2016
DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2016.1201022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
46
3

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 79 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
3
46
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar to previous studies, we found the Dylos to be strongly correlated with more expensive real‐time particle samplers; therefore, future PM exposure studies could make use of the lower cost Dylos samplers to assess relative differences in PM concentrations without significant loss of measurement reliability. However, it should be noted that although the Dylos compares well with another optical particle counter, this study and previous studies have shown a significant bias when comparing optical particle counters and gravimetric particle results . Our results only confirm correlation between Dylos and DustTrak measurements.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 64%
“…Similar to previous studies, we found the Dylos to be strongly correlated with more expensive real‐time particle samplers; therefore, future PM exposure studies could make use of the lower cost Dylos samplers to assess relative differences in PM concentrations without significant loss of measurement reliability. However, it should be noted that although the Dylos compares well with another optical particle counter, this study and previous studies have shown a significant bias when comparing optical particle counters and gravimetric particle results . Our results only confirm correlation between Dylos and DustTrak measurements.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 64%
“…The variation between meals indicates the composition and optical properties of the emitted PM 2.5 , and proportion of particles below the detection limit of the OPC, varied between meals. They also show that the OPC consistently under‐estimates particle mass when cooking meals, which agrees with Wang et al whose OPCs were used to measure PM 2.5 in houses. Wang suggests that this is caused by coincidence losses, deviations in the refractive coefficient, or the presence of high concentrations of particles that are smaller than the OPC's detection limit.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…If the physical or optical properties of the measured particles differ from those of the test dust, the mass concentrations reported by the OPC must be corrected . The correction is made by multiplying a measured concentration by a calibration factor . Additionally, the OPC may also under‐estimate the concentrations if a significant proportion of the emitted particles are smaller than the lower detection limit of the device .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations