2004
DOI: 10.1080/02786820390229435
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Field Evaluation of the Differential TEOM Monitor for Continuous PM2.5Mass Concentrations Special Issue ofAerosol Science and Technologyon Findings from the Fine Particulate Matter Supersites Program

Abstract: The performance of a prototype differential TEOM monitor (Rupprecht and Patashnick Co., NY) and its ability to measure the "actual" ambient near-continuous PM-2.5 mass in an area often high in semivolatile particulate matter has been evaluated. Measurements were made within a mobile particle instrumentation trailer (PIU) located in Claremont, CA-a "receptor" site in the Los Angeles Basin. The Differential TEOM monitor has been developed to directly measure ambient PM mass concentrations while accounting for co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…PM 10 mass by MOUDI was approximately 20% lower than that of the dichotomous sampler (possibly due to loss of coarse particles in the MOUDI sampler), but PM 2.5 agreed within 3% of the dichotomous sampler in Pittsburgh. 164 PM 2.5 mass from the dichotomous sampler was approximately 17% lower than MOUDI in Los Angeles, 165 attributed to NO 3 Ϫ volatilization. At a low flow rate (2 L/min), Williams et al 166 showed that a PM 2.5 personal environmental monitor (PEM; MSP, Inc.) used for exposure assessments 167-169 measured 16 -18% higher mass than a collocated FRM.…”
Section: Oc and Ecmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PM 10 mass by MOUDI was approximately 20% lower than that of the dichotomous sampler (possibly due to loss of coarse particles in the MOUDI sampler), but PM 2.5 agreed within 3% of the dichotomous sampler in Pittsburgh. 164 PM 2.5 mass from the dichotomous sampler was approximately 17% lower than MOUDI in Los Angeles, 165 attributed to NO 3 Ϫ volatilization. At a low flow rate (2 L/min), Williams et al 166 showed that a PM 2.5 personal environmental monitor (PEM; MSP, Inc.) used for exposure assessments 167-169 measured 16 -18% higher mass than a collocated FRM.…”
Section: Oc and Ecmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well known that volatilization of particulate nitrate and organic compounds occurs during FRM sampling. 1 On the other hand, the TEOM (FDMS) real-time monitor effectively separates and captures both the volatile and nonvolatile aerosol fraction 12 ; thus, the difference between the TEOM (FDMS) and FRM could be explained by the volatilization of semi-volatile species present in the PM at high ambient temperatures. At a higher temperature, ammonium nitrate is easily evaporated into gaseous nitric acid and ammonia; 18 thus, the mass difference between the FRM and TEOM (FDMS) followed the change of the ambient temperature.…”
Section: Continuous Pm 25 Measurements At the Field Sitementioning
confidence: 99%
“…10,11 In addition to having the advantage of real-time monitoring, continuous instruments may have potentially higher accuracy than a discrete filter-based gravimetric method due to a decreased loss of semi-volatile material. 12 For example, the Federal Reference Method (FRM) in Houston, TX and Seattle, WA was observed to underestimate ambient PM mass when compared with continuous methods. 13 The goal of this paper is to provide an evaluation and recommendations associated with the operation of six continuous PM 2.5 monitors under a variety of conditions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A complete discussion of the theory of operation and relevant equations can be found elsewhere. 5,11 The differential TEOM monitor determines the mass concentration both when the ESP is energized and when the ESP is turned off. The reportable net or ambient mass concentration is calculated by subtracting the mass concentration measured during periods while the ESP was energized from the mass concentration measured while the ESP was off.…”
Section: Sesmentioning
confidence: 99%