5 μg m−3 and 4.9 ± 3.6 μg m−3 for UAM and MER, respectively, when solar radiation displayed a high intensity. On the opposite side, the conversion of NO2 to NO3, respectively, was low. The air mass backward trajectories were modeled using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA-HYSPLIT), which allowed us to know that differences in the mass trajectories during the days with higher concentrations were due to an effect of air recirculation, which favored PM2.5 accumulation and resuspension. On the other hand, on the days with less PM2.5, good air dispersion was observed. The main sources identified with the PMF model were secondary aerosol, vehicular, industrial crustal, and biomass burning for UAM, while for MER they were vehicular, secondary aerosol, and crustal.

1. Introduction

The megacity Mexico City presents high atmospheric pollutant concentrations affecting health and the environment, such as atmospheric aerosols, which have aroused interest because they have been related to significant damage to the environment, climate change, and the health of people exposed to breathing polluted air, since it is associated with millions of premature deaths [1]. The pollutants emitted into the atmosphere participate intensely in physics and chemistry processes like cloud formation and radiative balance. Meteorological conditions such as precipitation, wind direction, and speed are essential for the dispersion and removal of pollutants [2,3]. As a consequence of economic growth, reflected in the growth of the mobile and industrial activities, PM2.5 can be emitted from different sources [4,5,6]. In addition, Mexico City presents geographic and climatic problems that make their dispersion difficult [7]. According with the World Health Organization, PM2.5 is considered the best indicator of the level of health risk from air pollution, due to its association with a high number of deaths and respiratory illness and cancers [8]; for that reason, the government has imposed a maximum permissible limit of PM2.5 exposure which must not exceed 41 μg m−3 in 24 h.
PM2.5 composition includes organic and inorganic species, which must be identified to have a better understanding of their behavior in the ambient air. Among them, the water soluble inorganic ions (WSIIs), are of major interest since they are significant components of atmospheric aerosols, and precursors of acid rain and secondary aerosol formation [9,10]. Several studies have reported the presence of WSIIs in PM2.5 such as NO3, F, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, SO42−, NH4+, and PO43−, and high concentrations in the air indicate a serious environmental and health problem [11,12]. Some WSIIs are known as tracers of some emission sources, for instance, K+ is a biomass burning tracer [13]; Ca2+, PO43−, and Mg2+ are often associated with crustal, and Cl- is associated with biomass burning and soil dust [14]. Ions are associated with chemically complex mixtures that depend on hygroscopic properties and are usually found in 20 to 50% in the PM2.5 composition [15,16,17]. Acid rain formation is an important environmental damage process that involves the water dissolution of atmospheric SO2 and NO2, which are typically associated with emissions from industrial and mobile sources, to transform them into sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and nitric acid (HNO3), causing damage to people, the environment, and structures; additionally, SO2 and NO2 are important precursors in the formation of secondary aerosols such as (NH4)2SO4 and NH4NO3 [18,19].
WSII measurement and quantification are required to estimate their formation rate from SO2 and NO2, using the sulfur oxidation rate (SOR) and nitrogen oxidation rate (NOR) [20]. Moreover, the seasonal distribution of each WSII helps to determine the sources and chemical transformations generated in the atmosphere and the associated damage to human health [21]. Nevertheless, although many PM characterization and source reconciliation studies have been published, there are relatively few studies regarding WSI; in addition, most of them have been performed only in China. Models have been used to obtain better knowledge about pollutant species. On the one side, the HYSPLIT model has been applied to obtain the dispersion and trajectory of pollutants such as PM2.5. This tool provides the relationship between the origin of the wind masses and the receptor site [22]. On the other side, receptor models like PMF are useful to determine the main sources of PM2.5 and its WSII [23,24]. In this research, PM2.5 were collected in two sites in Mexico City during one whole year in order to carry out a comprehensive WSII research project that identified and quantified the ions, determined the ratio of equivalent anions and cations to estimate the sulfur and nitrogen oxidation rates (SOR and NOR), the PM2.5 acidity, WSII source contribution, as well as the identification of the path where the pollutants came from.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling Sites

For this study, two locations in Mexico City were selected (Figure 1). The first place was a building located at the Metropolitan Autonomous University Azcapotzalco (UAM), (19°30′13.6″ N 99°11′09.0″ W) 15 m above ground level; in this site, there are industrial activities that are carried out in the surroundings. The second site was La Merced (MER), a commercial and residential area in the downtown, where the equipment was installed on the high school building “Francisco Zarco”, about 14 m above ground level; this site is part of the Automatic Atmospheric Monitoring Network (RAMA), which is in charge of measuring air quality in different areas of Mexico City. PM2.5 aerosols were collected every 6 days for 24 h, from December 2021 to December 2022. The monitoring campaign was carried out in three seasons, cold-dry (CD) from November 2021 to February 2022, hot-dry (HD) from March to June 2022, and rain (RA) from July to November 2022, with two Tish Environmental High-Vol model TE 5007. Pre-calcinated quartz fiber filters (Whatmann), 20 cm × 25 cm were used. Meanwhile, the concentrations of NO2 and SO2 and meteorological information were monitored and obtained by RAMA.

2.2. Identification and Quantification of Water Soluble Inorganic Ions

The quartz filters were cut for different analyses. An area of 2.05 cm2 was selected for the ion measurements. Samples were extracted in 15 mL of ultrapure water with a resistivity of 18.2 MΩ*cm at 25 °C. All materials and high-density polyethylene bottles were cleaned with the same type of water. Ions were extracted via ultrasonic for 60 min < 35 °C and 37 Hz, followed by agitation (120 cycles) for 60 min and refrigeration for 12 h before reading. The aqueous extracts were analyzed by Ion Chromatography Metrohm 850 Professional (IC), with Metrosep C 4-100/4.0 and Metrosep A sup 7-250/4.0 ion exchange columns for cations and anions. Ion separation is based on their affinities for active sites; for anions, the analytical sample time was 39 min at a flow of 0.600 mL/min and a pressure of 16.01 MPa, whereas for cations, the analytical sample time was 15 min at a flow of 0.800 L/min and a pressure of 6.84 MPa.

2.3. Measurement of pH and Conductivity

Once the ions were measured via chromatography, a part of the aqueous extract was used for the pH determination using a Metrohm 916 Ti-Touch equipped with an electrode (pH 1–11). The equipment was calibrated with three buffer solutions with pH 4, 7, and 9 covering the entire range of samples. The conductivity for every sample was measured with a conductance meter YSI model 32 at 25 °C, and the equipment was calibrated with a Nist traceable standard solution TDS/Conductivity 442-15 (23.8 μs cm−1 at 25 °C).

