Measurement System Evaluation for Upwind/Downwind Sampling of Fugitive Dust Emissions

Eight different PM10 samplers with various size-selective inlets and sample flow rates were evaluated for upwind/ downwind assessment of fugitive dust emissions from two sand and gravel operations in southern California during September through October 2008. Continuous data were acquired at one-minute intervals for 24 hours each day. Integrated filters were acquired at five-hour intervals between 1100 and 1600 PDT on each day because winds were most consistent during this period. High-volume (hivol) size-selective inlet (SSI) PM10 Federal Reference Method (FRM) filter samplers were comparable to each other during side-by-side sampling, even under high dust loading conditions. Based on linear regression slope, the BGI low-volume (lovol) PQ200 FRM measured ~18% lower PM10 levels than a nearby hivol SSI in the source-dominated environment, even though tests in ambient environments show they are equivalent. Although the TSI DustTrak DRX PM10 concentrations did not equal those from the hivol SSI, both instruments were highly correlated (R = 0.9) at the two downwind sites. Multiple size ranges from the TSI DustTrak DRX and Grimm optical particle counters (OPC) allowed the identification of spatial non-uniformity for sources within and outside the facilities. Narrow dust plumes were only detected by some of the continuous instruments across the sampler array. Upwind PM10 concentrations at one of the locations were higher than the downwind concentrations owing to a high concentration of industrial and vehicular activities. The shorter-duration measurements and quantification of super-coarse (> 10 µm) particles with high deposition velocities available from optical particle counters is needed to evaluate the effects of local emissions on both upwind and downwind samples.

[1]  J. Chow,et al.  Size-Differentiated Chemical Characteristics of Asian Paleo Dust: Records from Aeolian Deposition on Chinese Loess Plateau , 2011, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[2]  Chang-Tang Chang,et al.  Fugitive Dust Emission Source Profiles and Assessment of Selected Control Strategies for Particulate Matter at Gravel Processing Sites in Taiwan , 2010, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[3]  J. Richards,et al.  PM4 Crystalline Silica Emission Factors and Ambient Concentrations at Aggregate-Producing Sources in California , 2009, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[4]  Xiaoliang Wang,et al.  A Novel Optical Instrument for Estimating Size Segregated Aerosol Mass Concentration in Real Time , 2009 .

[5]  Meigen Zhang,et al.  Model Analysis of PM10 Concentration Variations Over a Mineral Products Industrial Area in Saraburi, Thailand , 2009 .

[6]  Hans Grimm,et al.  Aerosol Measurement: The Use of Optical Light Scattering for the Determination of Particulate Size Distribution, and Particulate Mass, Including the Semi-Volatile Fraction , 2009, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[7]  Y. Seo,et al.  Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber , 2009 .

[8]  J. Harner,et al.  Field Comparison of PM10 Samplers , 2009 .

[9]  Benjamin J. Mullins,et al.  Performance evaluation of three optical particle counters with an efficient “multimodal” calibration method , 2008 .

[10]  Michael Sommer,et al.  Temporal variations in PM10 and particle size distribution during Asian dust storms in Inner Mongolia , 2008 .

[11]  New Directions : Beyond compliance air quality measurements , 2008 .

[12]  J. Chow,et al.  Size-differentiated source profiles for fugitive dust in the Chinese Loess Plateau , 2008 .

[13]  Prakash Doraiswamy,et al.  Advances in Integrated and Continuous Measurements for Particle Mass and Chemical Composition , 2008, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[14]  Yu-Hsiang Cheng,et al.  Comparison of the TSI Model 8520 and Grimm Series 1.108 Portable Aerosol Instruments Used to Monitor Particulate Matter in an Iron Foundry , 2008, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[15]  Ronald E. Lacey,et al.  Estimating FRM PM10 Sampler Performance Characteristics Using Particle Size Analysis and Collocated TSP and PM10 Samplers: Cotton Gins , 2008 .

[16]  J. Chow,et al.  The application of thermal methods for determining chemical composition of carbonaceous aerosols: A review , 2007, Journal of environmental science and health. Part A, Toxic/hazardous substances & environmental engineering.

