Next Article in Journal
Potato Processing Waste as a Reservoir of Bioactive Hydroxycinnamates: A Critical Review
Previous Article in Journal
Biomass Refined: 99% of Organic Carbon in Soils
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Biomass Burning on the Organic Content of Urban Aerosols

Division of Environmental Hygiene, Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Ksaverska cesta 2, 10 000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 30 October 2024 / Revised: 13 December 2024 / Accepted: 20 December 2024 / Published: 24 December 2024

Abstract

:
This study examines the influence of biomass burning on the organic content of urban aerosols in Zagreb, Croatia, by analyzing anhydrosugars, elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), and water-soluble organic carbon (WSOC) in PM2.5 and PM1 fractions collected during different seasons of 2022. Seasonal trends showed that the highest average concentrations of PM2.5 (27 µg m−3) and PM1 (17 µg m−3) were measured during the winter and decreased in the spring, summer, and autumn, which is in accordance with the specific activities and environmental conditions typical for each season. Different sources of OC and WSOC were noticed across different seasons; levoglucosan (LG) was measured during the winter (1314 ng m−3 in PM2.5 and 931 ng m−3 in PM1), indicating that biomass that was mostly used for residential heating was the main source rather than the agricultural activities that are usually common during warmer seasons. The contribution of LG to PM was 5.3%, while LG contributed to OC by up to 13.4% and LG contributed to WSOC by up to 36.5%. Deviations in typical seasonal variability of LG/WSOC revealed more intense biomass burning episodes during the autumn and several times during the winter season. A back trajectories HYSPLIT model revealed a long-range transport biomass emission source. The levoglucosan-to-mannosan (LG/MNS) ratios indicated the burning of mixed softwood and hardwood during colder seasons and the burning of softwood during warmer seasons. Spearman’s correlation tests and principal component analysis showed a strong and statistically significant (p < 0.05) correlation between LG, PM, OC, EC, and WSOC only during the winter season, demonstrating that they had the same origin in the winter, while their sources in other seasons were diverse.

1. Introduction

In air pollution studies, biomass burning, along with traffic emissions, is consistently identified as one of the major pollution sources in southeastern Europe and the Western Balkans [1,2,3]. In these regions, biomass remains a widely used energy source for residential heating due to its affordability and widespread availability. However, the incomplete combustion of biomass—dependent on factors such as oxygen availability, biomass moisture content, and combustion temperature—results in the release of significant amounts of air pollutants into the atmosphere [4,5]. In addition to gases such as SO2, NOX, CO2, and CH4, particulate matter (PM) is one of the pollutants emitted in significant amounts during biomass combustion [6,7]. Generally, PM is recognized as one of the major threats to human health as it can be inhaled and, depending on the size, penetrate deep into the respiratory and cardiovascular systems [8,9]. During biomass and fossil fuel combustion, the emissions mostly consist of the PM2.5 fraction, in which carbonaceous matter (CM) is one of the major components [10]. In addition to direct emissions from pollution sources, known as primary carbonaceous matter, it can also be generated through chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation and oligomerization) and condensation of particles formed by gaseous precursors. These processes typically occur during atmospheric aging, and due to its multi-step formation, it is classified as secondary carbonaceous matter [11].
CM can be divided into organic carbon (OC) and elemental or black carbon (EC or BC, respectively), depending on whether a thermo-chemical or optical property is being investigated [12]. EC is considered a primary aerosol, originating almost exclusively from pyrolysis during incomplete combustion processes, such as traffic emission, industrial activities, or biomass burning [13]. In contrast, OC can originate from both primary natural (e.g., vegetative detritus) and anthropogenic sources (e.g., vehicular emissions, wood burning, industrial processes, and cooking operations), referred to as primary organic carbon (POC), or/and secondary sources through a photochemical reaction between gas-phase precursors, resulting in secondary organic carbon (SOC) [14]. This variety of OC sources contributes to a broad spectrum of water-soluble (carboxylic acids, amino acids, amines, dicarboxylic acids, hydroxycarboxylic acids, carbohydrates, and their derivatives, humic-like substances (HULIS), etc. [15]) and water-insoluble organic compounds in aerosols (alkanes, alkanals, alkanones, waxes, proteins, plant fragments, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), n-alkanoic acids, etc. [16]). While the literature associates WSOC with SOC, it can be produced during biomass burning [17]. Moreover, a source apportionment study by Lopez-Caravaca et al. showed biomass burning was the primary contributor to WSOC levels during the cold season, whereas, in the summer, the largest fraction of WSOC was linked to secondary organic aerosol formation [18].
Biomass, chemically defined as lignocellulose, consists of different ratios of cellulose (40–50%), hemicellulose (15–25%), and lignin (15–30%) [19]. Suciu et al. proposed a detailed mechanism of cellulose and hemicellulose pyrolysis where the structures transform through different pathways, such as dehydration, fragmentation, oxidation, hydrolysis, polymerization, etc., after which the formation of mono- and oligomeric anhydrosugars occurs. The thermal degradation of crystalline cellulose, which consists of linearly linked β-(1 → 4)-D-glucopyranose units, forms levoglucosan (1,6-anhydro-β-D-glucopyranose), while the thermal degradation of amorphous hemicellulose produces mannosan (1,6-anhydro-β-D-mannopyranose) and galactosan (1,6-anhydro-β-D-galactopyranose) [20]. These three isomers belong to the group of carbohydrates called anhydrosugars. Since cellulose is more abundant than hemicellulose in plants [21], the pyrolytic production of levoglucosan is generally higher than that of its isomers, i.e., mannosan and galactosan. Recent studies have demonstrated the semi-volatile properties of anhydrosugars [22], highlighting the significant influence of factors such as air temperature, relative humidity, wind direction, etc., on their concentrations in airborne particles. Due to its abundance, relatively high stability (particularly during seasons with low ultraviolet radiation and low levels of hydroxyl radicals), and distinctive source characteristics, LG is widely recognized as a specific marker for biomass burning [7,23,24]. Additionally, due to the structural differences of hemicellulose across different types of biomass compared to cellulose, the levels of two less abundant isomers, namely, mannosan and galactosan (GA), fluctuate depending on the type of vegetation [25]. Such variations allow for the identification of the biomass type that has been burned. The LG/MNS ratio has been suggested as a useful indicator for differentiating between the burning of softwood and hardwood, while the ratio of LG/(MNS + GA) has been employed to distinguish between older wood (e.g., brown coal) and more recently harvested wood [26]. Additionally, this ratio can help identify wood combustion from other types of biomass burning, e.g., leaves, crops, grass, herbs, etc. [27]. Although these compounds have been found in lower-maturity coals, likely due to the presence of residual cellulose and hemicellulose, this source is negligible in countries where coal use is not predominant [28].
The ratio of levoglucosan to OC (i.e., LG/OC) is used to quantify the contribution of biomass to organic matter [29,30]. It enables one to calculate emission ratios (ERs) and emission factors (EFs), where ERs are expressed as the ratio of levoglucosan to total OC on a mass concentration basis (µg/µg OC) and EFs are defined as the ratio of the mass of levoglucosan to the total fuel burned (mg/kg), although EFs are mostly obtained in laboratory trials rather than in field studies [31]. These two parameters are used to estimate fire emissions and trace vegetation sources of fire tracers in the environment. For example, higher ERs are registered during coniferous forest fires compared to burning in deciduous forests and grasses [32].
The OC/EC ratio is used to provide information regarding the type of fuel burned in terms of biomass or fossil fuel [33] as well as to monitor the changes in aerosol composition due to different sources of both OC and EC [13]. Moreover, the OC/EC ratio is often used to estimate SOC since it is directly influenced by photochemical activity [34]. If SOC predominates, higher OC/EC ratios are typically observed, while minimum ratios are taken as representative of POC. Castro et al. obtained an OC/EC ratio of 1.1 in an urban background station and characterized it as the contribution of POC to OC, while all the higher values were assigned to SOC [35]. An elevated OC/EC ratio may also result from biomass burning sources, where higher levels of OC relative to EC can be attributed to significant local contributions from household heating, favorable meteorological conditions, and the influence of mixing layer height [36].
Due to the high solubility of anhydrosugars in water, the measurement of WSOC can be useful in separating fossil to non-fossil combustion sources, where the WSOC fraction is mostly dominated by a non-fossil source [37]. The comparison of LG to WSOC and OC, along with the estimation of biomass burning contributions to overall WSOC and OC levels [38], can serve as a tool for identifying mutual sources and detecting more intense biomass burning episodes through LG/WSOC and LG/OC ratios.
The objective of this study is to identify the contribution of biomass burning as a source of urban aerosols by determining the mass concentrations of certain organic compounds that can be used as tracers and diagnostic parameters. The levels of OC, EC, WSOC, LG, MNS, and GA were determined in different particle size fractions, i.e., PM2.5 and PM1, through different seasons. Diagnostic ratios, such as OC/EC, LG/OC, and WSOC/OC, were utilized to estimate the extent of biomass burning in airborne particles, while the type of biomass burned was assessed using the LG/MNS ratio. Unusual behavior in the diagnostic ratios was compared to a trajectory study using the NOAA HYSPLIT model.