2.4. Ion Balance and PM2.5 Acidity

The cation equivalent to anion equivalent ratio in moles (CE/AE) has been used as an indicator to reflect the PM2.5 potential acidity. Although it is only an empirical approach that strongly depends on the selection of ion species, it has been applied by many researchers who have considered the same ions identified in this study [25,26,27]. Anion equivalents (AE) and cation equivalents (CE) were calculated using the following equations:
C E = N a + 23 + ( N H 4 + ) 18 + ( K + ) 39 + ( M g 2 + ) 12 + ( C a 2 + ) 20  
A E = S O 4 2 48 + ( N O 3 ) 62 + ( C l ) 35.5 + ( F ) 19  
where [Na+], [NH4+], [K+], [Mg2+], [Ca2+], [SO42−], [NO3], [F], and [Cl] are the water soluble inorganic ion concentrations (nmol m−3), and AE and CE are the anion and cation equivalents (nmol m−3). If the CE/AE ratio is bigger than 1, PM2.5 is alkaline; otherwise if it is less than 1, PM2.5 is acidic [28]. Although F was measured in all samples, the concentrations were below detection limits. Other ions like NO2, Br, and Li+ were not measured due to their reported low concentrations in aerosol samples [29].

2.5. Conversion Flow Rate SOR and NOR

The conversion rate for NO2 and SO2 pollutants to secondary ions is estimated through the Sulfur Oxidation Rate (SOR) and Nitrogen Oxidation Rate (NOR) following the next equations [30]:
N O R = N O 3 N O 3 + N O 2
S O R = S O 4 2 S O 4 2 + S O 2
where [NO3] and [SO42−] are the ion molar concentrations, respectively, and NO2 and SO2 represent the airborne gas concentrations that were obtained from the automatic atmospheric monitoring network in the MER and CAM stations.

2.6. Aerosol Trajectories with HYSPLIT

An efficient tool to know the back trajectory of PM2.5 air mass is the Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model (HYSPLIT); this model needs variables such as wind speed and direction [31,32,33]. The model domain was considered at 2000 m above ground level (AGL) and receptor back trajectories were simulated to 20 m AGL for both sites. These simulations were for 24 h; the two receptor locations were the initiation sites, where backwards trajectories were performed and generated every hour to obtain 6 trajectories every 4 h. Hysplit outputs were post-processed with Mathlab and Arcmap in order to visualize all the outputs simultaneously; instead, only one output was shown for the Hysplit model.

2.7. Receptor Model Analysis PMF

Positive matrix factorization has been used to determine the relationship between the receptor and sources [34,35]. Two data files are required as input data to the model: the concentration data, and their associated uncertainty. The PMF was used for the specific data matrix X of I by j dimensions. In addition, i means number of samples and j speciation species with its associated uncertainties u. Prior knowledge of the type and number of sources is not necessary for the use of the PMF model [36]. The model objective is solving Equation (3) where p means the number of factors and species f of every source.
X i j = k = 1 p g i k f k j + e i j  
The value eij means the residual element-related sample and species. This multivariance factor analysis transforms a matrix of speciated samples in two ways, G factor contributions and F factor profiles. And the model seeks to minimize the function Q in Equation (4), where Uij is related to the uncertainty species.
Q = i = 1 m j = 1 n X i j k = 1 p g i k f i j U i j 2  
The apportionment performed with positive matrix factorization (PMF) has been used as a tool for source identification. The diagnostic ratios can provide the identification of each source using PM2.5 particle characterization and by finding the best solution, with the information based on the factor profiles of PM2.5 concentrations, ions, and NO2 and SO2 data from a number of samples (n = 60); this USEPA tool identifies the main associated sources (profile factors) and their contributions [37,38].

2.8. Quality Control and Quality Assurance

Hi-Vols were calibrated for each new season. All plastic bottles were cleaned more than four times using deionized water until the measured conductivity was <0.8 µs cm−1 to 25 °C. In order to eliminate all organic impurities, quartz filters were pre-calcinated at 600 °C and put to a constant weight at a relative humidity of 35 ± 5% and temperature of 20 ± 5 °C. Field blank samples were included with the same extraction treatment and were subtracted from the samples. The internal standard was added every 10 samples. The Method Detection Limit (MDL) was predefined for quality control: 0.02, 0.08, 0.11, 0.11, 0.02, 0.02, 0.02, 0.01, and 0.04 mg/L for F, Cl, SO42−, NO3, Na+, NH4+, K+, Mg2+, and Ca2+, respectively. Data validation and ionic balance were carried out with the determined species, and a comparison between the measured and the calculated conductivity was made [39].

2.9. Statistical Analysis

A Shapiro–Wilk test was applied to the data of each site, finding that the data had no normality behavior; then, Mann–Whitney U tests were applied to make comparisons between sites and seasons for each species (p < 0.05), using Tibco Statistica 14—Ultimate Academic Bundle 32/64-bit (Perpetual License, Czech) software.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. PM2.5 and Water Soluble Inorganic Ion Concentrations

The annual mean PM2.5 concentrations in UAM and MER were 28.4 ± 11.12 μg m−3 and 20.7 ± 8.4 μg m−3, respectively. These values are much higher than the annual limit proposed by the WHO guidelines (5 μg m−3), and exceeded, by a factor of 2.8 and 2.07, respectively, the Mexican national standard stated in the NOM-025-SSA1-2021 (10 μg m−3). UAM annual median concentrations were 1.5 times larger than in MER, presenting significant differences, due to the industrial emissions in the surroundings. The median PM2.5 concentrations are shown in Figure 2. The greatest PM2.5 concentrations were found in the CD season, especially in December, due to the cold weather, atmospheric stability, and human activities, while the lowest were in the RA season during September, which is associated with atmospheric conditions like washing by rain precipitation occurring in this season. Additionally, moisture plays an important role in the growth of aerosol particles, PM2.5 formation, and deposition. For the same reason, concentrations by season presented significant differences among RA compared with HD and CD in the UAM site, whereas in the MER, significant differences were found among the three seasons. Seasonal abundance concentrations were CD > HD > RA, in UAM, while in MER, the order was CD > RA > HD; this is because during the rainy season in MER, there was a work construction near the sampling site that increased the fine particle concentrations. Seasons CD and HD showed significant differences (p < 0.05) between UAM and MER. The correlation between UAM and MER concentrations was small (R2 = 0.48), suggesting different source contributions, as well as different meteorological conditions.
Figure 3 presents the precursor gases serial times of SO42− and NO3 in the two sites. NO2 concentrations are around 1.6 times higher than SO2, and it can be noted that trends have some differences, which are due to meteorological conditions and sources. SO2 and NO2 had higher concentrations in UAM because this site is near several industrial areas and there is high vehicular activity which impacts the air quality.
The trends of major ions have some similarities in each location, suggesting similar sources in the surroundings; nevertheless, important differences can be appreciated between the two sites, indicating that ion sources or their contributions are not the same (Figure 4). Higher concentrations in UAM are also due to the nearby industrial facilities.
Table 1 displays the WSII and PM2.5 concentration basic statistics. The three ions, known as SNA, presented the following abundance order, SO42− > NO3 > NH4+, contributing from 50% to 70% of the total ions. Cl- and alkaline ions K+ and Mg2+ presented the lowest contributions. The WSII annual average concentrations were 10.9 ± 1.7 μg m−3 in UAM and in MER they were 10.07 ± 1.6 μg m−3. The highest sum of ion concentrations was in the CD season with 12.7 ±1.7 μg m−3 and 11.9 ± 1.5 μg m−3 in UAM and MER, respectively; meanwhile, in the HD season, the WSII sums were 10.5 ± 1.5 μg m−3 and 8.7 ± 1.1 μg m−3 for UAM and MER, respectively. However, in the RA season, the WSII sum was slightly greater in MER than in UAM due to the construction works mentioned above.

