2000
DOI: 10.1016/s1352-2310(00)00154-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

New Directions: TEOMs and the volatility of UK non-urban PM10: a regulatory dilemma

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is a US EPA equivalent method providing PM 10 or PM 2.5 mass concentrations with a flow rate of 16.7 l min −1 [29]. TEOM is widely used in different aerosol studies [30][31][32]: it has a high accuracy with ±1.5 g m −3 and high resolution with 0.1 g m −3 . However, TEOM records slightly lower concentration values than those determined by reference samplers due to the heated inlet.…”
Section: Pm 10 Mass Concentrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is a US EPA equivalent method providing PM 10 or PM 2.5 mass concentrations with a flow rate of 16.7 l min −1 [29]. TEOM is widely used in different aerosol studies [30][31][32]: it has a high accuracy with ±1.5 g m −3 and high resolution with 0.1 g m −3 . However, TEOM records slightly lower concentration values than those determined by reference samplers due to the heated inlet.…”
Section: Pm 10 Mass Concentrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10 Data from collocated TEOM and gravimetric PM 10 samplers in a coal-mining region in the United Kingdom found that the discrepancy between the methods (TEOM Ͻ gravimetric) increased with increasing concentration. 11 Finally, a study of the effect of equilibrium temperature on PM 10 concentrations in the Lower Fraser Valley showed that the volatilization of particulate semivolatile material is greater at higher equilibrium temperatures. 12 One common theme to these research reports is that because of volatilization of PM, the TEOM systematically measures a lower concentration compared with gravimetric filter-based methods.…”
Section: Rizzo Scheff and Kaldymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…nitrates and organics). For these reasons, a number of studies in the last years have been devoted to the assessment of TEOM performance versus standard gravimetric methods for PM10 and, in a limited number of cases, for PM2.5 monitoring (Reponen et al, 1996;Allen et al, 1997;Soutar et al, 1999;King et al, 2000;Muir, 2000;Cyrys et al, 2001). In the past, it was suggested to apply a default correction factor of 1.3 to PM10 data collected by TEOM (DETR, 1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%