DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.054
Scopus记录号: 2-s2.0-85011898328
论文题名: Field comparison of instruments for exposure assessment of airborne ultrafine particles and particulate matter
作者: Spinazzè A ; , Fanti G ; , Borghi F ; , Del Buono L ; , Campagnolo D ; , Rovelli S ; , Cattaneo A ; , Cavallo D ; M
刊名: Atmospheric Environment
ISSN: 0168-2563
EISSN: 1573-515X
出版年: 2017
卷: 154 起始页码: 274
结束页码: 284
语种: 英语
英文关键词: Direct reading instrument
; Gravimetric analysis
; Intercomparison
; PM concentration
; Urban background
Scopus关键词: Gravimetric analysis
; Light scattering
; Regression analysis
; Urban growth
; Condensation particle counters
; Direct readings
; Filter-based technique
; Intercomparisons
; Monitoring instruments
; Pm concentrations
; Reference instruments
; Urban background
; Particles (particulate matter)
; airborne survey
; concentration (composition)
; condensation
; environmental monitoring
; gravimetry
; light scattering
; particulate matter
; real time
; relative humidity
; air monitoring
; air quality
; air sampler
; airborne particle
; Article
; comparative study
; diffusion
; environmental exposure
; environmental impact assessment
; gravimetry
; humidity
; light scattering
; meteorology
; particulate matter
; photometer
; prediction
; priority journal
; static electricity
; thermogravimetry
; Como
; Italy
; Lombardy
Scopus学科分类: Environmental Science: Water Science and Technology
; Earth and Planetary Sciences: Earth-Surface Processes
; Environmental Science: Environmental Chemistry
英文摘要: 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, PM10and 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. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd Citation statistics:
资源类型: 期刊论文
标识符: http://119.78.100.158/handle/2HF3EXSE/82499
Appears in Collections: 气候变化事实与影响
There are no files associated with this item.
作者单位: Dipartimento di Scienza e Alta Tecnologia, Università degli Studi dell'Insubria, Via Valleggio 11, Como (CO), Italy; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche e Cliniche, Ospedale L. Sacco, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via G.B. Grassi 74, Milano, Italy
Recommended Citation:
Spinazzè A,, Fanti G,, Borghi F,et al. Field comparison of instruments for exposure assessment of airborne ultrafine particles and particulate matter[J]. Atmospheric Environment,2017-01-01,154