3.2. Ion Balance and Seasonal Acidity

The ionic balance applied to verify the WSII measurements’ validity is presented in Figure 5 for each site, exhibiting high determination coefficients (R2) between PM2.5 cations and anions (µeq L−1): UAM: R2 = 0.81 (a) and MER: R2 = 0.90 (b). The correlation between the measured ions and conductivity (c) yielded a good correlation (R2 = 0.92), meaning good ion chromatography measurements. The annual averages of PM2.5 conductivities in UAM and MER were 14.6 ± 0.9 μs cm−1 and 10.4 ± 2.2 μs cm−1, respectively, showing lower ion concentrations in the second site as well, as the ion measurements exhibited.
Figure 6 presents the UAM and MER CE/AE ratios from all of the samples. In all cases, ratios were slightly lower than one, suggesting PM2.5 have a weak acidic or neutral behavior, and indicating the deficiency of cations to neutralize anions. It has also been indicated that some organic acid anions could be adsorbed in the aerosol [26,40]. The seasonal ratio variation in UAM was HD > CD > RA with average values of 0.9, 0.85, and 0.8, respectively, while in MER, the seasonal ratio variation was CD > HD > RA with average values of 0.97 (practically neutral), 0.9, and 0.8. The pH values measured in UAM were 6.29, 6.03, and 6.06 in the HD, CD, and RA seasons, respectively, while in MER, the values were 6.27, 5.79, and 5.92 for the same seasons, confirming the PM2.5 acid character determined using the ions. These results are in agreement with those of Guo et al. [41] and Geng et al. [42] but are opposite to those of Yin et al. [26] who presented values greater than one, probably due to the excess of alkaline ions.

3.3. Water Soluble Ion Concentrations

Ion concentrations accounted for 39.6 ± 5.7% and 49.5 ± 3.9% of PM2.5 mass in UAM and MER, respectively, presenting significant differences. The rest of the PM mass was composed of carbonaceous and silica materials not assessed in this work. WSII percentages are shown in Figure 7 by site and season. The most abundant ion was by far the SO42−, with more than 40% of the WSII mass, followed by NH4+ and NO3 in both sites, which is in accordance with reported studies in other countries [43,44]. The high SO42− contribution indicates direct gas emissions followed by atmospheric reactions and secondary aerosol formation [45].

3.4. Water Soluble Inorganic Ion Concentrations

Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the most and least abundant WSII concentrations. Although the most abundant anions and cations (SNA), SO42−, NO3, and NH4+, had higher concentrations in UAM than in MER, they did not present significant statistical differences in the annual averages, although there were some differences between seasons. NH4+ presented its highest concentration in the HD season with 1.98 ± 1.4 μg m−3 in UAM, but there were no statistically significant differences.
With the exception of Ca2+ and PO43− which had higher annual average concentrations in MER than in UAM with statistically significant differences, the other ions with less abundant concentrations had no differences; the reason for that may be due to the construction work close to the MER site that took several months and increased the Ca2+ and PO43- emissions; moreover, these ions presented some significant differences among different seasons, since the main source is crustal.

3.5. Sulfur Oxidation Rate and Nitrogen Oxidation Rate

The annual averages of NOR and SOR, related to the atmospheric conversion of SO2 and NO2 into secondary aerosols, are shown in Figure 10. In both sites, SOR was up 5 to 20 times larger than NOR which is consistent with other studies [26,46]. The SOR annual median was 0.21 ± 0.06 and the three seasons and sites had similar SOR results, ranging between 0.21 and 3.4. These values indicate that sulfate secondary aerosol production was high, since SO2 photochemical oxidation to SO42− takes place when SOR is greater than 0.1 [46,47]. Other authors have reported the lowest SOR values during winter, due to it being the season when solar radiation decreases, and this condition does not favor the SO2 oxidation that involves also the OH- radical with further condensation and sorption into the PM2.5 [26]. Nevertheless, in Mexico City, the UV radiation intensity is very high (11–15, on the WHO scale) from the beginning of February to the end of October, but it is high (7–10 on the WHO scale) during the other months. Then, the SO2 photochemical oxidation is favored the whole year, maybe due to the saturation of the gas–ion transformation.
The NOR annual median was 0.015 ± 0.01, with higher values during the CD and the RA seasons in UAM and MER respectively, ranging from 0.01 to 0.06 with no significant differences between the sites; these small values indicate that the secondary transformation of NO2 was low since NOR is much lower than 0.1 and that NO3- comes mainly from primary source emissions [46]. In Mexico City, NO2 emissions are produced primarily by vehicles, industries, and the power plants located to the north of the city, and both sites have important avenues close to the monitoring stations. The lowest NOR values were observed during the HD seasons, with values up to six times smaller, because this season’s experiments took place under high temperatures. Additionally, the secondary aerosol formed (NH4NO3), which can be evaporated and discomposed into its precursor gases SO2 and HNO3; this behavior has been described in other works where higher NOR values are observed in cold seasons in comparison with spring and summer [26,48].

3.6. Molar Ratios

MER presented a higher correlation between molar concentrations of SO42− and NH4+ (R2 = 0.7) than in UAM (R2 = 0.53), whereas correlations between NH4+ and NO3 were lower in both sites: MER with R2 = 0.49 and UAM with R2 = 0.18. These results suggest that in MER, the anthropogenic emission sources of those three ions have higher similarities than in UAM. Figure 11 illustrates the relationships between the average ions of both sites. The relationship between NH4+ and the sum of the two cations indicates the neutralization of sulfate and nitrate by the ammonium. The low concentration of NH4NO3 may be due to it having a higher vapor pressure than (NH4)2SO4; then, this last compound is formed before NH4NO3. Moreover, when NH4+/SO42− is > 2, the aerosol is ammonium rich, but in the two sites in Mexico City, this ratio is <1 meaning it is ammonium-poor, and NH4NO3 is maybe more related to crustal species [46].

3.7. Meteorological Information

Table 2 shows the values of wind speed during the sampling period, with the predominant wind direction from the northwest and north, with the exception of HD in MER when the winds come from the southeast.
The primary wind direction showed an influence from the industrial zone, located to the north of the city, affecting mainly UAM and further MER as a receptor site. Secondly, although on a minor scale, the MER site had influences of south and northeast winds several days of the year, modifying the impact from the industrial zone. As was mentioned before, high temperatures favor aerosol production, although UV radiation is the most important variable. The mechanism production of secondary aerosols is related to atmospheric moisture; during RA and CD seasons, RH > 50, meaning that sulfate and nitrate were primarily produced by aqueous-phase SO2 oxidation, rather than through gas-phase conversion [46].

3.8. Hysplit Backward Trajectories

UAM site backward trajectory analysis was performed for the day with the highest PM2.5 concentration (5 January 2022); that day, the air masses were brought to the sampling site from the northwest, passing through large areas of industrial activities to the north of the city. Meanwhile, on the day with the lowest concentration (22 June 2022), the PM2.5 masses crossed from the northeast, and despite passing through one of the industrial zones, winds did not pass through both industrial zones, showing, as a consequence, a lower contribution of industrial emissions for that day. A similar effect occurred in MER where on the most polluted day (19 December 2022), the main backward trajectories were from the northwest passing over the industrial zone, whereas on the day with the lowest PM2.5 concentration, the air masses arrived from the northwest, while in the UAM and MER.
The highest PM2.5 concentrations on the selected days were not only related to the climatological conditions in the CD season but could also be associated with an air mass recirculation phenomenon in the trajectories for both sites. When the air masses circulate around a specific area, they produce resuspension and high pollutant concentrations, favoring bad air quality and possible transport from other sites, as can be seen in Figure 12 and Figure 13. When city conditions do not allow adequate air mass dispersion, this can cause an increase in the concentration [49]; on the opposite side, on the days that presented the lowest concentration, the trajectories continued straight without presenting the recirculation phenomenon.

3.9. Positive Matrix Factorization Model

PMF was applied to the 120 data (UAM and MER), where the identified factors corresponded to Factor 1: Vehicular and crustal; Factor 2: secondary aerosols; and Factor 3: industrial and biomass burning. Factor profiles achieved by PMF can include contributions from different sources since they can have similar chemical profiles [23]. In this research, two of the determined factors had mixed sources. Further, the model was applied to each site in order to identify differences between the two locations, obtaining good fit and convergence, despite applying the model with a lesser amount of data, since it is capable of compensating for missing data by achieving the means of the input data. The identified sources were the same, but with different contributions, as can be seen in Table 3 which displays the percentage of each species in the source.
Figure 14 shows the source profiles for each site derived from the PMF model. For the UAM site, Factor 1 had high contributions of NO2, which is a known tracer of vehicular emissions [50]. NO3 and SO42− are constituents of vehicular resuspended dust, since a main avenue is close to the site. Moreover, some vehicular emissions control devices have been associated with the NH3 emissions that could undergo a transformation to secondary NH4+ in the vehicular resuspended dust [51]. This first source contributed 54% of PM2.5 mass. In Factor 1, crustal is the second source, characterized mainly by specific inorganic ions such as PO43−, Na+, K+, Ca2+, and Mg2+ [14,52] and it contributed 2% of PM2.5 mass. The second factor is related also to two sources, one of them being the secondary inorganic aerosols, accounting for 25% of PM2.5 concentration, characterized by high NH4+, NO3, and SO42− [53,54,55]; the other source of this factor contributed 1% of PM2.5 concentration, and is related to the K+ that is a biomass-burning tracer with the associated ion Na+ [56]. Factor 3 contributed 12% of PM2.5 mass and is high in Cl derived from coal combustion, which plays an important role in this ion’s formation, and is used in industrial activities where SO2 and NO2 gasses are emitted [14,57].
The second Factor was able to determine the two same sources identified in UAM, secondary aerosols related to the high presence of NO3, SO42−, and NH4+ ions, accounting for 20% of particle mass [58,59], and the biomass burning identified by the presence of K+, with a contribution of <2%. The third Factor was associated with crustal dust due to high Na+, Mg2+, and low PO43− (Figure 15).
The summary of the sources found with the PMF model is presented in Figure 16. Vehicular resuspended dust and emissions were the highest contributors to UAM and MER with 57.5% and 50%, respectively, since sites are located close to main avenues. The accounting of secondary aerosols was practically identical in both sites, showing that there were similar mixtures of their precursor gases in the two zones. The larger apportionment of the crustal source in MER is attributed to the construction work near the area, and the influence of the industrial zones in MER is evident, with a contribution of around 13% versus 3% in MER. The biomass burning had a minimal contribution in UAM.
The comparison of WSII concentrations and their source apportionment in this research, compared to other urban sites, is shown in Table 4. With the exception of Tetuan in Morocco, Mexico City presented the lowest PM2.5 and WSII concentrations among the cities due to different sources and industrialization.
SO42−, NH4+, and NO3 (SNA) accounted for 32.9%, on average, of the total PM2.5 mass in Mexico City sites, which is similar to SNA measured in Jiangsu, China [60], and Tetuan in Morocco [54], but lower than in Wuhan [61], Nanjing [62], and Lyliang [51], which are Chinese industrial cities. On the opposite hand, this study recorded SNA concentrations two times higher than in the study performed during the spring in Lanzhou [63] where 17% of monitoring days presented dust storms, increasing crustal ions with the decrease in NO3- and NH4+ levels.
Regarding the contribution of secondary aerosol to PM2.5 total mass, this study shows similar percentages to most Chinese cities, with the exception of Lanzhou in the storm season and Lyliang, where secondary aerosol contribution is too high (43%) due to great industrialization, ranking first, third, and fourth for soot, sulfur dioxide, and industrial dust emissions, respectively, in China [63].

4. Conclusions

This research reports the water soluble inorganic ion (WSII) characterization in PM2.5 as well as the ion source apportionment in two sites in Mexico City over one year. The annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the Metropolitan Autonomous University and Merced were 28.4 ± 11.1 μg m−3 and 20.7 ± 8.3 μg m−3, respectively, both exceeding the OMS air quality guidelines. Seasonal variations in PM2.5 and WSII were CD > HD > RA in both sites, due mainly to weather conditions and impacts from industrial zones. Water-soluble inorganic ions had contributions between 40 and 50% of PM2.5 total mass, and SO42−, NH4+, and NO3 (SNA) concentrations were the most abundant ions, representing 50–70% of the total ions; these concentrations are lower than those reported in Chinese industrialized cities. Differences between the two sites are due to differences in sources, weather, and impacts from industrial zones, as was shown by wind roses and source apportionment by the PMF model. The CE/AE ratios for UAM and MER were lower than one, indicating PM2.5 acidity, which was confirmed with direct pH measurements. This acidity is a characteristic of the Mexico City atmosphere, which is different to other cities in China with excess alkaline ions in their atmosphere. This is confirmed by the relationships among the SNA ions, showing a poor ammonium atmosphere with low NH4NO3 formation. Moreover, the NOR median annual values for UAM and MER were 0.01 ± 0.02 and 0.02 ± 0.009, respectively, showing the lowest levels in the hot dry season where high temperatures can evaporate the formed nitrate secondary aerosol. On the contrary, SOR values were 0.21 ± 0.06 and 0.28 ± 0.03, respectively, indicating the high production of sulfate secondary aerosols because high solar radiation during the whole year in Mexico City promotes the SO2 photochemical transformation to sulfate secondary aerosol. Backward trajectories with the Hysplit model performed at 20 m demonstrated that during the most polluted days, a recirculation phenomenon of winds was presented, raising the dust resuspension and accumulation of pollutants. WSII source apportionment in 2022 was comprehensively analyzed applying the PMF model, meaning that their major sources were the vehicular emissions and resuspended dust, followed by secondary aerosols in both sites. But, in MER, the third source was crustal dust, whereas in UAM it was the industrial emissions. These results are useful for policy makers since they provide evidence for carrying out inspections of industrial emissions and for tightening sulfur and nitrogen dioxide emission standards, which not only impact the closest areas, but also more remote receiving sites.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.M.-V. and V.M.-Á.; Methodology: R.S.-E. and A.L.A.-J.; Formal Analysis: J.d.J.F.-L.; Software: F.M.-V.; Validation: B.L.V.-H.; Writing review and revision: M.T.-R.; Project administration and funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

CONAHCyT project 316644.