[17]  A. Seaton,et al.  Exposure to particulate matter on an Indian stone-crushing site , 2007, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[18]  J. Bachmann Will the Circle Be Unbroken: A History of the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards , 2007, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[19]  John A Gillies,et al.  Particulate Emissions from U.S. Department of Defense Artillery Backblast Testing , 2007, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[20]  Darrin K. Ott,et al.  Comparison of the Grimm 1.108 and 1.109 portable aerosol spectrometer to the TSI 3321 aerodynamic particle sizer for dry particles. , 2006, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[21]  Judith C. Chow,et al.  PM2.5 and PM10 Mass Measurements in California's San Joaquin Valley , 2006 .

[22]  Hampden D. Kuhns,et al.  Precision and repeatability of the TRAKER vehicle-based paved road dust emission measurement , 2006 .

[23]  B. Holmén,et al.  Lidar characterization of crystalline silica generation and transport from a sand and gravel plant. , 2006, Journal of hazardous materials.

[24]  J. Chow,et al.  PM 2.5 and PM 10 Mass Measurements in California's San , 2006 .

[25]  Simon Kingham,et al.  Winter comparison of TEOM, MiniVol and DustTrak PM10 monitors in a woodsmoke environment , 2006 .

[26]  Chang-Tang Chang Characteristics and Emission Factors of Fugitive Dust at Gravel Processing Sites , 2006 .

[27]  W. Koch,et al.  Aspiration and sampling efficiencies of the TSP and louvered particulate matter inlets. , 2005, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

[28]  Djordje Nikolic,et al.  Spatial Variability of Unpaved Road Dust PM10 Emission Factors near El Paso, Texas , 2005, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[29]  E. J. Dickson-Gilmore Will the circle be unbroken , 2005 .

[30]  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 .

[31]  W. Maenhaut,et al.  INTERCOMP2000, a campaign to assess the comparability of methods in use in Europe for measuring aerosol composition , 2004 .

[32]  J. Chow,et al.  Size and Geographical Variation in PM1, PM2.5 and PM10: Source Profiles from Soils in the Western United States , 2004 .

[33]  Chang-Tang Chang,et al.  Assessment of Influential Range and Characteristics of Fugitive Dust in Limestone Extraction Processes , 2004, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

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

[35]  Hampden Kuhns,et al.  Source profiles for industrial, mobile, and area sources in the Big Bend Regional Aerosol Visibility and Observational study. , 2004, Chemosphere.

[36]  N. Motallebi,et al.  Particulate Matter in California: Part 1—Intercomparison of Several PM2.5, PM10–2.5, and PM10 Monitoring Networks , 2003, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

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

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

[39]  W. Arnott,et al.  Toward an ideal integrating nephelometer. , 2003, Optics letters.

[40]  Judith C. Chow,et al.  Similarities and differences in PM10 chemical source profiles for geological dust from the San Joaquin Valley, California , 2003 .

[41]  Judith C. Chow,et al.  Characterization of PM10 and PM2.5 source profiles for fugitive dust in Hong Kong , 2003 .

[42]  J. Chowa,et al.  Similarities and differences in PM 10 chemical source profiles for geological dust from the San Joaquin Valley , California , 2003 .

[43]  B. Holmén,et al.  Airborne respirable silica near a sand and gravel facility in central California: XRD and elemental analysis to distinguish source and background quartz. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[44]  Tan Zhu,et al.  Designing monitoring networks to represent outdoor human exposure. , 2002, Chemosphere.

[45]  Chuen-Jinn Tsai,et al.  An investigation of dust emissions from unpaved surfaces in Taiwan , 2002 .

[46]  J. Watson Visibility: Science and Regulation , 2002, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[47]  J. Chow,et al.  A wintertime PM2.5 episode at the Fresno, CA, supersite , 2002 .

[48]  J. Chow,et al.  Estimating Middle-, Neighborhood-, and Urban-Scale Contributions to Elemental Carbon in Mexico City with a Rapid Response Aethalometer , 2001, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[49]  Klaus Willeke,et al.  Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications , 2001 .

[50]  D. D. Lane,et al.  Performance Characterization Of The Portable MiniVOLParticdate Matter Sampler , 2001 .

[51]  J C Chow,et al.  Source characterization of major emission sources in the imperial and Mexicali Valleys along the US/Mexico border. , 2001, The Science of the total environment.

