Comparison of the TSI model 8520 and Grimm Series 1.108 portable aerosol instruments used to monitor particulate matter in an iron foundry

被引:67
作者
Cheng, Yu-Hsiang [1 ]
机构
[1] Mingchi Univ Technol, Dept Safety Hlth & Environm Engn, Taipei 24301, Taiwan
关键词
iron foundry; Grimm Aerosol Spectrometer; PM(10); PM(2.5); TSI DustTrak;
D O I
10.1080/15459620701860867
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This study uses two real-time dust monitors, the TSI Model 8520 DustTrak and Grimm Series 1.108 Aerosol Spectrometer, to determine PM(10) and PM(2.5) levels simultaneously in an iron foundry. The SA Model 241 Dichotomous Sampler was used as a reference gravimetric method for comparing the measurement results obtained by these direct-reading instruments. The response to PM levels from DustTrak is higher than that of the Aerosol Spectrometer. The DustTrak provides an overestimation PM levels, and PM levels measured by an Aerosol Spectrometer are lower than actual concentrations. Calibration factors of the DustTrak and Aerosol Spectrometer are 0.74 and 1.33, respectively, when used to measure particulate matter at an iron foundry. Based on measurement results, the DustTrak provides a lower overestimation of PM(10) levels than PM(2.5) levels; that is, the response of the DustTrak increases as particle size decreases. In addition, measurement results suggest that the Aerosol Spectrometer provides precise measurements of PM(10) and PM(2.5), and measurement accuracy compared with the reference gravimetric method can be improved through a calibration factor.
引用
收藏
页码:157 / 168
页数:12
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   The contribution of ambient sources to particulate pollution in spaces and trains of the Prague underground transport system [J].
Branis, M .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2006, 40 (02) :348-356
[2]   Commuter exposure to particulate matter in public transportation modes in Hong Kong [J].
Chan, LY ;
Lau, WL ;
Lee, SC ;
Chan, CY .
ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2002, 36 (21) :3363-3373
[3]   Laboratory and field evaluation of measurement methods for one-hour exposures to O3, PM2.5, and CO [J].
Chang, LT ;
Suh, HH ;
Wolfson, JM ;
Misra, K ;
Allen, GA ;
Catalano, PJ ;
Koutrakis, P .
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 2001, 51 (10) :1414-1422
[4]  
CHEN BT, 1990, AM IND HYG ASSOC J, V51, P32, DOI 10.1202/0002-8894(1990)051<0032:ANTTCO>2.0.CO
[5]  
2
[6]   Comparison of real-time instruments used to monitor airborne particulate matter [J].
Chung, A ;
Chang, DPY ;
Kleeman, MJ ;
Perry, KD ;
Cahill, TA ;
Dutcher, D ;
McDougall, EM ;
Stroud, K .
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 2001, 51 (01) :109-120
[7]  
Gebhart J., 2001, AEROSOL MEASUREMENT, P419
[8]   Photometer measurement of polydisperse aerosols [J].
Gorner, P ;
Bemer, D ;
Fabries, JF .
JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE, 1995, 26 (08) :1281-&
[9]   Development and application of protocols for the determination of response of real-time particle monitors to common indoor aerosols [J].
Jenkins, RA ;
Ilgner, RH ;
Tomkins, BA ;
Peters, DW .
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 2004, 54 (02) :229-241
[10]   Light scattering instrumentation for aerosol studies: An historical overview [J].
Kerker, M .
AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 1997, 27 (04) :522-540