Winter comparison of TEOM, MiniVol and DustTrak PM10 monitors in a woodsmoke environment

Abstract This paper compares PM10 mass concentrations data generated by three co-located particulate monitors, the tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM40) (operating at 40 °C), MiniVol and DustTrak, operating outdoors during winter woodsmoke air pollution (Christchurch, New Zealand). TEOM40 data were adjusted to adjTEOM40 with an algorithm derived from a co-located TEOM40 and HiVol at a second field site. Corrected and corrected-loge-transformed data were analyzed with reduced major axis regression. Logged adjTEOM40 and DustTrak data correlated best ( r 2 = 0.8 1 ) but the DustTrak required a substantial correction factor to make data comparable in real terms. Consistent over-recording by the DustTrak and under-recording by the TEOM40 were consistent with previously published work. The MiniVol did not correlate well with other instruments ( r 2 = 0.6 2 and 0.53 against the adjTEOM40 and DustTrak, respectively) but reasons for this cannot be ascertained.

[1]  A. Sturman,et al.  Application of back-trajectory techniques to the delimitation of urban clean air zones , 2002 .

[2]  Delbert J. Eatough,et al.  Semi-volatile secondary organic aerosol in urban atmospheres: meeting a measurement challenge , 2003 .

[3]  A. Seaton,et al.  Comparison between a personal PM10 sampling head and the tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) system , 1999 .

[4]  J. Heinrich,et al.  PM25 measurements in ambient aerosol: comparison between Harvard impactor (HI) and the tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) system. , 2001, The Science of the total environment.

[5]  P. Hopke,et al.  Performance evaluation of continuous PM 2.5 mass concentration monitors , 2005 .

[6]  G. Ayers.  Potential for simultaneous measurement of PM10, PM2.5 and PM1 for air quality monitoring purposes using a single TEOM , 2004 .

[7]  Robert F. Herrick,et al.  Comparison of Fine Particle Measurements from a Direct-Reading Instrument and a Gravimetric Sampling Method , 2004, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[8]  J. Ambs,et al.  Development of a Reference Standard for Particulate Matter Mass in Ambient Air , 2001 .

[9]  J. Pinto,et al.  Spatial Variability of PM2.5 in Urban Areas in the United States , 2004, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[10]  G. Ayers.  Comment on regression analysis of air quality data , 2001 .

[11]  Christian Monn,et al.  Exposure assessment of air pollutants: a review on spatial heterogeneity and indoor/outdoor/personal exposure to suspended particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ozone , 2001 .

[12]  M. Meyer,et al.  A comparison of PM10 monitors at a Kerbside site in the northeast of England , 2003 .

[13]  Roy M. Harrison,et al.  Quantitative interpretation of divergence between PM10 and PM2.5 mass measurement by TEOM and gravimetric (Partisol) instruments , 2004 .

[14]  R. Finkelman.  Trace elements in coal , 1999, Biological Trace Element Research.

[15]  Phillip L. Williams,et al.  A comparison of two direct-reading aerosol monitors with the federal reference method for PM2.5 in indoor air , 2002 .

[16]  R B Finkelman,et al.  Health impacts of domestic coal use in China. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  A. Sturman,et al.  The surface wind field during winter smog nights in Christchurch and coastal Canterbury, New Zealand , 2004 .

[18]  Vincent Castranova,et al.  Health impacts of coal and coal use: Possible solutions , 2002 .

[19]  J. Chow,et al.  Comparison of continuous and filter based mass measurements in Mexico City , 2003 .

[20]  Timo Mäkelä,et al.  Intercomparison of methods to measure the mass concentration of the atmospheric aerosol during INTERCOMP2000: influence of instrumentation and size cuts , 2004 .

[21]  I. Beverland,et al.  Intercomparison of five PM10 monitoring devices and the implications for exposure measurement in epidemiological research. , 2000, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

[22]  F. Lurmann,et al.  Evaluation of the TEOM method for measurement of ambient particulate mass in urban areas. , 1997, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[23]  Field trials of the TEOM® and Partisol for PM10 monitoring in the St Austell china clay area, Cornwall, UK , 1999 .

[24]  J. Seinfeld.  Air pollution: A half century of progress , 2004 .

[25]  T. Larson,et al.  Comparison of light scattering devices and impactors for particulate measurements in indoor, outdoor, and personal environments. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[26]  M. Kleeman,et al.  Comparison of Real-Time Instruments Used To Monitor Airborne Particulate Matter , 2001, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[27]  H Patashnick,et al.  Development of a Sample Equilibration System for the TEOM Continuous PM Monitor , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[28]  Boštjan Gomišček,et al.  On the equivalence of gravimetric PM data with TEOM and beta-attenuation measurements , 2004 .

[29]  Vertical profiles of particulate matter size distributions during winter domestic burning in Christchurch, New Zealand , 2004 .

[30]  J. Creason,et al.  Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors* , 2000, Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology.

[31]  V. Karlsson,et al.  Comparability of low-volume PM10 sampler with β-attenuation monitor in background air , 2003 .

[32]  D. Rowan,et al.  Annual ambient air quality monitoring report 2006 , 2004 .

[33]  D. D. Lane,et al.  Performance evaluation of the portable MiniVOL particulate matter sampler , 2001 .