• Journal Article

Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors

Citation

Williams, R., Suggs, J., Rodes, C., Lawless, P., Zweidinger, R., Kwok, R., ... Sheldon, L. (2000). Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 10(5), 497-505. DOI: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500138

Abstract

An extensive PM monitoring study was conducted during the 1998 Baltimore PM Epidemiology-Exposure Study of the Elderly. One goal was to investigate the mass concentration comparability between various monitoring instrumentation located across residential indoor, residential outdoor, and ambient sites. Filter-based (24-h integrated) samplers included Federal Reference Method Monitors (PM2.5-FRMs), Personal Environmental Monitors (PEMs), Versatile Air Pollution Samplers (VAPS), and cyclone-based instruments. Tapered element oscillating microbalances (TEOMs) collected real-time data. Measurements were collected on a near-daily basis over a 28-day period during July–August, 1998. The selected monitors had individual sampling completeness percentages ranging from 64% to 100%. Quantitation limits varied from 0.2 to 5.0 g/m3. Results from matched days indicated that mean individual PM10 and PM2.5 mass concentrations differed by less than 3 g/m3 across the instrumentation and within each respective size fraction. PM10 and PM2.5 mass concentration regression coefficients of determination between the monitors often exceeded 0.90 with coarse (PM10–2.5) comparisons revealing coefficients typically well below 0.40. Only one of the outdoor collocated PM2.5 monitors (PEM) provided mass concentration data that were statistically different from that produced by a protoype PM2.5 FRM sampler. The PEM had a positive mass concentration bias ranging up to 18% relative to the FRM prototype.