2. Materials and Methods

Particulate matter collection for two aerodynamic particle sizes, i.e., PM2.5 and PM1, was conducted in an urban background area of Zagreb, Croatia. Sampling was performed over 24 h cycles using quartz fiber filters (47 mm, Pallflex Tissue quartz 2500 QAT-UP (Pall Corporation, New York, NY, USA)). Blank quartz filters were pre-baked at 850 °C for 3 h to minimize the carbon content prior to sample collection. Low-volume samplers (Sven Leckel 47/50, Ingenieurbüro GmbH, Berlin, Germany) were used, operating at an ambient air flow rate of approximately 55 m3 per day. A total of 122 samples per fraction were collected, with around 30 samples taken during each season of 2022. PM2.5 and PM1 mass was determined gravimetrically using microbalances (Mettler Toledo MX5 and XP6/M, Giessen, Germany, with a resolution of 1 µg) and an electrostatic charge outflow system. Filters were conditioned for 48 h at a controlled temperature (20 ± 1 °C) and relative humidity (45–50% RH) before and after sampling. The samples were then portioned, sealed in aluminum foil envelopes, and stored at −20 °C until analysis.
The sampling site was located in the moderately populated district near extensive public green spaces and forests and about 3 km from Medvednica Nature Park. The area is surrounded by residential buildings and is close to a moderately trafficked road. In the continental region of Croatia, including Zagreb, seasonal activities significantly influence environmental conditions and pollutant sources. During the winter, increased traffic, road salting, and intensified residential heating are prevalent. Although there has been a natural gas network in the area for more than 30 years, many households still use wood for heating. In the spring, enhanced biological activities, including some agricultural activities. Summer is characterized by reduced urban traffic due to school breaks and vacations, while agricultural activities such as plowing, harvesting, and burning of crop residues, which predominantly occur in rural areas, are more frequent.
Meteorological data for Maksimir, Zagreb, approximately 3 km away from the sampling site, were obtained by the Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service and are presented in Table S1 of the Supplementary Materials.
The levels of organic carbon and elemental carbon in the PM2.5 and PM1 fractions were determined using the thermal–optical transmittance method (TOT) [39] on a Carbon Aerosol Analyzer from Sunset Laboratory Inc., Tigard, OR, USA by following the EUSAAR_2 protocol [40]. The EUSAAR_2 thermal–optical analysis protocol was developed through the EU-project EUSAAR to improve the accuracy of distinguishing between OC and EC. To ensure quality control, an inner standard, an external sucrose solution, and a cross-method procedure were used. Recovery results ranged between 98% and 102%, with a relative standard deviation (RSD) of less than 5% [41].
SOC and POC were determined using the following equations:
SOC = OCexp − POC
POC = ECexp × (OC/EC)min
where OCexp and ECexp are experimentally determined mass concentrations of OC and EC and (OC/EC)min is the minimal ratio of OC/EC mass concentrations in the season [36]. This approach is widely used despite its limitations and uncertainties, which arise from the assumption that SOC formation occurs when the OC/EC ratio exceeds its minimum value and due to the fact that the OC/EC ratio is dependent on meteorological conditions, seasonal emission patterns, and contributions from local sources [42]. Mass concentrations of anhydrosugars (LG, MN, and GA) in PM2.5 and PM1 fractions were determined by high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection (HPAEC-PAD). The analytical procedure is described in Sopčić et al. (2024) [43]. Briefly, a sample aliquot was dissolved in ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ cm2, Smart2Pure3 UF/UV, Thermo Scientific Barnstead GenPure, Waltham, MA, USA) and extracted using an ultrasonic bath for 45 min at 30 ± 5 °C. The water-soluble part of the sample was separated from the filter by centrifugation at 3000 rpm for 10 min, transferred to a polypropylene vial, and analyzed using an ICS-6000 (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Analytes were separated on a Dionex CarboPac MA1 analytical column (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) using a NaOH eluent and detected on a gold working electrode with a standard quadruple potential waveform. For proper analytical separation of LG, MNS, and GA, two methods were developed. The detection limit for anhydrosugars ranged from 0.9 to 6 ng m−3, while that for the method of recovery was 95–98%. For water-soluble organic carbon analysis, the same sample solution was employed. A specific volume was added to a blank quartz filter and analyzed using the same thermal–optical protocol with a Carbon Aerosol Analyzer from Sunset Laboratory Inc., USA.
To determine the relationships between organic compounds and their statistical significance, Statistica 14 software was used. Backward trajectories were used to identify the origin and transport paths of air masses arriving at the sampling site. A 24 h period was analyzed using the HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) model, accessed via the READY (Real-time Environmental Applications and Display System) platform provided by the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Air Resource Laboratory, College Park, Maryland, USA. Trajectories were simulated for the days of interest at three altitude levels: 500 m, 1000 m, and 1500 m. The meteorological input for the model was obtained from the GFS (Global Forecast System) dataset, with data provided at a spatial resolution of 0.25°.

3. Results

3.1. Particulate Matter and Carbonaceous Content

Mass concentrations of PM2.5, PM1, and their carbonaceous content (i.e., OC, EC, WSOC, LG, MNS, and GA) collected in different seasons are summarized in Tables S2 and S3. A comparison of PM2.5 and PM1 mass concentrations across different seasons is illustrated in Figure 1. According to the 2022 annual report from the Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health [44], the average annual mass concentrations for PM2.5 and PM1 at this sampling station were 14.4 ± 10.1 µg m−3 and 10.8 ± 7.4 µg m−3, respectively. It is worth mentioning that the average annual value of PM2.5 levels was below the annual limit value of 25 µg m−3 set by the relevant EU Directive but higher than 5 µg m−3, which is recommended by the 2021 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines [45]. Both fractions demonstrated a similar seasonal trend, with peak concentrations observed in the winter, followed by a decline through the spring and summer, reaching the lowest values in the autumn. Such a trend can be attributed to specific activities and environmental conditions typical of each season. In Zagreb and in the continental part of Croatia in general, winter and spring are characterized by low temperatures (Table S1), salting of roads, more intensive residential heating, and increased traffic, which contribute to elevated PM levels. On the other hand, during the summer, urban traffic decreases due to school breaks and vacations, which is reflected in the lower PM levels. The lowest levels in the autumn are most likely influenced by frequent and intense rainfall, which likely facilitated the removal of PM from the atmosphere to the ground. Seasonal differences in mass concentrations were statistically significant, as determined by the Kruskal–Wallis analysis (p < 0.05). A strong correlation was observed between PM1 and PM2.5, with R2 = 0.905 and a slope of 0.585, indicating that approximately 60% of PM2.5 consisted of particles smaller than 1 µm (Figure 1).
The overall average OC concentrations during the sampling period were 5.4 ± 2.2 µg m−3 in PM2.5 and 3.8 ± 1.5 µg m−3 in PM1. Seasonal variations of OC concentrations in both fractions had the same trend as the PM concentrations, decreasing sequentially from the winter, spring, and summer to the autumn. Such a pattern was also in accordance with meteorological conditions where, at lower temperatures, the condensation of organic compounds onto pre-existing particles is enhanced, leading to increased OC mass concentrations and higher OC content in PM. The observed concentrations were slightly higher compared to OC levels measured in 2020 at the same measuring site (average OC of 4.7 ± 3.4 µg m−3 in PM2.5 and 3.8 ± 2.5 µg m−3 in PM1) and much lower compared to those measured in 2011–2013, when the average level was 9.4 µg m−3 [46]. OC levels were also higher than those reported for OC at an urban site in Helsinki (3 µg m−3 in PM2.5 and 2.5 µg m−3 in PM1) [10,47] but comparable or slightly lower than the values reported for Athens, i.e., 6.3 µg m−3 (winter) and 2.9 µg m−3 (summer) [48]. In the urban background sites of the Lombardy region in Italy, OC in PM10 was between 4.5 and 9.7 µg m−3 [49].
The average EC concentrations over the sampling period were 0.9 ± 0.7 µg m−3 in PM2.5 and 0.7 ± 0.5 µg m−3 in PM1. EC exhibited the same seasonal trend as OC. The average EC levels observed in this study (0.3 µg/m3 in the summer and 1.3 µg/m3 in the winter) were either lower (Amsterdam (1.9 µg/m3, summer), Barcelona (2.6 µg/m3, winter)) or comparable to levels reported in Ghent, Belgium (0.8 µg/m3 in the summer and 1.2 µg/m3 in the winter) [50]. As EC is frequently employed as an indicator of traffic emissions [51], our findings indicate that the influence of traffic at the urban background site in Zagreb is less pronounced compared to other urban background sites in Europe. The noticeably lower summer values reflect reduced traffic density typically observed during summer vacations, in contrast to winter when street traffic is considerably higher. The contribution of EC to PM ranged from 3% to 11% in both fractions, with the highest values observed in the autumn, followed by winter, spring, and summer (Figure 2 and Figure 3), suggesting a minimal contribution of traffic emissions to the overall aerosol content [50]. The OC/PM ratio was significantly higher than the EC/PM ratio, which is consistent with findings from previous studies [52]. The mean OC/PM ratios in PM1 and PM2.5 were 0.35 ± 0.07 and 0.34 ± 0.07, respectively, aligning with other studies [41,53]. While the contribution of OC to PM showed modest seasonal variation (ranging from 31 to 38% in both fractions) (Figure 2 and Figure 3), statistical analysis revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) between spring, summer, and winter, as well as between winter and autumn. These differences suggested variations in the contributions of different sources across seasons.
In PM2.5, the highest levels of LG were observed during the winter season, with a concentration of 1314 ± 726 ng m−3, decreasing in the spring (439 ± 186 ng m−3), autumn (69 ± 65 ng m−3), and summer (20 ± 14 ng m−3). MNS and GA followed the same seasonal pattern, while their concentrations were significantly lower, with GA often being below the detection limit. A similar seasonal trend was observed in PM1, with average LG mass concentrations reaching 931 ± 562 ng m−3 in the winter, 414 ± 289 ng m−3 in the spring, 57 ± 49 ng m−3 in the autumn, and 8 ± 15 ng m−3 in the summer. The relative contribution of LG in total anhydrosugars exceeded 80% throughout the entire measuring period. Figure 4 presents the linear regression of anhydrosugars in PM2.5 and PM1, showing a strong correlation (R2 = 0.983). Additionally, the data indicate that approximately 80% of the total anhydrosugars were associated with the PM1 fraction. The observed seasonal trend was different from the one measured in 2020 in the same station where the levels of LG decreased from the winter, autumn, spring, and summer [43]. The results of this study indicate that biomass use for residential heating was more prominent in both winter and spring compared to the autumn. Such behavior corresponds to the lower average daily temperatures recorded during the spring sampling period compared to the autumn (Table S1). Comparable average winter LG levels were observed at the same site in 2020 [43] and at an industrial zone near Venice, Italy [36]. However, the concentrations were lower than those reported in Ioannina, Greece, during periods of intense residential wood burning [54]. Overall, the measured concentrations at our site were higher than those typically reported in other European cities, where levoglucosan levels generally remained below 1 µg m−3 [55,56,57,58,59,60]. The average contribution of LG to PM was 0.2% in the summer, 1.1% in the autumn, 2.3% in the spring, and 5.3% in the winter for the PM2.5 fraction. In the PM1 fraction, the content of LG was 0.04% in the summer, 1.3% in the autumn, 2.9% in the spring, and 5.4% in the winter [61]. Such portions were higher than the one obtained by Benetello et al. in the PM2.5 fraction of an urban area (1.2 to 1.4%) [36] and slightly lower than the one registered during the heating seasons in different studies, ranging up to 6.9% [43,62]. A value of 10.5% was registered in Greece during severe winter residential wood-burning events [54]. It is worth mentioning that levels of anhydrosugars can also be influenced by meteorological conditions due to photo- and chemical oxidation as well as their semi-volatile property, which can introduce some uncertainties into the measured concentrations. The results of this study show that, despite Zagreb’s natural gas infrastructure, biomass continues to be extensively utilized for residential heating. This trend is likely driven by the increasing cost of natural gas and more environmentally friendly energy alternatives. For this reason, future actions for improving air quality should focus on (1) the promotion and stimulation of the transition of household heating to alternative energy sources, thus avoiding the use of fossil fuels; (2) improving the energy efficiency of buildings; (3) replacing old stoves with new ones that have minimal emissions of pollutants; and (4) dealing with agricultural waste by mulching and composting rather than burning.

3.2. Source Diagnostic Based on Elemental and Organic Carbon

Linear regression between OC and EC showed a positive correlation, with varying coefficients of determination (R2) across different seasons (Figure 5). These varying coefficients suggest that different sources contribute to the presence of OC and EC in aerosols across seasons. Moreover, the weak correlations indicate that, even in the same season, OC and EC most probably originate from distinct sources and follow different formation mechanisms. This also suggests that, in addition to primary sources, a portion of OC is produced from secondary sources as well. The greatest variability in sources appears when comparing the spring and winter seasons to the summer and autumn (Figure 5). Seasonal differences in aerosol formation and composition are influenced by the unique activities and environmental conditions associated with each season and location. Although the site is located in an urban area, its proximity to residential homes and forested regions leads to biomass combustion for both residential heating and vegetation-clearing activities. Due to different biomass burning activities throughout the year, our aim was to investigate the seasonal pattern of organic species.
Although there was no clear boundary between the emission sources of EC and OC, the OC/EC ratio can provide insights into the type of fuel being combusted, with higher OC/EC ratios typically associated with biomass burning [63,64] and lower ratios linked to fossil fuel combustion [33]. In some studies, this ratio has also been used to identify the type of biomass burned; for example, Schmidl et al. reported OC/EC ratios between 2.6 and 5.7 for residential wood burning using Austrian biofuels [65], while McDonald et al. found ratios of 3.9 for softwood and 7.9 for hardwood burned in a woodstove [66].
The highest average OC/EC ratios (Tables S2 and S3) in both fractions were observed in the summer (12.2), followed by decreasing values in the winter (9.0), spring (5.6), and autumn (4.7). These values were notably higher than those reported by Viana et al., who obtained OC/EC ratios in the range of 3.1–4.7 during the winter and 2.6–3.5 during the summer at urban background sites in Amsterdam, Barcelona, and Ghent [50], or those reported for an urban industrial site in Venice, Italy, with a value of 4 in the winter and 1.7 in the summer [36]. Similar seasonal trends with comparable OC/EC values (7.7–15.0) were reported at a rural background site in Croatia [67].
The highest OC/EC ratios were observed during the summer, most likely due to increased SOA formation, which was in accordance with enhanced photochemical oxidation and higher temperatures (Table S1). The ratio of 12.2 in the summer can be compared to those observed by Tian et al. during wheat straw combustion experiments in a chamber [68]. Despite the high ratios, the low concentrations of biomass burning tracers (LG, MNS, and GA) observed during the summer suggest that another source of organic carbon, unrelated to biomass burning, dominates airborne particles during this period. The POC and SOC portions within the OC for both PM fractions are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3. In the PM2.5 fraction, the seasonal SOC contribution was highest in the winter and decreased in the summer, autumn, and spring, while in PM1, its contribution decreased sequentially from the winter to the summer, spring, and autumn. The calculated SOC values did not follow the same trend as the OC/EC ratio. These results were most likely influenced by generally lower (OC/EC)min ratios in the winter (2.3) compared to the summer (4.2), driven by lower EC levels, reflecting a reduced contribution from primary sources, such as traffic and biomass burning. A similar behavior, with higher SOC values in the winter than in the summer, was reported by Ma et.al. (2024), where such a pattern was explained by static atmospheric conditions, lower temperatures, and higher humidity, which promoted the phase transition of semi-volatile and intermediate volatile organic compounds (SVOCs/IVOCs) from gas to particle form [69]. However, estimations of POC and SOC mass concentrations serve to assess potential uncertainties mainly on the assumption that primary OC contributions are negligible and that the OC/EC primary ratio remains constant for each season. If contributions of primary non-combustion sources, such as biogenic OC, are significant, the calculated SOC concentrations may be overestimated [70].
The PM1 fraction showed similar contributions from carbon sources during the summer and winter. However, compared to PM2.5, differences emerged in the spring and autumn, where the dominance of POC and SOC was reversed. Particle size distribution in urban environments is influenced by diverse sources, such as traffic emissions, residential heating, cooking, and secondary aerosol formation. Traffic mainly contributes fine and ultrafine particles, while biomass burning and cooking produce a broader range of particle sizes [71]. Residential heating releases coarser particles during colder months, and secondary organic aerosols form across various sizes, particularly in humid and low-temperature conditions [72,73]. Nevertheless, to define how the different sources were distributed across different particle sizes, additional studies of source apportionment should be carried out.

