Field comparison of instruments for exposure assessment of airborne ultrafine particles and particulate matter
Field comparison of instruments for exposure assessment of airborne ultrafine particles and particulate matter
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.054
复制
发表时间：
2017-04-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Cavallo, Domenico M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Spinazze, Andrea;Fanti, Giacomo;Cavallo, Domenico M.
本研究的目的是比较使用同位实时设备和重量采样器来测量超细颗粒（UFP）和粒度分级PM质量浓度。研究结果有助于评价不同监测仪器对颗粒物浓度的可比性。采用光散射仪和重量采样器对意大利科莫市冬季PM 1、PM2.5、PM 4/5、PM10和TSP质量浓度进行了8 h监测。总共进行了16次采样：使用线性回归分析来分析测量结果。计算并讨论了技术间的绝对偏差。与参考仪器（便携式扩散充电器）相比，使用冷凝颗粒计数器测量的UFP浓度明显高估，绝对偏差似乎随着UFP浓度的增加而增加。不同光散射装置（光度计-“PHOT”）的比较表明，两种测试仪器（PHOT-2和PHOT-3）相对于用作参考的仪器（PHOT-1）在测量粒度分级PM方面高估，唯一的例外是PM 4/5。此外，不同的光散射装置与基于过滤器的采样器的比较表明，直接读取装置往往高估（PHOT-2，PHOT-3）或低估（PHOT-1）的颗粒物浓度从重量分析。不同的过滤器为基础的采样器的比较表明，所观察到的高估误差随着PM浓度水平的增加而增加;然而，调查的方法之间的良好水平的协议允许他们被归类为可比的，虽然他们不能被描述为具有互惠的可预测性。环境相对湿度与直接读取与基于过滤器的技术的比较所产生的绝对误差相关，以及对于相同的PM分数，不同的基于过滤器的采样器之间的绝对误差相关。(C)2017爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有
The objective of this study was to compare the use of co-located real-time devices and gravimetric samplers to measure ultrafine particles (UFP) and size-fractionated PM mass concentrations. The results contribute to evaluating the comparability of different monitoring instruments for size-fractionated PM concentrations. Paired light scattering devices and gravimetric samplers were used to measure the PM1, PM2.5, PM4/5, PM10 and TSP mass concentrations during 8-h monitoring sessions in an urban background site (Como, Italy) in winter. A total of 16 sampling sessions were performed: measurements were analyzed using linear regression analysis. Absolute deviations between techniques were calculated and discussed. The UFP concentrations measured using a condensation particle counter were clearly overestimated compared with the reference instrument (portable diffusion charger), with an absolute deviation that appeared to increase with the UFP concentration. The comparison of different light scattering devices (photometers - 'PHOTs') indicated an over-estimation of two of the tested instruments (PHOT-2 and PHOT-3) with respect to the one used as the reference (PHOT-1) regarding the measurement of the size-fractioned PM, with the only exception being PM4/5. Further, the comparison of different light-scattering devices with filter-based samplers indicated that direct-reading devices tend to over-estimate (PHOT-2, PHOT-3) or under-estimate (PHOT-1) the PM concentrations from gravimetric analysis. The comparison of different filter-based samplers showed that the observed over-estimation error increased with increasing PM concentration levels; however, the good level of agreement between the investigated methods allowed them to be classified as comparable, although they cannot be characterized as having reciprocal predictability. Ambient relative humidity was correlated with the absolute error resulting from the comparison of direct-reading vs. filter-based techniques, as well as among different filter-based samplers for the same PM fraction. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.