Data Availability Statement

Data could be shared as request.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the 316642 CONAHCyT project. The authors thank the personnel of SCA-ICA y CC UNAM, Mónica Solano Murillo, for her help in analysis; to the UAM-A Basic Sciences department for the support; and the NOAA Air Resources Laboratory is acknowledged for provision of the HYSPLIT model and the READY website used in this research. F. Millán acknowledges a graduate scholarship from CONAHCYT.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Global Guidelines on Air Quality: Suspended Particles (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide. Summary [WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034228 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
  2. Maya, A.; Del Pilar, M.; Posada, P.I.M.; Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.E. Remoción de contaminantes atmosféricos por el bosque urbano en el valle de Aburrá. Colomb. For. 2019, 22, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Correa, M.A.; Franco, S.A.; Gómez, L.M.; Aguiar, D.; Colorado, H.A. Characterization Methods of Ions and Metals in Partic-ulate Matter Pollutants on PM2.5 and PM10 Samples from Several Emission Sources. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, D.; Qu, W.J.; Cao, G.L.; Zhang, X.Y.; Che, H.Z. (Analysis of water-soluble species in emission particulate from regional stalk burning and their emission factors). China Powder Sci. Technol. 2008, 29, 305–309. [Google Scholar]
  5. Parrish, D.D.; Kuster, W.C.; Shao, M.; Yokouchi, Y.; Kondo, Y.; Goldan, P.D.; de Gouw, J.A.; Koike, M.; Shirai, T. Comparison of air pollutant emissions among mega-cities. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 6435–6441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mugica, V.; Ortiz, E.; Molina, L.; De Vizcaya-Ruiz, A.; Nebot, A.; Quintana, R.; Aguilar, J.; Alcántara, E. PM Composition and Source Reconciliation in Mexico City. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 5068–5074. [Google Scholar]
  7. Molina, L.; Molina, M.J. (Eds.) Air Quality in the Mexico Megacity: An Integrated Assessment; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  8. WHO. Air Quality Deteriorating in Many of the World’s Cities. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/07-05-2014-air-quality-deteriorating-in-many-of-the-world-s-cities (accessed on 30 September 2023).
  9. IPCC, Climate Change. The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2007; p. 996. [Google Scholar]
  10. Zhang, L.; Vet, R.; Wiebe, A.; Mihele, C.; Sukloff, B.; Chan, E.; Moran, M.D.; Iqbal, S. Characterization of the size-segregated water-soluble inorganic ions at eight Canadian rural sites. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2008, 8, 7133–7151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, T.; Cao, J.J.; Tie, X.X.; Shen, Z.X.; Liu, S.X.; Ding, H.; Li, W.T. Water-soluble ions in atmospheric aerosols measured in Xi’an, China: Seasonal variations and sources. Atmos. Res. 2011, 102, 110–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Salam, A.; Assaduzzaman; Hossain, M.N.; Alam Siddiki, A.K.M.N. Water Soluble Ionic Species in the Atmospheric Fine Particulate Matters (PM2.5) in a Southeast Asian Mega City (Dhaka, Bangladesh). Open J. Air Pollut. 2015, 4, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rogula-Kozłowska, W.; Błaszczak, B.; Szopa, S.; Klejnowski, K.; Sówka, I.; Zwoździak, A.; Jabłońska, M.; Mathews, B. PM2.5 in the central part of Upper Silesia, Poland: Concentrations, elemental composition, and mobility of components. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 581–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, Z.; Xie, Y.; Hu, B.; Wen, T.; Xin, J.; Li, X.; Wang, Y. Size-resolved aerosol water-soluble ions during the summer and winter seasons in Beijing: Formation mechanisms of secondary inorganic aerosols. Chemosphere 2017, 183, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Farren, N.J.; Dunmore, R.E.; Mead, M.I.; Nadzir, M.S.M.; Abu Samah, A.; Phang, S.-M.; Bandy, B.J.; Sturges, W.T.; Hamilton, J.F. Chemical characterisation of water-soluble ions in atmospheric particulate matter on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2019, 19, 1537–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. He, Q.; Yan, Y.; Guo, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, G.; Wang, X. Characterization and source analysis of water-soluble inorganic ionic species in PM2.5 in Taiyuan city, China. Atmos. Res. 2017, 184, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Han, L.; Cheng, S.; Zhuang, G.; Ning, H.; Wang, H.; Wei, W.; Zhao, X. The changes and long-range transport of PM2.5 in Beijing in the past decade. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 110, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Berner, E.K. Acid Rain and Acid Deposition; Salem Press Encyclopedia of Science; Grey House Publishing: Amenia, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zhang, Y.; Tang, A.; Wang, C.; Ma, X.; Li, Y.; Xu, W.; Xia, X.; Zheng, A.; Li, W.; Fang, Z.; et al. PM2.5 and water-soluble inorganic ion concentrations decreased faster in urban than rural areas in China. J. Environ. Sci. 2022, 122, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Sun, Y.-C.; Jiang, N.; Wang, S.-B.; Duan, S.-G.; Zahng, R.-Q. Seasonal Characteristics and Source Analysis of Water-Soluble Ions in PM2.5 of Anyang City. Huan Jing Ke Xue 2020, 41, 75–81. [Google Scholar]
  21. Salam, A.; Bauer, H.; Kassin, K.; Ullah, S.M.; Puxbaum, H. Aerosol Chemical Characteristics of a MegaCity in Southeast Asia (Dhaka, Bangladesh). Atmos. Environ. 2003, 37, 2517–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rolph, G.D.; Ngan, F.; Draxler, R.R. Modeling the fallout from stabilized nuclear clouds using the HYSPLIT atmospheric dis-persion model. J. Environ. Radioact. 2014, 136, 41–55.5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cesari, D.; Donateo, A.; Conte, M.; Merico, E.; Giangreco, A.; Giangreco, F.; Contini, D. An inter-comparison of PM2.5 at urban and urban background sites: Chemical characterization and source apportionment. Atmos. Res. 2016, 174, 106–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Belis, C.; Karagulian, F.; Amato, F.; Almeida, M.; Artaxo, P.; Beddows, D.; Bernardoni, V.; Bove, M.; Carbone, S.; Cesari, D.; et al. A new methodology to assess the performance and uncertainty of source apportionment models II: The results of two European intercomparison exercises. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 123, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Meng, C.; Wang, L.; Zhang, F.; Wei, Z.; Ma, S.; Ma, X.; Yang, J. Characteristics of concentrations and water-soluble inorganic ions in PM2.5 in Handan City, Hebei province, China. Atmos. Res. 2016, 171, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yin, L.; Niu, Z.; Chen, X.; Chen, J.; Zhang, F.; Xu, L. Characteristics of water-soluble inorganic ions in PM2.5 and PM2.5–10 in the coastal urban agglomeration along the Western Taiwan Strait Region, China. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 5141–5156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Chow, J.C.; Fujita, E.M.; Watson, J.G.; Lu, Z.; Lawson, D.R.; Ashbaugh, L.L. Evaluation of filter-based aerosol measurements during the 1987 Southern California Air Quality Study. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1994, 30, 49–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Li, T.-C.; Yuan, C.-S.; Huang, H.-C.; Lee, C.-L.; Wu, S.-P.; Tong, C. Inter-comparison of seasonal variation, chemical characteristics, and source identification of atmospheric fine particles on both sides of the Taiwan strait. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 22956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Xu, J.; Song, S.; Harrison, R.M.; Song, C.; Wei, L.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, Y.; Lei, L.; Zhang, C.; Yao, X.; et al. An interlaboratory comparison of aerosol inorganic ion measurements by ion chromatography: Implications for aerosol pH estimate. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2020, 13, 6325–6341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zheng, H.; Kong, S.; Yan, Q.; Wu, F.; Cheng, Y.; Zheng, S.; Wu, J.; Yang, G.; Zheng, M.; Tang, L.; et al. The impacts of pollution control measures on PM2.5 reduction: Insights of chemical composition, source variation and health risk. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 197, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hernández-Moreno, A.; Trujillo-Páez, F.I.; Mugica-Álvarez, V. Quantification of primary PM2.5 Mass Exchange in three Mexican Megalopolis Metropolitan Areas. Urban Clim. 2023, 51, 101608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nan, J.; Ke, W.; Xue, Y.; Fangcheng, S.; Shasha, Y.; Qiang, L.; Ruiqin, Z. Chemical Characteristics and Source Apportionment by Two Receptor Models of Size-segregated Aerosols in an Emerging Megacity in China. Aerosol Air Qual. 2018, 18, 1375–1390. [Google Scholar]
