Wang Zuocheng, Calderón Leonardo, Patton Allison P, Sorensen Allacci MaryAnn, Senick Jennifer, Wener Richard, Andrews Clinton J, Mainelis Gediminas
a Department of Environmental Sciences , Rutgers University , New Brunswick , NJ , USA.
b Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers University , Piscataway , NJ , USA.
J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2016 Nov;66(11):1109-1120. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2016.1201022.
This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM levels in a high-rise residential green building in the Northeastern US and compared performance of those instruments. PM 24-hr average concentrations were determined using a Personal Modular Impactor (PMI) with 2.5 µm cut (SKC Inc., Eighty Four, PA) and a direct reading pDR-1500 (Thermo Scientific, Franklin, MA) as well as its filter. 1-hr average PM concentrations were measured in the same apartments with an Aerotrak Optical Particle Counter (OPC) (model 8220, TSI, Inc., Shoreview, MN) and a DustTrak DRX mass monitor (model 8534, TSI, Inc., Shoreview, MN). OPC and DRX measurements were compared with concurrent 1-hr mass concentration from the pDR-1500. The pDR-1500 direct reading showed approximately 40% higher particle mass concentration compared to its own filter (n = 41), and 25% higher PM mass concentration compared to the PMI filter. The pDR-1500 direct reading and PMI in non-smoking homes (self-reported) were not significantly different (n = 10, R = 0.937), while the difference between measurements for smoking homes was 44% (n = 31, R = 0.773). Both OPC and DRX data had substantial and significant systematic and proportional biases compared with pDR-1500 readings. However, these methods were highly correlated: R = 0.936 for OPC versus pDR-1500 reading and R = 0.863 for DRX versus pDR-1500 reading. The data suggest that accuracy of aerosol mass concentrations from direct-reading instruments in indoor environments depends on the instrument, and that correction factors can be used to reduce biases of these real-time monitors in residential green buildings with similar aerosol properties.
This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM levels in a high-rise residential green building in the northeastern United States and compared performance of those instruments. The data show that while the use of real-time monitors is convenient for measurement of airborne PM at short time scales, the accuracy of those monitors depends on a particular instrument. Bias correction factors identified in this paper could provide guidance for other studies using direct-reading instruments to measure PM concentrations.
本研究使用了多种基于实时和过滤的气溶胶仪器，来测量美国东北部一栋高层住宅绿色建筑中的颗粒物（PM）水平，并比较了这些仪器的性能。使用带有2.5微米切割头的个人模块化撞击器（PMI，SKC公司，宾夕法尼亚州埃奇福）、直读式pDR - 1500（赛默飞世尔科技，马萨诸塞州富兰克林）及其过滤器来测定24小时平均PM浓度。在同一公寓中，使用Aerotrak光学粒子计数器（OPC，型号8220，TSI公司，明尼苏达州肖尔维尤）和DustTrak DRX质量监测仪（型号8534，TSI公司，明尼苏达州肖尔维尤）测量1小时平均PM浓度。将OPC和DRX的测量结果与pDR - 1500同时测得的1小时质量浓度进行比较。pDR - 1500的直读结果显示，其颗粒物质量浓度比自身过滤器高出约40%（n = 41），比PMI过滤器高出25%。在非吸烟家庭（自我报告）中，pDR - 1500直读结果和PMI结果无显著差异（n = 10，R = 0.937），而吸烟家庭测量结果之间的差异为44%（n = 31，R = 0.773）。与pDR - 1500读数相比，OPC和DRX数据都存在显著的系统偏差和比例偏差。然而，这些方法具有高度相关性：OPC与pDR - 1500读数的R = 0.936，DRX与pDR - 1500读数的R = 0.863。数据表明，室内环境中直读式仪器测量气溶胶质量浓度的准确性取决于仪器，并且可以使用校正因子来减少这些实时监测仪在具有相似气溶胶特性的住宅绿色建筑中的偏差。
本研究使用了多种基于实时和过滤的气溶胶仪器，来测量美国东北部一栋高层住宅绿色建筑中的颗粒物（PM）水平，并比较了这些仪器的性能。数据表明，虽然使用实时监测仪在短时间尺度上测量空气中的PM很方便，但这些监测仪的准确性取决于特定仪器。本文确定的偏差校正因子可为其他使用直读式仪器测量PM浓度的研究提供指导。
