You are here:
COMPARISON OF FILTER-BASED AND CONTINUOUS PARTICULATE MATTER METHODOLOGIES FROM RESIDENTIAL AND AMBIENT MONITORING
Citation:
Williams, R W., J C. Suggs, R B. Zweidinger, G F. Evans, J P. Creason, R K. Kwok, C. E. Rodes, P. A. Lawless, AND L S. Sheldon. COMPARISON OF FILTER-BASED AND CONTINUOUS PARTICULATE MATTER METHODOLOGIES FROM RESIDENTIAL AND AMBIENT MONITORING. Presented at PM 2000 AWMA Conference, Charleston, SC, January 24-28, 2000.
Description:
An extensive PM monitoring study was conducted during the 1998 Baltimore PM Epidemiology-Exposure Study of the Elderly. An exposure goal of this study was. to investigate the mass concentration variability between various monitoring instrumentation located across residential indoor, residential outdoor, and ambient sites. Filter-based (24-h integrated) samplers included Federal Reference Method Monitors (FRM), Personal Environmental Monitors (PEMs), Versatile Air Pollution Samplers (VAPS), and cyclone-based instruments, with Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalances (TEOMs) and nephelometers collecting continuous data. Measurements were collected on a near-daily basis over the course of a 28-day period in July-August, 1998. The selected monitors had individual sampling completeness percentages ranging from 64-100%. Instrument method quantitation limits varied from 0.2 to 5.0 yg/m3. Data from matched days indicated that mean individual PMio and PM2.5 mass concentrations differed by less than 3 ug/m3 across the instrumentation and within each respective size fraction. Mass concentrations between collocated outdoor instruments typically varied by less than 20% of their mean values. PM10 and PM2.5 mass concentration Pearson correlation coefficients between the various instruments often exceeded 0.90 with coarse (PM10-2.5) comparisons revealing correlations typically well below 0.50. All of the cited outdoor PM2.5 samplers were observed to provide mass concentrations statistically equivalent to those measured using a prototype PM2.5 FRM sampler.
This work has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under contract #68-D5-0040 to the Research Triangle Institute. It has been subjected to Agency review and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation for use.