中欧环境空气臭氧评价对比与启示

Comparison of Assessment Methods for Ozone in Ambient Air Between China and Europe and Discussion of Applicability

欧盟臭氧(O_(3))监测与评价起步相对较早。对比中国和欧盟O_(3)例行评价,欧盟在O_(3)标准限值、保护对象、评价指标、评价时间尺度、参评点位类型的设定和选取,以及O_(3)浓度与前体物排放量的关联性分析等方面,均对中国O_(3)评价具有一定的借鉴意义。以2017—2020年石家庄市8个国控站点O_(3)观测数据为分析案例,采用欧盟常用的日最大8 h滑动平均浓度(MDA8)第4高值,以及O_(3)暴露指标SOMO_(3)5和AOT40等3项评价指标,开展了尝试性评价应用和浓度对比。对照欧盟O_(3)评价指标应用经验,未来可考虑从兼顾两类功能区、丰富评价指标、扩展参评点位类型、纳入暴露影响评估、关联前体物排放变化等方面,进一步完善中国环境空气O_(3)评价方式,以更好地发挥其对空气质量精细化管理的数据支撑作用。

Measurement and assessment of ozone in ambient air started earlier in Europe.By comparing the ozone assessment methods in China and Europe,there are many experiences can be learnt from Europe,including ozone standard limits,protection objects,assessment indicators,assessment time scales,types of monitoring stations applied,and correlation analysis between ozone concentration and precursor emissions.Meanwhile,based on the ozone monitoring data at 8 stations in Shijiazhuang from 2017 to 2020,the application of three commonly used ozone indicators(4th highest MDA8,SOMO_(3)5 and AOT40)in Europe was discussed,and the difference of ozone levels was compared.Refer to ozone assessment methods and its application experiences of Europe,further improvements of ozone assessment system in China can be considered from the following aspects,such as giving consideration to two types of functional areas,enriching ozone indicators,expanding types of stations,adding evaluation of ozone exposure,and combining with emissions of ozone precursors and so on,in order to play a better role in technical support for refined air quality management.