3.3. Water-Soluble Organic Carbon and Anhydrosugars in Biomass Burning Source Determination

To distinguish biomass and fossil fuel contributions to OC in PM, water-soluble organic carbon was analyzed, despite its potential origins from various sources, such as biogenic emissions, VOC oxidation, soil resuspension, and fuel combustion [7,74].
Both WSOC and OC followed the same seasonal pattern (Tables S2 and S3), with concentrations increasing from the autumn to the summer, spring, and winter. Linear regression showed a strong correlation between WSOC and OC in PM2.5 (R2 = 0.88) and PM1 (R2 = 0.75). The results indicated that WSOC and OC were generally higher in colder seasons, likely due to increased biomass burning during the colder months. A pronounced seasonal variation in WSOC content in OC was observed in both particle size fractions (Figure 6a), indicating seasonal differences in source contributions. The average WSOC/OC ratio was lower in PM2.5 (0.49) than in PM1 (0.56). Similar seasonal patterns were reported by Du et al., with a WSOC/OC ratio of 0.61 in the summer at an urban residential site, averaging 0.4 in other seasons [75]. In Asia, values between 0.4 and 0.55 are usually observed at sites highly affected by biomass burning sources [76,77]. In Sweden, rural sites had a ratio of 0.61, while urban sites had a ratio of 0.48 [37]. Lower ratios were recorded at urban background sites in Barcelona (0.33–0.34) and Ghent (0.40–0.42) and a traffic site in Amsterdam (0.34), with higher ratios consistently observed in the summer compared to the winter [50]. Increased WSOC/OC ratios in the summer are attributed to enhanced photochemical oxidation, which increases water solubility by forming oxygenated functional groups during warmer months [78].
In contrast, the WSOC/OC ratio observed in the PM1 fraction followed a different variation, with the highest ratio in the autumn (0.72), followed by summer (0.64), spring (0.44), and winter (0.43). Some studies on PM1 reported less pronounced seasonal fluctuations but still found the ratio to be lowest in the winter (0.41), which was attributed to a higher contribution of water-insoluble organic compounds during that period [18]. These findings suggest that during the autumn, there may have been an episode of enhanced WSOC emissions, primarily associated with particles smaller than 1 µm. In addition to photochemical activity, elevated biogenic emissions could also promote the production of WSOC during warmer months, whereas winter sources are more dominated by water-insoluble organic matter from biomass and fossil fuel combustion [79].
When comparing the ratios in both fractions, it was observed that the WSOC/OC ratio was higher in PM2.5 than in PM1 only during the winter season. According to the literature, lower winter temperatures also favor the condensation of organic compounds onto pre-existing particles, leading to increased OC mass concentrations and a higher OC fraction in larger particles [80]. This suggests that, during winter, WSOC compounds may be more associated with larger particles that can originate either from aggregation processes due to higher humidity or by increased emissions of larger particles from biomass burning [81].
The mass concentration trends of LG and WSOC, illustrated in Figure 6b, showed elevated values during both the spring and winter, corresponding to the lower air temperatures in these seasons compared to the warmer summer and autumn months (Table S1). These findings suggest that domestic wood combustion contributes to WSOC content during colder periods. However, in the warmer seasons, despite low LG levels, WSOC concentrations did not decrease substantially, indicating the presence of alternative WSOC sources and suggesting a shift in dominant contributors during these periods.
The WSOC/OC and LG/WSOC ratios exhibited different seasonal patterns, as shown in Figure 7. The LG/WSOC ratio progressively increased from the summer (0.011) to the autumn (0.128) and spring (0.183), with the highest average values during the winter (0.365). A similar trend was observed for the contribution of LG to OC, with values of 0.6%, 3.4%, 7.3%, and 13.4% for the summer, autumn, spring, and winter, respectively. The LG/OC ratio in atmospheric aerosol ranges up to 20%, depending on the characteristics of the site. In Hungary, an LG/OC ratio of 18% was reported during the winter in urban aerosol [82], while in Salzburg and Graz, Austria, a ratio of 2–3% was recorded at sites with different characteristics [83]. For comparison, significantly lower contributions of LG (up to 5%) were reported in Graz and Salzburg during the winter season [83]. In the Tuscany region, the annual contribution of LG varied between 0.04% and 9.8% [23].
The strong correlation between LG and OC during the winter season (R2 = 0.902) indicated that biomass burning was a major source of organic carbon at the urban background site. In other seasons, the correlation between LG and OC was significantly weaker: R2 = 0.397 in the spring, R2 = 0.101 in the summer, and R2 = 0.065 in the autumn. The correlation between LG and WSOC was generally weaker (R2 = 0.058–0.525), suggesting that biomass burning was not a major contributor to the water-soluble content of PM in this case. Instead, the source of WSOC during the summer was most likely related to compounds formed through enhanced photochemical oxidation, which aligns with our findings for the SOC ratio. The contribution of SOC to OC for the summer season was 60% in PM2.5. Potential precursors for secondary organic compounds included VOCs [80], water-soluble HULIS, which contributed significantly to the water-soluble fraction of PM [84], and amino acids and proteins introduced by biological activities and emissions [85].
As shown in Figure 7, the LG/WSOC ratio exhibited four distinct peaks during the measurement period: one in the autumn and three in the winter. This pattern suggested more intense biomass burning episodes, deviating from typical seasonal variability. The elevated autumn peak may be attributed to agricultural activities such as the burning of crop residues, while the winter peaks were most likely linked to increased residential wood burning. Noticeable deviations from typical variability were also observed in the LG/PM ratio, particularly during the winter, across ten distinct days throughout the season. However, the most pronounced deviations occurred on two consecutive days at the very end of the measurement period. To assess whether these elevated LG/PM ratios were affected by long-range transport, meteorological data (temperature and wind direction) and back trajectory simulations using the NOAA HYSPLIT model were analyzed (Figure 8). An average temperature drop from 6 °C to 0 °C within a two-day period most likely resulted in intensified residential heating, contributing to the observed increase in PM2.5 (from 16 to 43 µg m−3) and PM1 (from 13 to 25 ug m−3) concentrations. Back trajectories that can potentially explain elevated values and give the most reasonable evidence based on the possible long-range transport and chemical stability are shown in Figure 8a, where air mass circulation covered an approximate area of 200 km, crossing the border shared with Bosnia and Herzegovina, then moving toward Gorski Kotar—a rural mountain area where wood is commonly used for residential heating—before returning in the direction of the measurement site. This effect was much less pronounced on other days with an elevated LG/PM ratio, even on days with lower temperatures (e.g., −3 °C). On these days, back trajectories indicated air masses arriving from the north (Figure 8b), passing through the north continental region of Croatia, where an extensive gas distribution network likely reduced the reliance on wood for heating. This conclusion is further supported by wind rose data, which show that the highest LG mass concentrations were observed when WSW wind was most prevalent (Figure 9).
Although diagnostic ratios such as OC/EC, LG/OC, LG/WSOC, and WSOC/OC have been utilized to estimate the extent of biomass burning in particulate matter in the air, these ratios can be influenced by various factors, including combustion type, combustion conditions, and meteorological conditions. That is why there could be some uncertainties regarding the levels of this compound and, consequently, the diagnostic ratios.