  33. Wang, Y.Q. MeteoInfo: GIS software for meteorological data visualization and analysis. Meteorol. Appl. 2014, 21, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xie, Y.; Lu, H.; Yi, A.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, N.; Fang, X.; Xiao, H. Characterization and source analysis of water–soluble ions in PM2.5 at a background site in Central China. Atmos. Res. 2020, 239, 104881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hernández-López, A.E.; del Campo, J.M.M.; Mugica-Álvarez, V.; Hernández-Valle, B.L.; Mejía-Ponce, L.V.; Pineda-Santamaría, J.C.; Reynoso-Cruces, S.; Mendoza-Flores, J.A.; Rozanes-Valenzuela, D. A study of PM2.5 elemental composition in southwest mexico city and development of receptor models with positive matrix factorization. Rev. Int. De Contam. Ambient. 2020, 37, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shen, Z.; Cao, J.; Arimoto, R.; Han, Y.; Zhu, C.; Tian, J.; Liu, S. Chemical Characteristics of Fine Particles (PM1) from Xi’an, China. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, Q.; Jiang, N.; Yu, X.; Dong, Z.; Duan, S.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, R. Sources and spatial distribution of PM2.5-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Zhengzhou. Atmos. Res. 2016, 216, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jang, E.; Alam, M.S.; Harrison, R.M. Source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban air using positive matrix factorization and spatial distribution analysis. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 79, 271–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Allan, M.A. Manual for the GAW Precipitation Chemistry Program: Guidelines, Data Quality Objectives and Standard Operating Procedures; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
  40. Tian, S.; Pan, Y.; Wang, Y. Ion balance and acidity of size-segregated particles during haze episodes in urban Beijing. Atmos. Res. 2018, 201, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guo, Q.; Chen, K.; Xu, G. Characteristics and Sources of Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions in PM2.5 in Urban Nanjing, China. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Geng, N.; Wang, J.; Xu, Y. PM2.5 in an industrial district of Zhengzhou, China: Chemical composition and source 309 appor-tionment. Particuology 2013, 11, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Budhavant, K.B.; Rao, P.S.P.; Safai, P.D.; Gawhane, R.D.; Raju, M.P. Chemistry of rainwater and aerosols over Bay of Bengal during CTCZ program. J. Atmos. Chem. 2010, 65, 171–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xiong, C.; Yu, S.; Chen, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Li, M.; Liu, W.; Li, P.; Seinfeld, J.H. Dominant Contributions of Secondary Aerosols and Vehicle Emissions to Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions of PM2.5 in an Urban Site in the Metropolitan Hangzhou, China. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sitaras, I.E.; Siskos, P.A. The role of primary and secondary air pollutants in atmospheric pollution: Athens urban area as a case study. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2008, 6, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, R.; Sun, X.; Shi, A.; Huang, Y.; Yan, J.; Nie, T.; Yan, X.; Li, X. Secondary inorganic aerosols formation during haze episodes at an urban site in Beijing, China. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 177, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yao, X.; Chan, C.K.; Fang, M.; Cadle, S.; Chan, T.; Mulawa, P.; He, K.; Ye, B. The water-soluble ionic composition of PM2.5 in Shanghai and Beijing, China. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 4223–4234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Suzuki, I.; Hayashi, K.; Igarashi, Y.; Takahashi, H.; Sawa, Y.; Ogura, N.; Akagi, T.; Dokiya, Y. Seasonal variation of water-soluble ion species in the atmospheric aerosols at the summit of Mt. Fuji. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 8027–8035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. IBC-CSIC. Estudio de Evaluación Preliminar de Niveles de Hidrocarburos Aromáticos Policiclicos (PAHs) en Aire Ambiente en la Comunidad Autónoma de Aragon Durante el Periodo Estival. DGA-Dpto. Medio Ambiente. 2009, 17–35. Available online: http://docplayer.es/148271981-Estudio-de-evaluacion-preliminar-de-niveles-de-hidrocarburos-aromaticos-policiclicos.html (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  50. Alvarado, A.S.; Luján, P.M.; Bomblat, C. Modelación de las emisiones del parque automotor en la ciudad de Cochabam-ba-Bolivia. Acta Nova 2004, 2, 475–492. [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, T.; Mu, L.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, X.; Feng, C.; Zheng, L. Characteristics and source apportionment of water-soluble inorganic ions in atmospheric particles in Lvliang, China. Environ. Geochem. Health 2023, 45, 4203–4217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kim, S.; Kim, T.-Y.; Yi, S.-M.; Heo, J. Source apportionment of PM2.5 using positive matrix factorization (PMF) at a rural site in Korea. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 214, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cui, Y.; Yin, Y.; Chen, K.; Zhang, X.; Kuang, X.; Jiang, H.; Wang, H.; Zhen, Z.; He, C. Characteristics and sources of WSI in North China Plain: A simultaneous measurement at the summit and foot of Mount Tai. J. Environ. Sci. 2020, 92, 264–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Benchrif, A.; Guinot, B.; Bounakhla, M.; Cachier, H.; Damnati, B.; Baghdad, B. Aerosols in Northern Morocco: Input pathways and their chemical fingerprint. Atmos. Environ. 2018, 174, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zhang, R.; Jing, J.; Tao, J.; Hsu, S.-C.; Wang, G.; Cao, J.; Lee, C.S.L.; Zhu, L.; Chen, Z.; Zhao, Y.; et al. Chemical characterization and source apportionment of PM2.5 in Beijing: Seasonal perspective. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, 7053–7074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Chen, Y.-C.; Shie, R.-H.; Zhu, J.-J.; Hsu, C.-Y. A hybrid methodology to quantitatively identify inorganic aerosol of PM2.5 source contribution. J. Hazard. Mater. 2022, 428, 128173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. He, J. Pollution haven hypothesis and environmental impacts of foreign direct investment: The case of industrial emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Chinese provinces. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 60, 228–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bi, X.; Dai, Q.; Wu, J.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, W.; Luo, R.; Cheng, Y.; Zhang, J.; Wang, L.; Yu, Z.; et al. Characteristics of the main primary source profiles of particulate matter across China from 1987 to 2017. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2019, 19, 3223–3243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dai, L.; Wang, L.; Li, L.; Liang, T.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, C.; Xing, B. Multivariate geostatistical analysis and source identification of heavy metals in the sediment of Poyang Lake in China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2018, 621, 1433–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cui, Y.; Zhu, L.; Wang, H.; Zhao, Z.; Ma, S.; Ye, Z. Characteristics and Oxidative Potential of Ambient PM2.5 in the Yangtze River Delta Region: Pollution Level and Source Apportionment. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ding, L.; Fang, X.; Dong, H.; Zhao, W. Characteristics of PM2.5 water-soluble ions and source identification during springtime 2017 in Wuhan. Ekoloji 2019, 28, 505–515. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gong, J.; Tao, M.; Liu, Q.; Ding, C.; Li, P.; Schauer, J.J. Sources of Aerosol Acidity at a Suburban Site of Nanjing and Their Associations with Chlorophyll Depletion. ACS Earth Space Chem. 2021, 5, 3437–3447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cheng, B.; Ma, Y.; Li, H.; Feng, F.; Zhang, Y.; Qin, P. Water-soluble ions and source apportionment of PM2.5 depending on synoptic weather patterns in an urban environment in spring dust season. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 21953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Sampling sites in Mexico City. Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM), Merced (MER).