[52]  J. Chow,et al.  Chemical composition of fugitive dust emitters in Mexico City , 2001 .

[53]  Hampden D. Kuhns,et al.  Testing Re-entrained Aerosol Kinetic Emissions from Roads : a new approach to infer silt loading on roadways , 2001 .

[54]  J. Chow,et al.  PM2.5 chemical source profiles for vehicle exhaust, vegetative burning, geological material, and coal burning in Northwestern Colorado during 1995. , 2001, Chemosphere.

[55]  C. H. Lee,et al.  Modeling of fugitive dust emission for construction sand and gravel processing plant. , 2001, Environmental science & technology.

[56]  T. Peters,et al.  On the Modification of the Low Flow-Rate PM10 Dichotomous Sampler Inlet , 2001 .

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

[58]  D M Ono,et al.  Systematic Biases in Measured PM10 Values with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Approved Samplers at Owens Lake, California , 2000, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[59]  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.

[60]  Naresh Kumar,et al.  Spatial and temporal variations in PM10 and PM2.5 source contributions and comparison to emissions during the 1995 integrated monitoring study , 1999 .

[61]  J C Chow,et al.  Middle- and Neighborhood-Scale Variations of PM10 Source Contributions in Las Vegas, Nevada. , 1999, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[62]  James Sweet,et al.  Long-Term Efficiencies of Dust Suppressants to Reduce PM10 Emissions from Unpaved Roads. , 1999, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[63]  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.

[64]  Yu-Hsiang Cheng,et al.  Comparison of Two Ambient Beta Gauge PM10 Samplers. , 1996, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[65]  J C Chow,et al.  Measurement methods to determine compliance with ambient air quality standards for suspended particles. , 1995, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[66]  Chuen-Jinn Tsai A Field Study of Three Collocated Ambient PM10 Samplers , 1995 .

[67]  R. Burton,et al.  EFFECT OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ON THE CUT POINT BETWEEN FINE AND COARSE AMBIENT MASS FRACTIONS , 1995 .

[68]  Judith C. Chow,et al.  A laboratory resuspension chamber to measure fugitive dust size distributions and chemical compositions , 1994 .

[69]  John G. Watson,et al.  Comparison of PM10 concentrations in high- and medium-volume samplers in a desert environment , 1993, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[70]  C. V. Mathai,et al.  Intercomparison of ambient aerosol samplers used in western visibility and air quality studies , 1990 .

[71]  Susanne V. Hering,et al.  Air Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants , 1989 .

[72]  Dale A. Lundgren,et al.  Wide Range Aerosol Classifier: A Size Selective Sampler for Large Particles , 1987 .

[73]  David M. Holland,et al.  Intercomparison of High-Volume PM10 Samplers at a Site with High Particulate Concentrations , 1986 .

[74]  A. Mcfarland,et al.  Response to Comment on “A Field Comparison of PM10 Inlets at Four Locations” , 1985 .

[75]  Terry A. Sweitzer,et al.  A field evaluation of two PM10 inlets in an industrialized area of Illinois , 1985 .

[76]  David M. Holland,et al.  A Field Comparison of PM10 Inlets at Four Locations , 1985 .

[77]  C. Brunner National Ambient Air Quality Standards , 1985 .

[78]  Brian J. Hausknecht,et al.  Large Particle Size Distribution in Five U.S. Cities and the Effect on a New Ambient Participate Matter Standard (PM10) , 1984 .

[79]  Judith C. Chow,et al.  The Effect of Sampling Inlets on the PM-10 and PM-15 to TSP Concentration Ratios , 1983 .

[80]  J. B. Wedding,et al.  A quantitative technique for determining the impact of non-ideal Ambient sampler inlets on the collected mass , 1983 .

[81]  T. Warner,et al.  Characteristics of Summertime Circulations and Pollutant Ventilation in the Los Angeles Basin , 1982 .

[82]  G. Sehmel Particle and gas dry deposition: A review , 1980 .

[83]  Thomas A. McMahon,et al.  Empirical atmospheric deposition parameters—A survey , 1979 .

[84]  T. Smith,et al.  Anatomy of a Los Angeles smog episode: pollutant transport in the daytime sea breeze regime. , 1978, Atmospheric environment.