3.4. Statistical Analysis of Source Contribution Study

To confirm the relationship between the biomass burning tracer, i.e., levoglucosan and the carbonaceous species EC, OC, and WSOC in PM2.5 and PM1, their intercorrelation through different seasons was analyzed using Spearman’s correlation tests. Tables S4 and S5 present the correlation matrix for carbonaceous compounds in both fractions through different seasons. The results confirmed notable seasonal variations in the correlations, indicating the influence of various sources on the measured levels of PM and carbonaceous species.
The correlations observed during the winter season were statistically significant and very strong between PM and WSOC, EC, OC, and LG in both fractions, suggesting that they shared the same predominant source. A moderate correlation was observed between WSOC and EC, confirming that during the winter, WSOC originates from secondary sources, in addition to primary sources. Weaker correlations were observed for all the other seasons. During the spring, a very strong correlation was noted only between PM2.5 and OC, while EC, OC, and LG exhibited a moderate correlation. Although LG levels were elevated (439 ng m−3) during the spring compared to the autumn and the summer, the absence of strong correlations with OC or WSOC suggests that biomass burning is not the dominant source of OC. However, a moderate correlation was observed between LG and EC in both fractions, indicating some contribution of biomass burning to EC formation. During the summer and autumn, seasonal correlations between compounds were much weaker. A strong correlation was observed between PM and OC, while the correlation between OC and WSOC was also moderate; in addition, the correlation between OC and EC was weak and even negative between OC and LG. These results indicate that the main sources of OC were not related to biomass burning. PCA analysis (Figure S1) confirmed the observed correlations: during the spring, summer, and autumn, LG and EC were grouped together, while OC, EC, and PM were grouped separately. In contrast, during the winter season, all compounds were grouped together, indicating a shared dominant source of aerosols.

3.5. Wood Type Prediction

Given that LG is primarily derived from cellulose, while MNS and GA originate from hemicellulose, the ratios of LG/MN and LG/(MNS + GA) are frequently employed to identify the specific type of biomass being burned. In the literature, the ranges reported for softwood combustion range from 2.6 to 10 [86], while higher ratios, ranging from 13 to 24, are associated with hardwood combustion [83], 25 to 50 for the combustion of herbaceous materials, above 40 for the combustion of crop residues [65], and 31 to 90 for lignite combustion [28]. The average LG/MN ratios obtained in this study during the autumn and winter were 11.7 and 11.5, respectively, indicating the burning of softwood and hardwood, which could have come from residential heating during the winter and from crop residue burning during the autumn season. In the spring and summer seasons, the ratios were 5.9 and 9.2, respectively, as previously reported for softwood combustion.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated the impacts of biomass combustion on the composition of urban aerosols by analyzing anhydrosugars, WSOC, EC, and OC in two particulate matter fractions, namely, PM2.5 and PM1. Significant seasonal variations of both PM2.5 and PM1 concentrations suggest different sources in different seasons, with the highest average levels observed during the winter and the lowest in the autumn. Seasonal activities, including increased traffic and residential heating in the winter, elevated biological activity during warmer seasons, and varying meteorological conditions influenced the aerosol composition. The diverse sources of OC and EC were evident across seasons. The results indicate complex interactions between primary emissions and secondary formation processes, showing that OC/EC ratios alone are unreliable indicators of increased SOA. Biomass burning activities were detected year-round; however, the levels of anhydrosugars suggested that biomass burning was primarily related to residential heating rather than agricultural activities, which are more typical during warmer seasons. Distinct seasonal trends in LG and WSOC mass concentrations confirmed the presence of alternative WSOC sources and shifts in dominant contributors. More intense biomass burning episodes disrupted typical seasonal LG/WSOC trends, particularly in the autumn and several times during the winter. Meteorological analysis, including temperature trends, wind patterns, and back trajectory modeling, revealed that elevated LG/WSOC ratios often occurred on days when air masses circulated through regions with high biomass usage, suggesting that LG levels were also influenced by long-range transport. The combustion of a mixture of softwood and hardwood was predominant during the autumn and winter, while softwood combustion was more common in the spring and summer. Spearman’s correlation tests and PCA analyses highlighted strong correlations and likely common sources of LG, OC, EC, WSOC, and PM during the winter, whereas different sources dominated in other seasons. Given the significant role of biomass burning in overall air pollution based on these findings, there is a need for further source apportionment studies to better understand the diverse origins and formation mechanisms of organic species contributing to PM across seasons.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biomass5010001/s1, Table S1. Meteorological data, Table S2. Average, standard deviation, maximum, minimum, and median of mass concentrations for PM2.5, elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), water-soluble carbon (WSOC), levoglucosan (LG), mannosan (MNS), galactosan (GA) and OC/EC ratio in PM2.5, Table S3. Average, standard deviation, maximum, minimum, and median of mass concentrations for PM1, elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), water-soluble carbon (WSOC), levoglucosan (LG), mannosan (MNS), galactosan (GA) and OC/EC ratio in PM1, Table S4. Correlation matrix of PM2.5, PM1 and EC, OC, WSOC and LG determined in both fractions during spring and summer, Table S5. Correlation matrix of PM2.5, PM1 and EC, OC, WSOC and LG determined in both fractions during autumn and winter, Figure S1. Principal component loading plots for (a) spring, (b) summer, (c) autumn, and (d) winter season.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S.; Methodology, S.S. and R.G.; Validation, S.S., R.G., and I.B.; Formal Analysis, S.S. and R.G.; Investigation, S.S. and R.G.; Data Curation, I.B.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.S.; Writing—Review and Editing, R.G., I.J., and I.B.; Visualization, S.S.; and Supervision, I.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was performed using the facilities and equipment funded within the European Regional Development Fund project KK.01.1.1.02.0007 “Research and Education Centre of Environmental Health and Radiation Protection–Reconstruction and Expansion of the Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health” and funded by the European Union–Next Generation EU (Program Contract of 8 December 2023, Class: 643–02/23–01/00016, Reg. no. 533–03-23–0006)-EnvironPollutHealth.