Figure 1. Sampling sites in Mexico City. Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM), Merced (MER).
Atmosphere 14 01585 g001
Figure 2. PM2.5 concentration per season in Mexico City: (CD) Cold Dry, (HD) Hot Dry, (RA) Rain. (□ median value; horizontal lines in the box are the 25 and 75% percentiles, respectively; the bottom and top whiskers are the 5 and 95% percentiles, respectively. Red and blue lines are Mexican PM2.5 standard and WHO guidelines).
Figure 2. PM2.5 concentration per season in Mexico City: (CD) Cold Dry, (HD) Hot Dry, (RA) Rain. (□ median value; horizontal lines in the box are the 25 and 75% percentiles, respectively; the bottom and top whiskers are the 5 and 95% percentiles, respectively. Red and blue lines are Mexican PM2.5 standard and WHO guidelines).
Atmosphere 14 01585 g002
Figure 3. Serial times of secondary aerosol precursor gases.
Figure 3. Serial times of secondary aerosol precursor gases.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g003
Figure 4. Serial times of major ions SO42−, NO3, and NH4+ (SNA) in UAM and MER.
Figure 4. Serial times of major ions SO42−, NO3, and NH4+ (SNA) in UAM and MER.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g004
Figure 5. PM2.5 cation and anion ratio in Mexico City, (a) UAM, (b) MER, (c) total measured/calculated conductivity.
Figure 5. PM2.5 cation and anion ratio in Mexico City, (a) UAM, (b) MER, (c) total measured/calculated conductivity.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g005
Figure 6. Anion–cation ratio in PM2.5 in Mexico City.
Figure 6. Anion–cation ratio in PM2.5 in Mexico City.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g006
Figure 7. Percentages of individual ions to the total WSII mass. It is possible to observe that contributions to the WSII are not the same in the sites nor in the different seasons because the source contributions can be different, the weather varies, as well as the speed and wind direction. The lower K+ concentrations were during the rainy season; this can be explained because this ion is a biomass-burning tracer, and, in that season, there were no wildfires.
Figure 7. Percentages of individual ions to the total WSII mass. It is possible to observe that contributions to the WSII are not the same in the sites nor in the different seasons because the source contributions can be different, the weather varies, as well as the speed and wind direction. The lower K+ concentrations were during the rainy season; this can be explained because this ion is a biomass-burning tracer, and, in that season, there were no wildfires.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g007
Figure 8. Most abundant WSII in PM2.5. (□ median value; horizontal lines in the boxes are the 25 and 75% percentiles, respectively; and the bottom and the top whiskers are the 5 and 95% percentiles, respectively).
Figure 8. Most abundant WSII in PM2.5. (□ median value; horizontal lines in the boxes are the 25 and 75% percentiles, respectively; and the bottom and the top whiskers are the 5 and 95% percentiles, respectively).
Atmosphere 14 01585 g008
Figure 9. Less abundant WSII in PM2.5. (□ median value; horizontal lines in the boxes are the 25 and 75% percentiles, respectively; and the bottom and the top whiskers are the 5 and 95% percentiles, respectively).
Figure 9. Less abundant WSII in PM2.5. (□ median value; horizontal lines in the boxes are the 25 and 75% percentiles, respectively; and the bottom and the top whiskers are the 5 and 95% percentiles, respectively).
Atmosphere 14 01585 g009
Figure 10. Variations in NOR and SOR in UAM and MER during different seasons.
Figure 10. Variations in NOR and SOR in UAM and MER during different seasons.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g010
Figure 11. Relationships between SO42−, NO3, and NH4+ in Mexico City.
Figure 11. Relationships between SO42−, NO3, and NH4+ in Mexico City.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g011
Figure 12. Back trajectories UAM (NOAA Hysplit model). Domain 2000 m; modeled receptor height 20 m.
Figure 12. Back trajectories UAM (NOAA Hysplit model). Domain 2000 m; modeled receptor height 20 m.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g012
Figure 13. Back trajectories MER (NOAA Hysplit model). Domain 2000 m; modeled receptor height 20 m.
Figure 13. Back trajectories MER (NOAA Hysplit model). Domain 2000 m; modeled receptor height 20 m.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g013
Figure 14. PM2.5 source profiles in UAM from December 2021 to December 2022.
Figure 14. PM2.5 source profiles in UAM from December 2021 to December 2022.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g014
Figure 15. PM2.5 source profiles in MER from December 2021 to December 2022 period.
Figure 15. PM2.5 source profiles in MER from December 2021 to December 2022 period.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g015
Figure 16. Source contribution by site, December 2021–December 2022 period.
Figure 16. Source contribution by site, December 2021–December 2022 period.
Atmosphere 14 01585 g016
Table 1. Descriptive Statistic of PM2.5, gases, and water-soluble inorganic ions (μg m−3).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistic of PM2.5, gases, and water-soluble inorganic ions (μg m−3).
SITE/SPECIESN *MeanMedianMinMaxSDVC
UAM
PM2.56128.428.511.262.311.239.4
SO25412.78.83.949.69.978.1
NO25546.448.33.893.920.544.2
Cl230.10.10.00.10.045.5
SO42−254.84.00.99.02.450.6
Na+250.80.80.41.10.229.1
2+250.10.10.00.20.063.3
Ca2+250.90.70.02.80.776.5
NO3251.70.80.07.42.2125.8
K+210.20.20.00.40.161.8
NH4+251.81.70.04.71.161.4
PO43−230.90.90.02.00.558.4
MER
PM2.56120.718.88.841.18.440.4
SO2547.85.52.135.26.887.1
NO25746.151.53.497.124.052.1
Cl230.10.10.01.90.4263.6
SO42−244.33.40.513.43.071.4
Na+230.90.80.51.40.331.4
2+240.10.10.00.20.062.9
Ca2+240.50.30.03.10.7141.6
NO3241.90.90.09.72.3126.3
K+240.20.10.02.60.5240.6
NH4+241.40.90.14.81.285.4
PO43−231.31.40.02.20.647.8
N * number of samples. SD standard deviation; VC variation coefficient.
Table 2. Meteorological information for UAM and MER.
Table 2. Meteorological information for UAM and MER.
SeasonRelative Humidity
(%)
Temperature (°C)Main Wind DirectionWind Speed (m/s)Wind Rose
UAM Atmosphere 14 01585 i001
CD3615Northeast5
HD5526North6
RA7017North4
5 January 202255.511.6Northwest0.9
22 June 20224515Northeast5
MER Atmosphere 14 01585 i002
CD2018North6
HD5025Southwest5
RA8015Northeast3.7
19 December 20226012Northeast5
26 September 20225022Northeast6
Table 3. Summary of PMF factors and their specific tracers.
Table 3. Summary of PMF factors and their specific tracers.
FactorSiteSourceTracers
1Mexico CityVE CRNO2, NH4+, PO43−, Na+
2Mexico CitySASO42−, NH4+
3Mexico CityIN BBCl, K+
1UAMVE CRNO2, NH4+, NO3, PO43−, Mg2+, Na+
2UAMSA BBSO42−, NO3, NH4+, K+
3UAMINCl, SO2, NO3
1MERVE IN NO2, NH4+, Cl,
2MERSA SO42−, NO3, NH4+,
3MERCRNa+, Mg2+, PO43−
(VE) Vehicular, (SA) Secondary Aerosols, (IN) Industrial, (CR) Crustal, (BB) Biomass burning.
Table 4. Comparison of water-soluble ion concentrations in PM2.5 in µg/m3 and in associated sources determined using the PMF model.
Table 4. Comparison of water-soluble ion concentrations in PM2.5 in µg/m3 and in associated sources determined using the PMF model.
ParameterMexico City (This Study)Tetuan
Morocco [54]
Jiangsu
China [60]
Wuhan
China [61]
Nanjing
China [62]
Lyliang
China [51]
Lanzhou
China [63]
µg/m3
PM2.5241868.9101.391.236.354.3
ΣWSII10.7632.45944.929.113.2
SO42−4.539.018.923.27.63.9
NO31.81.110.513.716.98.83.3
NH4+1.616.424.95.37.31.3
K+0.2ND0.90.11.6ND0.4
Cl0.1ND1.70.82.14.72.6
%
SNA/PM2.532.928.337.656.849.865.315.7
Secondary
Aerosols/PM2.5
26.4ND2035274310.8
SourcesVE, SA, IN,
CR, BB
AM, RT,
BB, FSEA,
ASEA, ORF
VE, BB,
SA, DU
RD, SEA,
SN, SAM,
CC, BB
DU, SS, INMS, BBSA, BB, CC, DU, VEDU, IN, BB, MES,
SA, SES
(VE) Vehicular; (SA) Secondary Aerosols; (IN) Industrial; (CR) Crustal; (BB) Biomass Burning; (DU) Dust; (AM) Ammonium Sulfate; (RT) Road Traffic; (FSEA) Fresh sea salt; (ASEA) Aged sea salt; (SES) Sea spray; (CC) Coal Combustion; (RD) Road dust; (SN) Secondary nitrate; (SS) Secondary sulfate; (MES) Metal smelting. SNA: sum of sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium. ND: Not determined.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Millán-Vázquez, F.; Sosa-Echevería, R.; Alarcón-Jiménez, A.L.; Figueroa-Lara, J.d.J.; Torres-Rodríguez, M.; Valle-Hernández, B.L.; Mugica-Álvarez, V. Temporal Variation and Potential Sources of Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions in PM2.5 in Two Sites of Mexico City. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 1585. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14101585

