Verification of PM-analyzers for PM10 and PM2.5 with the PM reference method

Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot

Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/10138/284196
Julkaisun nimi: Verification of PM-analyzers for PM10 and PM2.5 with the PM reference method
Tekijä: Waldén, Jari; Vestenius, Mika
Kuuluu julkaisusarjaan: Raportteja - Rapporter - Reports 2018:2
ISSN: 0782-6079
ISBN: 978-952-336-056-3
Tiivistelmä: The Air Quality Directive, AQD, (2008/50/EC), set up the rules concerning the reference methods (RM) for the measurements of e.g. mass concentration of particulate matter in air. A member state (MS) can use any other method, which it can demonstrate to display a consistent relationship with the reference method. Demonstration of equivalence (DoE) for automated continuous monitoring systems (AMS) for determination of the PM2.5 and PM10 mass concentration of suspended particulate matter was conducted in Finland at the city of Kuopio during 2014-15 (Walden et al., 2017). The tested AMS were used in Finland at the local air quality networks for controlling the limit values for PM2.5 and PM10 mass concentration measurements. The purpose of the verification exercise was to demonstrate whether the AMS tested and approved during the DoE study in Kuopio are applicable elsewhere in Finland. The comparison of the AMS of the local network (site) with the RM was performed in various parts of Finland (south and north, east and west) to see if the AMS, which was approved as equivalence method still fulfills the suitability criteria elsewhere in Finland. Verification campaigns took place at eight measurement sites of different local air quality networks in Finland either for PM2.5 or PM10 measurements. AMS whose DoE was approved were: FH62-IR, Grimm model 180, MP101 CPM, Osiris, SHARP model 5030 and TEOM 1405. Additionally TEOM 1405D and APM-2 were tested for verification, though they did not participate in the DoE tests in Kuopio, but are used at some of the networks. The test strategy was modified from the relevant EN-standard for using the AMS for measurements of PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations in ambient air. This strategy enabled to include more sites and tested instruments into the study but with lack of less seasonality than would have been needed by following the guide accurately. As a result of the verification study the calibration factors achieved at DoE in Kuopio are applicable for the same model of AMS tested in Kuopio in different locations in Finland with few limitations. The FH62-IR made better performance by using the calibration factor obtained in this study in Helsinki than based on the DoE in Kuopio. Osiris passed the test for PM10 but not for PM2.5 measurements just like in Kuopio. APM-2 has been tested by Rheinland Energie und Umwelt GmbH, TÜV that is accredited testing laboratory and found to be equivalent with the reference method both for PM2.5 and for PM10 measurements. Based on the test results by TÜV and the verification results achieved in this study, the APM-2 can be used for PM2.5 and for PM10 measurements in Finland, but applying the calibration factors obtained in this study. TEOM 1405D has not been tested for DoE and cannot be claimed equivalent to reference method. Therefore calibration factors obtained in this study cannot be used for TEOM 1405D.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10138/284196
Päiväys: 2018-12
Avainsanat: Air Quality
Instrumentation


Tiedostot

Latausmäärä yhteensä: Ladataan...

Tiedosto(t) Koko Formaatti Näytä
Raportteja_2018_2_Verification_of_PM-analyzers.pdf 6.000MB PDF Avaa tiedosto

Viite kuuluu kokoelmiin:

Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot