Practicalities of mapping PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations on city-wide scales using a portable particulate monitor

Abstract

Fine particulate matter is considered to be the most significant ambient air pollutant in terms of potential health impacts. Therefore, it is important that regulators are able to accurately assess the exposure of populations to PM10 and PM2.5 across municipal areas. We report on the practicalities of using a laser light scattering portable particulate monitor (Turnkey Instruments DustMate), in combination with a GPS, to map PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations on city-wide scales in Newcastle upon Tyne/Gateshead (UK), during a series of walking surveys. A heated inlet is necessary to remove moisture droplets from the sampled air prior to analysis by the instrument, though this also results in the loss of volatile particulate components, particularly from the PM2.5 fraction. A co-location calibration study was carried out with a reference urban background Tapered Element Oscillating Micro-Balance/Filter Dynamics Measuring System (TEOM-FDMS) system in Newcastle that is part of the UK’s Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN) of air quality monitoring stations. For PM10, orthogonal regression of the DustMate against TEOM-FDMS data gave a slope and intercept of 1.02 ± 0.06 and −3.7 ± 1.2, respectively (R 2 = 0.73), whereas for PM2.5, the respective values were 0.78 ± 0.06 and −0.63 ± 0.55 (R 2 = 0.79). These parameters are comparable to literature calibration studies using this technology. There was good agreement between simultaneous samples taken using two DustMate instruments: for PM10, a slope and intercept of 1.05 ± 0.03 and 0.36 ± 0.5, respectively (R 2 = 0.73), were obtained, whereas for the PM2.5, the respective values were 0.79 ± 0.01 and 0.19 ± 0.06 (R 2 = 0.86). Correction factors based on the slope and intercepts obtained from the calibration exercise were applied to raw data collected from the DustMate. An annually-normalised correction procedure was then used to account for different background particulate concentrations on different sampling days. These corrected PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations and corresponding GPS coordinates were displayed on a base map using Google Fusion Tables and Google Earth Professional. Almost all areas surveyed in Newcastle/Gateshead were well below the EU Air Quality Standards for PM10 and PM2.5.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11869-016-0394-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Seasonal Variability of Atmospheric Aerosols in Karachi, Pakistan

“…Populations of mega cities are globally facing exposure to major pollutants including NOx, O3 and COx and the monitoring of these particles is not an easy task (Deary, et al, 2016).…”

An Exposure Appraisal of Outdoor Air Pollution on the Respiratory Well-being of a Developing City Population

“…With the design of numerous handy cost effective devices for monitoring airborne contaminants [25][26][27], this study utilized portable air quality monitors to collect pollution data. The sample monitors were: The MSA Altair 5× and the CW-HAT200 particulate counter are manufactured by the Mine Safety Appliances Company, Pennsylvania, USA and the Shenzhen Chinaway Environmental Technologies Co. Ltd, Guangdong, China respectively (Figures 2A and 2B).…”

Exposure Assessment Methods in Studies on Waste Management and Health Effects: An Overview

“…Dynamic mapping of major air pollutants could allow for a deeper refinement of human exposure estimates for large populations and a better identification of areas of poor air quality [18]. As outlined in Deary et al, this approach has the major advantage of determining the personal exposure (for example, considering intra-daily variability or exposures in different microenvironments), thus providing a better estimation of health impacts that is not simply reliant on a generalized method for exposure derivation using exposure surrogates, fixed measurement stations or dispersion modelling [19]. However, despite the encouraging perspective of a more effective exposure characterization for some major pollutants, the monitoring of some micro-pollutants (e.g., dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds) typically related to emissions from waste management facilities is not so straightforward nowadays [19].…”

“…As outlined in Deary et al, this approach has the major advantage of determining the personal exposure (for example, considering intra-daily variability or exposures in different microenvironments), thus providing a better estimation of health impacts that is not simply reliant on a generalized method for exposure derivation using exposure surrogates, fixed measurement stations or dispersion modelling [19]. However, despite the encouraging perspective of a more effective exposure characterization for some major pollutants, the monitoring of some micro-pollutants (e.g., dioxins, furans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds) typically related to emissions from waste management facilities is not so straightforward nowadays [19]. Nevertheless, the development of such approaches would be highly important since these could be applied in high-quality, low-cost, high-sensitivity exposure assessment studies and in spatially detailed monitoring networks.…”