AMA Style

Millán-Vázquez F, Sosa-Echevería R, Alarcón-Jiménez AL, Figueroa-Lara JdJ, Torres-Rodríguez M, Valle-Hernández BL, Mugica-Álvarez V. Temporal Variation and Potential Sources of Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions in PM2.5 in Two Sites of Mexico City. Atmosphere. 2023; 14(10):1585. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14101585

Chicago/Turabian Style

Millán-Vázquez, Fernando, Rodolfo Sosa-Echevería, Ana Luisa Alarcón-Jiménez, José de Jesús Figueroa-Lara, Miguel Torres-Rodríguez, Brenda Liz Valle-Hernández, and Violeta Mugica-Álvarez. 2023. "Temporal Variation and Potential Sources of Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions in PM2.5 in Two Sites of Mexico City" Atmosphere 14, no. 10: 1585. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14101585

APA Style

Millán-Vázquez, F., Sosa-Echevería, R., Alarcón-Jiménez, A. L., Figueroa-Lara, J. d. J., Torres-Rodríguez, M., Valle-Hernández, B. L., & Mugica-Álvarez, V. (2023). Temporal Variation and Potential Sources of Water-Soluble Inorganic Ions in PM2.5 in Two Sites of Mexico City. Atmosphere, 14(10), 1585. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14101585

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop