Comparison of continuous and filter based mass measurements in Mexico City

被引:14
作者
Vega, E
Reyes, E
Wellens, A
Sánchez, G
Chow, JC
Watson, JG
机构
[1] Inst Mexicano Petr, Programa Investigac Medio Ambiente & Seguridad, Mexico City 07730, DF, Mexico
[2] Univ Nacl Autonoma Mexico, DEPFI, Mexico City 04510, DF, Mexico
[3] Desert Res Inst, Reno, NV 89512 USA
关键词
particulate matter; particulate matter measurements; Mexico city; reference methods; equivalent methods; ELEMENT OSCILLATING MICROBALANCE; PM10; PM2.5; AEROSOL; MONITOR; TEOM(R); CARBON; UK;
D O I
10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00216-4
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
US EPA federal equivalent method (FEM), the tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) (Rupprecht and Pattachnick, Albany, NY) for measuring continuous hourly PM10, was collocated with a filter-based federal reference method (FRM), the PM10 sequential filter sampler (SFS), at five sites in Mexico City during February and March, 1997. A PM10 mass comparison showed significant differences between instruments that exceeded the expected uncertainties. In general, the TEOM measured higher and more variable PM10 than the SFS. It was found that when averaging 24h of PM10 concentrations, exposures to very high levels were missed. The TEOM measurements exhibited much less spatial variations across different sites than the similar comparison of SFS measurements. The mass and chemical composition of the SFS measurements showed that the majority of the PM10 mass can be explained by the measured elemental, ionic, and carbon concentrations. This analysis shows that TEOM and filter-based PM10 cannot be used interchangeably to determine temporal and spatial distributions in Mexico City during 1997. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:2783 / 2793
页数:11
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]  
Aldape F., 1991, INT J PIXE, V1, P355, DOI 10.1142/S012908359100024X
[2]   Evaluation of the TEOM(R) method for measurement of ambient particulate mass in urban areas [J].
Allen, G ;
Sioutas, C ;
Koutrakis, P ;
Reiss, R ;
Lurmann, FW ;
Roberts, PT .
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 1997, 47 (06) :682-689
[3]   Sources and composition of PM2.5 at the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburgh during July and August 2000 [J].
Anderson, RR ;
Martello, DV ;
Rohar, PC ;
Strazisar, BR ;
Tamilia, JP ;
Waldner, K ;
White, CM ;
Modey, WK ;
Mangelson, NF ;
Eatough, DJ .
ENERGY & FUELS, 2002, 16 (02) :261-269
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1997, Federal Register, V62, P38651
[5]  
[Anonymous], FED REG
[6]   TEOM vs. manual gravimetric methods for determination of PM2.5 aerosol mass concentrations [J].
Ayers, GP ;
Keywood, MD ;
Gras, JL .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1999, 33 (22) :3717-3721
[7]  
*CAM, 1999, INV EM ATM ZON METR
[8]  
CHOW J, 1996, PRINCIPLES ENV SAMPL
[9]   Chapter one: exposure measurements [J].
Chow, JC ;
Engelbrecht, JP ;
Freeman, NCG ;
Hashim, JH ;
Jantunen, M ;
Michaud, JP ;
de Tejada, SS ;
Watson, JG ;
Wei, FS ;
Wilson, WE ;
Yasuno, M ;
Zhu, T .
CHEMOSPHERE, 2002, 49 (09) :873-901
[10]   Spatial differences in outdoor PM10 mass and aerosol composition in Mexico City [J].
Chow, JC ;
Watson, JG ;
Edgerton, SA ;
Vega, E ;
Ortiz, E .
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 2002, 52 (04) :423-434