U型路线空气质量定量评价结果的比较与分析——以宝鸡市峪甘路-石陵路为例

Comparison and analysis of quantitative evaluation results of air quality in a U-type route——Taking Yugan Road and Shiling Road in Baoji City as an example

目的研究不同的数据处理方法对于宝鸡市峪甘路-石陵路空气质量评价结果(CI值)的影响。方法采用整体平均法和降维法,利用Origin 9.0软件对宝鸡市峪甘路-石陵路空气离子浓度观测结果进行统计分析,比较不同方法对于安培空气质量评价指数(CI值)以及空气质量评价等级的影响。结果整体平均法和降序降维法计算所得CI值非常接近,而且空气质量清洁度和空气质量分级结果是一致的。但是,时序降维法计算所得CI值普遍偏高。与另外2种数据处理方法相比较,13个观测地点的CI平均值,有11个与整体平均法和降序降维法依据CI值对于空气质量分级结果是一致的,但是有2个观测点的CI计算结果出现差异,即差异率为15%。结论降序降维法可以作为一种比较理想的空气正、负离子浓度测定结果的处理方法,而且与整体平均法相比较,因为变量少,更便于进行统计分析。

Purposes—To study the effect of different data processing methods on the air quality assessment of the U-type route from Yugan Road to Shiling Road in Baoji City,Shaanxi,China.Methods—The air-ion concentration in the above mentioned route were determined using the overall average and dimension reduction methods and analyzed with the Origin 9.0software.How different methods affect the Abe air quality index（CI）and the air quality assessment level was compared herein.Results—Although it is common that the CI results calculated with dimensionality reduction method are much higher than those with the other methods,the cleanliness of air quality is consistent with the grade of air quality.The CI average values of the 11 groups in 13 observation sites are consistent with air quality classification result based on CI value calculated with the overall average and descending dimension reduction methods.But the counted CI values of another two observation sites are different,the difference rate is 15%.Conclusion—The descending dimension reduction method can be used as an ideal treatment method for determining the concentration of positive and negative air ions,and it is more convenient to carry out statistical analysis due to fewer variables,while compared with the overall average method.