Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building

Zuocheng Wang, Leonardo Calderón, Allison P. Patton, Mary Ann Sorensen Allacci, Jennifer Senick, Richard Wener, Clinton J. Andrews, Gediminas Mainelis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM2.5 levels in a high-rise residential green building in the Northeastern US and compared performance of those instruments. PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 mass concentration compared to the PMI2.5 filter. The pDR-1500 direct reading and PMI2.5 in non-smoking homes (self-reported) were not significantly different (n = 10, R2 = 0.937), while the difference between measurements for smoking homes was 44% (n = 31, R2 = 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: R2 = 0.936 for OPC versus pDR-1500 reading and R2 = 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. Implications: This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM2.5 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1109-1120
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of the Air and Waste Management Association
Volume66
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

particulate matter
filter
aerosol
aerosol property
smoking
comparison
residential building
measuring method
particle
timescale
green building

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Waste Management and Disposal
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building. / Wang, Zuocheng; Calderón, Leonardo; Patton, Allison P.; Sorensen Allacci, Mary Ann; Senick, Jennifer; Wener, Richard; Andrews, Clinton J.; Mainelis, Gediminas.

In: Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, Vol. 66, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 1109-1120.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, Zuocheng ; Calderón, Leonardo ; Patton, Allison P. ; Sorensen Allacci, Mary Ann ; Senick, Jennifer ; Wener, Richard ; Andrews, Clinton J. ; Mainelis, Gediminas. / Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building. In: Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association. 2016 ; Vol. 66, No. 11. pp. 1109-1120.
@article{a4bcb2b01fc64b4a88a80b44f2a38d32,
title = "Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building",
abstract = "This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM2.5 levels in a high-rise residential green building in the Northeastern US and compared performance of those instruments. PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 mass concentration compared to the PMI2.5 filter. The pDR-1500 direct reading and PMI2.5 in non-smoking homes (self-reported) were not significantly different (n = 10, R2 = 0.937), while the difference between measurements for smoking homes was 44{\%} (n = 31, R2 = 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: R2 = 0.936 for OPC versus pDR-1500 reading and R2 = 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. Implications: This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM2.5 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.",
author = "Zuocheng Wang and Leonardo Calder{\'o}n and Patton, {Allison P.} and {Sorensen Allacci}, {Mary Ann} and Jennifer Senick and Richard Wener and Andrews, {Clinton J.} and Gediminas Mainelis",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/10962247.2016.1201022",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "66",
pages = "1109--1120",
journal = "Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association",
issn = "1096-2247",
publisher = "Air and Waste Management Association",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building

AU - Wang, Zuocheng

AU - Calderón, Leonardo

AU - Patton, Allison P.

AU - Sorensen Allacci, Mary Ann

AU - Senick, Jennifer

AU - Wener, Richard

AU - Andrews, Clinton J.

AU - Mainelis, Gediminas

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM2.5 levels in a high-rise residential green building in the Northeastern US and compared performance of those instruments. PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 mass concentration compared to the PMI2.5 filter. The pDR-1500 direct reading and PMI2.5 in non-smoking homes (self-reported) were not significantly different (n = 10, R2 = 0.937), while the difference between measurements for smoking homes was 44% (n = 31, R2 = 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: R2 = 0.936 for OPC versus pDR-1500 reading and R2 = 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. Implications: This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM2.5 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.

AB - This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM2.5 levels in a high-rise residential green building in the Northeastern US and compared performance of those instruments. PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 mass concentration compared to the PMI2.5 filter. The pDR-1500 direct reading and PMI2.5 in non-smoking homes (self-reported) were not significantly different (n = 10, R2 = 0.937), while the difference between measurements for smoking homes was 44% (n = 31, R2 = 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: R2 = 0.936 for OPC versus pDR-1500 reading and R2 = 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. Implications: This study used several real-time and filter-based aerosol instruments to measure PM2.5 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991702480&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991702480&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10962247.2016.1201022

DO - 10.1080/10962247.2016.1201022

M3 - Article

VL - 66

SP - 1109

EP - 1120

JO - Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association

JF - Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association

SN - 1096-2247

IS - 11

ER -