A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
On the concentration differences between PM2.5 FEM monitors and FRM samplers
Abstract BAM-1020 and TEOM-FDMS have undergone rigorous testing and analysis protocols to become the Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors and serve as reliable near real-time monitors for compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and references for low-cost PM2.5 sensor calibration. However, differences between the FEM and FRM (Federal Reference Method) data still exist, which cause inconsistency in PM2.5 measurements. This study carried out the field tests across five geographically diverse stations in different seasons in Taiwan with 265 daily samples collected by the collocated BAM-1020 and TEOM-FDMS and the FRM sampler and found that the biases between the FEM and FRM values increased with the decreasing PM2.5 concentrations and varied with ambient conditions. The measurement uncertainties exist in the BAM-1020 were mainly due to the aerosol water content, while the TEOM-FDMS always over-measured PM2.5 compared to the FRM sampler since it corrects for the evaporation loss of semi-volatile particle materials. To reduce the biases between the FEM monitors and FRM samplers, empirical equations based on PM2.5 concentrations (μg m−3), temperature (oC), and relative humidity (%) were derived to convert the FEM data to the FRM data. After correction, the mean normalized biases were decreased from +1.67 ± 12.43% to +0.63 ± 8.75% for the BAM-1020 and from +13.86 ± 14.50% to −0.85 ± 9.0% for the TEOM-FDMS. Also, the same empirical equation was used to convert the FRM PM2.5 values to the “true” or “actual” PM2.5 values represented by the TEOM-FDMS with the bias reduced from −10.76 ± 11.42% to +1.33 ± 8.44% after conversion.
Graphical abstract Display Omitted
Highlights The FRM under-measures PM2.5 due to evaporation loss while the TEOM-FDMS provides “actual” PM2.5 value. The BAM-1020 over-measures or under-measures PM2.5 due to aerosol water content and evaporation loss, respectively. Differences between the FEM and FRM values vary with the PM2.5 concentrations, temperature, and relative humidity. The empirical equations can be used to convert the FEM data to FRM data or the FRM data to “actual” PM2.5 value.
On the concentration differences between PM2.5 FEM monitors and FRM samplers
Abstract BAM-1020 and TEOM-FDMS have undergone rigorous testing and analysis protocols to become the Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors and serve as reliable near real-time monitors for compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and references for low-cost PM2.5 sensor calibration. However, differences between the FEM and FRM (Federal Reference Method) data still exist, which cause inconsistency in PM2.5 measurements. This study carried out the field tests across five geographically diverse stations in different seasons in Taiwan with 265 daily samples collected by the collocated BAM-1020 and TEOM-FDMS and the FRM sampler and found that the biases between the FEM and FRM values increased with the decreasing PM2.5 concentrations and varied with ambient conditions. The measurement uncertainties exist in the BAM-1020 were mainly due to the aerosol water content, while the TEOM-FDMS always over-measured PM2.5 compared to the FRM sampler since it corrects for the evaporation loss of semi-volatile particle materials. To reduce the biases between the FEM monitors and FRM samplers, empirical equations based on PM2.5 concentrations (μg m−3), temperature (oC), and relative humidity (%) were derived to convert the FEM data to the FRM data. After correction, the mean normalized biases were decreased from +1.67 ± 12.43% to +0.63 ± 8.75% for the BAM-1020 and from +13.86 ± 14.50% to −0.85 ± 9.0% for the TEOM-FDMS. Also, the same empirical equation was used to convert the FRM PM2.5 values to the “true” or “actual” PM2.5 values represented by the TEOM-FDMS with the bias reduced from −10.76 ± 11.42% to +1.33 ± 8.44% after conversion.
Graphical abstract Display Omitted
Highlights The FRM under-measures PM2.5 due to evaporation loss while the TEOM-FDMS provides “actual” PM2.5 value. The BAM-1020 over-measures or under-measures PM2.5 due to aerosol water content and evaporation loss, respectively. Differences between the FEM and FRM values vary with the PM2.5 concentrations, temperature, and relative humidity. The empirical equations can be used to convert the FEM data to FRM data or the FRM data to “actual” PM2.5 value.
On the concentration differences between PM2.5 FEM monitors and FRM samplers
Le, Thi-Cuc (author) / Shukla, Krishna Kumar (author) / Chen, Yu-Ting (author) / Chang, Shun-Chin (author) / Lin, Tsai-Yin (author) / Li, Ziyi (author) / Pui, David Y.H. (author) / Tsai, Chuen-Jinn (author)
Atmospheric Environment ; 222
2019-11-09
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Technology Focus on Samplers, Monitors
Online Contents | 1993
| Taylor & Francis Verlag | 2004
Sampling and instrumentation - Samplers on the move: Evaluating portable samplers
Online Contents | 2003
Samplers Assist Upgraded Plant
Online Contents | 1994