Data Availability Statement

Supporting data may be obtained from the website: http://iszz.azo.hr/iskzl/ (25 October 2024), either through a query on the website or by written request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Green Transition in Croatia for supporting the use of ion chromatography instruments for scientific purposes. Instruments were acquired through the project AirQ-Expansion and Modernization of the National Network for Continuous Air Quality Monitoring (K.K.06.2.1.02.0001, granted by the European Regional Development Fund, Croatian Environmental Protection, and the Energy Efficiency Fund).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. HEAL (Health and Environment Alliance). The Health Perspective of Wood Burnong in the Western Balkans Region; HEAL (Health and Environment Alliance): Bussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Belis, C.A.; Pernigotti, D.; Pirovano, G.; Favez, O.; Jaffrezo, J.L.; Kuenen, J.; Denier van Der Gon, H.; Reizer, M.; Riffault, V.; Alleman, L.Y.; et al. Evaluation of Receptor and Chemical Transport Models for PM10 Source Apportionment. Atmos. Environ. X 2020, 5, 100053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. World Bank. World Bank Regional Note on Air Quality Management in the Western Balkans; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. Simoneit, B.R.T. Biomass Burning—A Review of Organic Tracers for Smoke from Incomplete Combustion. Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17, 129–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Chomanee, J.; Tekasakul, S.; Tekasakul, P.; Furuuchi, M.; Otani, Y. Effects of Moisture Content and Burning Period on Concentration of Smoke Particles and Particle-Bound Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons from Rubber-Wood Combustion. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2009, 9, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Urban, R.C.; Lima-Souza, M.; Caetano-Silva, L.; Queiroz, M.E.C.; Nogueira, R.F.P.; Allen, A.G.; Cardoso, A.A.; Held, G.; Campos, M.L.A.M. Use of Levoglucosan, Potassium, and Water-Soluble Organic Carbon to Characterize the Origins of Biomass-Burning Aerosols. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 61, 562–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bhattarai, H.; Saikawa, E.; Wan, X.; Zhu, H.; Ram, K.; Gao, S.; Kang, S.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, G.; et al. Levoglucosan as a Tracer of Biomass Burning: Recent Progress and Perspectives. Atmos. Res. 2019, 220, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pope, C.A., 3rd; Burnett, R.T.; Thun, M.J.; Calle, E.E.; Krewski, D.; Ito, K.; Thurston, G.D. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. JAMA 2002, 287, 1132–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Mabahwi, N.A.B.; Leh, O.L.H.; Omar, D. Human Health and Wellbeing: Human Health Effect of Air Pollution. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 153, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saarikoski, S.; Timonen, H.; Saarnio, K.; Aurela, M.; Järvi, L.; Keronen, P.; Kerminen, V.M.; Hillamo, R. Sources of Organic Carbon in Fine Particulate Matter in Northern European Urban Air. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2008, 8, 6281–6295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Monks, P.S.; Granier, C.; Fuzzi, S.; Stohl, A.; Williams, M.L.; Akimoto, H.; Amann, M.; Baklanov, A.; Baltensperger, U.; Bey, I.; et al. Atmospheric Composition Change—Global and Regional Air Quality. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 5268–5350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Petzold, A.; Ogren, J.A.; Fiebig, M.; Laj, P.; Li, S.-M.; Baltensperger, U.; Holzer-Popp, T.; Kinne, S.; Pappalardo, G.; Sugimoto, N.; et al. Recommendations for Reporting “Black Carbon” Measurements. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2013, 13, 8365–8379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rajput, P.; Sarin, M.M.; Sharma, D.; Singh, D. Organic Aerosols and Inorganic Species from Post-Harvest Agricultural-Waste Burning Emissions over Northern India: Impact on Mass Absorption Efficiency of Elemental Carbon. Environ. Sci. Process. Impacts 2014, 16, 2371–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Choi, J.-K.; Ban, S.-J.; Kim, Y.-P.; Kim, Y.-H.; Yi, S.-M.; Zoh, K.-D. Molecular Marker Characterization and Source Appointment of Particulate Matter and Its Organic Aerosols. Chemosphere 2015, 134, 482–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Decesari, S.; Facchini, M.C.; Fuzzi, S.; Tagliavini, E. Characterization of Water-Soluble Organic Compounds in Atmospheric Aerosol: A New Approach. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2000, 105, 1481–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pöschl, U. Atmospheric Aerosols: Composition, Transformation, Climate and Health Effects. Angew. Chem.—Int. Ed. 2005, 44, 7520–7540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Decesari, S.; Fuzzi, S.; Facchini, M.C.; Mircea, M.; Emblico, L.; Cavalli, F.; Maenhaut, W.; Chi, X.; Schkolnik, G.; Falkovich, A.; et al. Characterization of the Organic Composition of Aerosols from Rondônia, Brazil, during the LBA-SMOCC 2002 Experiment and Its Representation through Model Compounds. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2006, 6, 375–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. López-Caravaca, A.; Crespo, J.; Galindo, N.; Yubero, E.; Juárez, N.; Nicolás, J.F. Sources of Water-Soluble Organic Carbon in Fine Particles at a Southern European Urban Background Site. Atmos. Environ. 2023, 306, 119844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Itabaiana Junior, I.; Avelar Do Nascimento, M.; De Souza, R.O.M.A.; Dufour, A.; Wojcieszak, R. Levoglucosan: A Promising Platform Molecule? Green Chem. 2020, 22, 5859–5880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Suciu, L.G.; Masiello, C.A.; Griffin, R.J. Anhydrosugars as Tracers in the Earth System. Biogeochemistry 2019, 146, 209–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shafizadeh, F. Introduction to Pyrolysis of Biomass. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 1982, 3, 283–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Paris, E.; Carnevale, M.; Guerriero, E.; Palma, A.; Vincenti, B.; Khalid, A.; Rantica, E.; Proto, A.R.; Gallucci, F. Fixed Source Monitoring System for Marker Emission during Biomass Combustion. Renew. Energy 2023, 208, 597–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Giannoni, M.; Martellini, T.; Del Bubba, M.; Gambaro, A.; Zangrando, R.; Chiari, M.; Lepri, L.; Cincinelli, A. The Use of Levoglucosan for Tracing Biomass Burning in PM2.5 Samples in Tuscany (Italy). Environ. Pollut. 2012, 167, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Simoneit, B.R.T.; Schauer, J.J.; Nolte, C.G.; Oros, D.R.; Elias, V.O.; Fraser, M.P.; Rogge, W.F.; Cass, G.R. Levoglucosan, a Tracer for Cellulose in Biomass Burning and Atmospheric Particles. Atmos. Environ. 1999, 33, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Scheller, H.V.; Ulvskov, P. Hemicelluloses. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2010, 61, 263–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Tsiodra, I.; Grivas, G.; Tavernaraki, K.; Bougiatioti, A.; Apostolaki, M.; Paraskevopoulou, D.; Gogou, A.; Parinos, C.; Oikonomou, K.; Tsagkaraki, M.; et al. Annual Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Urban Environments Linked to Wintertime Wood-Burning Episodes. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2021, 21, 17865–17883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Maenhaut, W.; Vermeylen, R.; Claeys, M.; Vercauteren, J.; Roekens, E. Sources of the PM10 Aerosol in Flanders, Belgium, and Re-Assessment of the Contribution from Wood Burning. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 562, 550–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Fabbri, D.; Torri, C.; Simoneit, B.R.T.; Marynowski, L.; Rushdi, A.I.; Fabiańska, M.J. Levoglucosan and Other Cellulose and Lignin Markers in Emissions from Burning of Miocene Lignites. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 2286–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zdráhal, Z.; Oliveira, J.; Vermeylen, R.; Claeys, M.; Maenhaut, W. Improved Method for Quantifying Levoglucosan and Related Monosaccharide Anhydrides in Atmospheric Aerosols and Application to Samples from Urban and Tropical Locations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 747–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Puxbaum, H.; Caseiro, A.; Sánchez-Ochoa, A.; Kasper-Giebl, A.; Claeys, M.; Gelencsér, A.; Legrand, M.; Preunkert, S.; Pio, C.A. Levoglucosan Levels at Background Sites in Europe for Assessing the Impact of Biomass Combustion on the European Aerosol Background. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2007, 112, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sullivan, A.P.; May, A.A.; Lee, T.; McMeeking, G.R.; Kreidenweis, S.M.; Akagi, S.K.; Yokelson, R.J.; Urbanski, S.P.; Collett, J.L., Jr. Airborne Characterization of Smoke Marker Ratios from Prescribed Burning. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 10535–10545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wiedinmyer, C.; Akagi, S.K.; Yokelson, R.J.; Emmons, L.K.; Al-Saadi, J.A.; Orlando, J.J.; Soja, A.J. The Fire INventory from NCAR (FINN): A High Resolution Global Model to Estimate the Emissions from Open Burning. Geosci. Model Dev. 2011, 4, 625–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. McMeeking, G.R.; Kreidenweis, S.M.; Baker, S.; Carrico, C.M.; Chow, J.C.; Collett, J.L.; Hao, W.M.; Holden, A.S.; Kirchstetter, T.W.; Malm, W.C.; et al. Emissions of Trace Gases and Aerosols during the Open Combustion of Biomass in the Laboratory. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2009, 114, 19210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pant, P.; Yin, J.; Harrison, R.M. Sensitivity of a Chemical Mass Balance Model to Different Molecular Marker Traffic Source Profiles. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 82, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Castro, L.M.; Pio, C.A.; Harrison, R.M.; Smith, D.J.T. Carbonaceous Aerosol in Urban and Rural European Atmospheres: Estimation of Secondary Organic Carbon Concentrations. Atmos. Environ. 1999, 33, 2771–2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Benetello, F.; Squizzato, S.; Hofer, A.; Masiol, M.; Khan, M.B.; Piazzalunga, A.; Fermo, P.; Formenton, G.M.; Rampazzo, G.; Pavoni, B. Estimation of Local and External Contributions of Biomass Burning to PM2.5 in an Industrial Zone Included in a Large Urban Settlement. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 2100–2115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Szidat, S.; Ruff, M.; Perron, N.; Wacker, L.; Synal, H.A.; Hallquist, M.; Shannigrahi, A.S.; Yttri, K.E.; Dye, C.; Simpson, D. Fossil and Non-Fossil Sources of Organic Carbon (OC) and Elemental Carbon (EC) in Göteborg, Sweden. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2009, 9, 1521–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kristensson, A.; Ausmeel, S.; Pauraite, J.; Eriksson, A.; Ahlberg, E.; Bycenkiene, S.; Degórska, A. Source Contributions to Rural Carbonaceous Winter Aerosol in North-Eastern Poland. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Birch, M.E.; Cary, R.A. Elemental Carbon-Based Method for Monitoring Occupational Exposures to Particulate Diesel Exhaust. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 1996, 25, 221–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cavalli, F.; Viana, M.; Yttri, K.E.; Genberg, J.; Putaud, J.-P.P. Toward a Standardised Thermal-Optical Protocol for Measuring Atmospheric Organic and Elemental Carbon: The EUSAAR Protocol. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2010, 3, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Godec, R.; Jakovljević, I.; Šega, K.; Čačković, M.; Bešlić, I.; Davila, S.; Pehnec, G. Carbon Species in PM10 Particle Fraction at Different Monitoring Sites. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 216, 700–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Seinfeld, J.H.; Pandis, S.N. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  43. Sopčić, S.; Pehnec, G.; Bešlić, I. Specific Biomass Burning Tracers in Air Pollution in Zagreb, Croatia. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2024, 15, 102176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Annual Report_National Network for Air Quality Monitoring (Report for 2022). Available online: https://iszz.azo.hr/iskzl/godizvrpt.htm?pid=0&t=1 (accessed on 25 October 2024).
  45. World Health Organization. WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines: Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10), Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; ISBN 9789240034228 (Electronic Version). [Google Scholar]
  46. Šimić, I.; Lovrić, M.; Godec, R.; Kröll, M.; Bešlić, I. Applying Machine Learning Methods to Better Understand, Model and Estimate Mass Concentrations of Traffic-Related Pollutants at a Typical Street Canyon. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Viidanoja, J.; Sillanpää, M.; Laakia, J.; Kerminen, V.M.; Hillamo, R.; Aarnio, P.; Koskentalo, T. Organic and Black Carbon in PM2.5 and PM10: 1 Year of Data from an Urban Site in Helsinki, Finland. Atmos. Environ. 2002, 36, 3183–3193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Theodosi, C.; Tsagkaraki, M.; Zarmpas, P.; Grivas, G.; Liakakou, E.; Paraskevopoulou, D.; Lianou, M.; Gerasopoulos, E.; Mihalopoulos, N. Multi-Year Chemical Composition of the Fine-Aerosol Fraction in Athens, Greece, with Emphasis on the Contribution of Residential Heating in Wintertime. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2018, 18, 14371–14391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pietrogrande, M.C.; Demaria, G.; Colombi, C.; Cuccia, E.; Dal Santo, U. Seasonal and Spatial Variations of PM10 and PM2.5 Oxidative Potential in Five Urban and Rural Sites across Lombardia Region, Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Viana, M.; Maenhaut, W.; ten Brink, H.M.; Chi, X.; Weijers, E.; Querol, X.; Alastuey, A.; Mikuška, P.; Večeřa, Z. Comparative Analysis of Organic and Elemental Carbon Concentrations in Carbonaceous Aerosols in Three European Cities. Atmos. Environ. 2007, 41, 5972–5983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Jones, A.M.; Harrison, R.M. Interpretation of Particulate Elemental and Organic Carbon Concentrations at Rural, Urban and Kerbside Sites. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 7114–7126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Godec, R.; Šega, K.; Bešlić, I.; Davila, S. Carbon Mass Concentrations in Southern Zagreb during a Five-Year Period. In Proceedings of the 5th WeBIOPATR Workshop & Conference, Belgrade, Serbia, 14–16 October 2015; Ovašević-Stojanović, M., Bartoňová, A., Eds.; Vinča Institute of Nuclear Science: Belgrade, Serbia, 2016; pp. 24–29. [Google Scholar]
  53. Witkowska, A.; Lewandowska, A.U.; Saniewska, D.; Falkowska, L.M. Effect of Agriculture and Vegetation on Carbonaceous Aerosol Concentrations (PM2.5 and PM10) in Puszcza Borecka National Nature Reserve (Poland). Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2016, 9, 761–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kaskaoutis, D.G.; Grivas, G.; Oikonomou, K.; Tavernaraki, P.; Papoutsidaki, K.; Tsagkaraki, M.; Stavroulas, I.; Zarmpas, P.; Paraskevopoulou, D.; Bougiatioti, A.; et al. Impacts of Severe Residential Wood Burning on Atmospheric Processing, Water-Soluble Organic Aerosol and Light Absorption, in an Inland City of Southeastern Europe. Atmos. Environ. 2022, 280, 119139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bari, M.A.; Baumbach, G.; Kuch, B.; Scheffknecht, G. Wood Smoke as a Source of Particle-Phase Organic Compounds in Residential Areas. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 4722–4732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Caseiro, A.; Oliveira, C. Variations in Wood Burning Organic Marker Concentrations in the Atmospheres of Four European Cities. J. Environ. Monit. 2012, 14, 2261–2269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hedberg, E.; Johansson, C.; Johansson, L.; Swietlicki, E.; Brorström-Lundén, E. Is Levoglucosan a Suitable Quantitative Tracer for Wood Burning? Comparison with Receptor Modeling on Trace Elements in Lycksele, Sweden. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2006, 56, 1669–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Monteiro, A.; Gouveia, S.; Scotto, M.; Sorte, S.; Gama, C.; Gianelle, V.L.; Colombi, C.; Alves, C. Investigating PM10 Episodes Using Levoglucosan as Tracer. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2018, 11, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Piazzalunga, A.; Belis, C.; Bernardoni, V.; Cazzuli, O.; Fermo, P.; Valli, G.; Vecchi, R. Estimates of Wood Burning Contribution to PM by the Macro-Tracer Method Using Tailored Emission Factors. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 6642–6649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Szidat, S.; Jenk, T.M.; Synal, H.-A.; Kalberer, M.; Wacker, L.; Hajdas, I.; Kasper-Giebl, A.; Baltensperger, U. Contributions of Fossil Fuel, Biomass-burning, and Biogenic Emissions to Carbonaceous Aerosols in Zurich as Traced by 14 C. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2006, 111, D07206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hennigan, C.J.; Sullivan, A.P.; Collett, J.L.; Robinson, A.L. Levoglucosan Stability in Biomass Burning Particles Exposed to Hydroxyl Radicals. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2010, 37, L09806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pfeffer, U.; Breuer, L.; Gladtke, D.; Schud, T.J. Contribution of Wood Burning to the Exceedance of PM10 Limit Values in North Rhine-Westphalia. Gefahrstoffe Reinhalt. Luft 2013, 73, 239–245. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tao, J.; Gao, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, R.; Che, H.; Zhang, Z.; Lin, Z.; Jing, J.; Cao, J.; Hsu, S.C. PM2.5 Pollution in a Megacity of Southwest China: Source Apportionment and Implication. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2014, 14, 8679–8699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Font, A.; de Brito, J.F.; Riffault, V.; Conil, S.; Jaffrezo, J.L.; Bourin, A. Long-Term Measurements of Aerosol Composition at Rural Background Sites in France: Sources, Seasonality and Mass Closure of PM2.5. Atmos. Environ. 2024, 334, 120724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Schmidl, C.; Marr, I.L.; Caseiro, A.; Kotianová, P.; Berner, A.; Bauer, H.; Kasper-Giebl, A.; Puxbaum, H. Chemical Characterisation of Fine Particle Emissions from Wood Stove Combustion of Common Woods Growing in Mid-European Alpine Regions. Atmos. Environ. 2008, 42, 126–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mcdonald, J.D.; Zielinska, B.; Fujita, E.M.; Sagebiel, J.C.; Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G. Fine Particle and Gaseous Emission Rates from Residential Wood Combustion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 2080–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Šimić, I.; Godec, R.; Bešlić, I.; Davila, S. Carbon Mass Concentrations in the Air at the Plitvice Lakes National Park. Kem. Ind. 2018, 67, P127–P133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tian, J.; Ni, H.; Cao, J.; Han, Y.; Wang, Q.; Wang, X.; Chen, L.W.A.; Chow, J.C.; Watson, J.G.; Wei, C.; et al. Characteristics of Carbonaceous Particles from Residential Coal Combustion and Agricultural Biomass Burning in China. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2017, 8, 521–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ma, L.; Hu, D.; Yan, Y.; Niu, Y.; Duan, X.; Guo, Y.; Li, W.; Peng, L. Pollution Characteristics and Source Analysis of Carbonaceous Components in PM2.5 in a Typical Industrial City. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2024, 24, 240014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Miyazaki, Y.; Kondo, Y.; Takegawa, N.; Komazaki, Y.; Fukuda, M.; Kawamura, K.; Mochida, M.; Okuzawa, K.; Weber, R.J. Time-Resolved Measurements of Water-Soluble Organic Carbon in Tokyo. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2006, 111, D23206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wu, T.; Boor, B.E. Urban Aerosol Size Distributions: A Global Perspective. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2021, 21, 8883–8914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Harni, S.D.; Saarikoski, S.; Kuula, J.; Helin, A.; Aurela, M.; Niemi, J.V.; Kousa, A.; Rönkkö, T.; Timonen, H. Effects of Emission Sources on the Particle Number Size Distribution of Ambient Air in the Residential Area. Atmos. Environ. 2023, 293, 119419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Casquero-vera, J.A.; Pérez-ramírez, D.; Lyamani, H.; Rejano, F.; Casans, A.; Titos, G.; Olmo, F.J.; Dada, L.; Hakala, S.; Hussein, T.; et al. Impact of Desert Dust on New Particle Formation Events and Cloud Condensation Nuclei Budget in Dust-Influenced Areas. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2023, 23, 15795–15814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Alves, C.A.; Vicente, E.D.; Rocha, S.; Vicente, A.M. Organic Tracers in Aerosols from the Residential Combustion of Pellets and Agro-Fuels. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2017, 10, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Du, Z.; He, K.; Cheng, Y.; Duan, F.; Ma, Y.; Liu, J.; Zhang, X.; Zheng, M.; Weber, R. A Yearlong Study of Water-Soluble Organic Carbon in Beijing I: Sources and Its Primary vs. Secondary Nature. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 92, 514–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Choudhary, V.; Rajput, P.; Gupta, T. Absorption Properties and Forcing Efficiency of Light-Absorbing Water-Soluble Organic Aerosols: Seasonal and Spatial Variability. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 272, 115932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Satish, R.; Shamjad, P.; Thamban, N.; Tripathi, S.; Rastogi, N. Temporal Characteristics of Brown Carbon over the Central Indo-Gangetic Plain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 6765–6772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Park, S.S.; Cho, S.Y. Tracking Sources and Behaviors of Water-Soluble Organic Carbon in Fine Particulate Matter Measured at an Urban Site in Korea. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yu, Q.; Chen, J.; Qin, W.; Cheng, S.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Y.; Xin, K.; Ahmad, M. Characteristics, Primary Sources and Secondary Formation of Water-Soluble Organic Aerosols in Downtown Beijing. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2021, 21, 1775–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chen, T.; Zhang, P.; Chu, B.; Ma, Q.; Ge, Y.; Liu, J.; He, H. Secondary Organic Aerosol Formation from Mixed Volatile Organic Compounds: Effect of RO2 Chemistry and Precursor Concentration. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2022, 5, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Mutzel, A.; Zhang, Y.; Böge, O.; Rodigast, M.; Kolodziejczyk, A.; Wang, X.; Herrmann, H. Importance of SOA Formation of α-Pinene, Limonene and m-Cresol Comparing Day-and Night-Time Radical Chemistry. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2020, 21, 8479–8498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Utry, N.; Ajtai, T.; Filep, Á.; Pintér, M.; Török, Z.; Bozóki, Z.; Szabó, G. Correlations between Absorption Angström Exponent (AAE) of Wintertime Ambient Urban Aerosol and Its Physical and Chemical Properties. Atmos. Environ. 2014, 91, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Caseiro, A.; Bauer, H.; Schmidl, C.; Pio, C.A.; Puxbaum, H. Wood Burning Impact on PM10 in Three Austrian Regions. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 2186–2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Graber, E.R.; Rudich, Y. Atmospheric HULIS: How Humic-like Are They? A Comprehensive and Critical Review. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2006, 6, 729–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mace, K.A.; Kubilay, N.; Duce, R.A. Organic Nitrogen in Rain and Aerosol in the Eastern Mediterranean Atmosphere: An Association with Atmospheric Dust. J. Geophys. Res. 2003, 108, 4320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cordell, R.L.; Mazet, M.; Dechoux, C.; Hama, S.M.L.; Staelens, J.; Hofman, J.; Stroobants, C.; Roekens, E.; Kos, G.P.A.; Weijers, E.P.; et al. Evaluation of Biomass Burning across North West Europe and Its Impact on Air Quality. Atmos. Environ. 2016, 141, 276–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. PM1 and PM2.5 mass concentrations during the spring, summer, autumn, and winter seasons of 2022 at an urban background station, along with their linear regression trend over the entire sampling period.
Figure 1. PM1 and PM2.5 mass concentrations during the spring, summer, autumn, and winter seasons of 2022 at an urban background station, along with their linear regression trend over the entire sampling period.
Biomass 05 00001 g001
Figure 2. Mass fraction of carbonaceous compounds (elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), primary organic carbon (POC), and secondary organic carbon (SOC)) in the total mass of PM2.5 fractions during different seasons.
Figure 2. Mass fraction of carbonaceous compounds (elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), primary organic carbon (POC), and secondary organic carbon (SOC)) in the total mass of PM2.5 fractions during different seasons.
Biomass 05 00001 g002
Figure 3. Mass fraction of carbonaceous compounds (elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), primary organic carbon (POC), and secondary organic carbon (SOC)) in the total mass of the PM1 fractions during different seasons.
Figure 3. Mass fraction of carbonaceous compounds (elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), primary organic carbon (POC), and secondary organic carbon (SOC)) in the total mass of the PM1 fractions during different seasons.
Biomass 05 00001 g003
Figure 4. Linear regression between anhydrosugars (LG, MNS, and GA) in PM1 and PM2.5 over the sampling period.
Figure 4. Linear regression between anhydrosugars (LG, MNS, and GA) in PM1 and PM2.5 over the sampling period.
Biomass 05 00001 g004
Figure 5. Correlation between organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) measured in the PM2.5 and PM1 fractions during the (a) spring, (b) summer, (c) autumn, and (d) winter.
Figure 5. Correlation between organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC) measured in the PM2.5 and PM1 fractions during the (a) spring, (b) summer, (c) autumn, and (d) winter.
Biomass 05 00001 g005
Figure 6. (a) WSOC/OC ratio and (b) WSOC and LG mass concentrations determined in PM2.5 and PM1 during different seasons.
Figure 6. (a) WSOC/OC ratio and (b) WSOC and LG mass concentrations determined in PM2.5 and PM1 during different seasons.
Biomass 05 00001 g006
Figure 7. Ratio of water-soluble organic carbon to organic carbon (WSOC/OC), ratio of levoglucosan to water-soluble organic carbon (LG/WSOC), and ratio of levoglucosan to particulate matter (LG/PM2.5) determined in PM2.5..
Figure 7. Ratio of water-soluble organic carbon to organic carbon (WSOC/OC), ratio of levoglucosan to water-soluble organic carbon (LG/WSOC), and ratio of levoglucosan to particulate matter (LG/PM2.5) determined in PM2.5..
Biomass 05 00001 g007
Figure 8. NOAA HYSPLIT 24 h back trajectories (a) ending at 1100UTC 31 January 2022 and (b) ending at 0900UTC 23 January 2022. A star represents the location of the measuring site.
Figure 8. NOAA HYSPLIT 24 h back trajectories (a) ending at 1100UTC 31 January 2022 and (b) ending at 0900UTC 23 January 2022. A star represents the location of the measuring site.
Biomass 05 00001 g008
Figure 9. Mass concentration of LG mass during different wind directions in the winter season.
Figure 9. Mass concentration of LG mass during different wind directions in the winter season.
Biomass 05 00001 g009
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

Sopčić, S.; Godec, R.; Jakovljević, I.; Bešlić, I. The Influence of Biomass Burning on the Organic Content of Urban Aerosols. Biomass 2025, 5, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass5010001

AMA Style

Sopčić S, Godec R, Jakovljević I, Bešlić I. The Influence of Biomass Burning on the Organic Content of Urban Aerosols. Biomass. 2025; 5(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass5010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sopčić, Suzana, Ranka Godec, Ivana Jakovljević, and Ivan Bešlić. 2025. "The Influence of Biomass Burning on the Organic Content of Urban Aerosols" Biomass 5, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass5010001

APA Style

Sopčić, S., Godec, R., Jakovljević, I., & Bešlić, I. (2025). The Influence of Biomass Burning on the Organic Content of Urban Aerosols. Biomass, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomass5010001

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop