Uncertainty Budget of the SMPS–APS System in the Measurement of PM₁, PM_2.5, and PM₁₀

Abstract

The effects of particulate matter on environment and public health have been widely studied in recent years. In spite of the presence of numerous studies about this topic there is no agreement on the relative importance of the particles' size and origin with respect to health effects among researchers. Nevertheless, air quality standards are moving, as the epidemiological attention, towards greater focus on the smaller particles. The most reliable method used in measuring particulate matter (PM) is the gravimetric method since it directly measures PM concentration, guaranteeing an effective traceability to international standards. This technique, however, neglects the possibility to correlate short term intraday atmospheric parameter variations that can influence ambient particle concentration and size distribution as well as human activity patterns. Besides, a continuous method to determine PM concentrations through the measurement of the number size distribution is the system constituted by a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS) and an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS). In this article, the evaluation of the uncertainty budget in measuring PM through the SMPS-APS system, as well as a metrological comparison with the gravimetric reference method in order to analyze the compatibility, was carried out and applied with reference to an experimental campaign developed in a rural site. This choice allowed to assume the hypothesis of spherical particle morphology. The average PM 10 , PM 2.5 , and PM 1 uncertainties obtained for the SMPS-APS system are equal to 27%, 29%, and 31%, respectively. Here the principle influence parameter is the particle density that has to be directly measured with low uncertainty in order to reduce the PM uncertainty.

Effect of indoor-generated airborne particles on radon progeny dynamics

“…The CPCs were calibrated in the European Accredited Laboratory at the University of Cassino and Southern Lazio by comparison with a TSI 3068B Aerosol Electrometer, using NaCl particles generated through a Submicrometer Aerosol Generator (TSI 3940) [46,47]. Instruments for both radon and particle measurements were placed inside the chamber about 2-m away from particle and radon sources.…”

Indoor Air Quality in Naturally Ventilated Italian Classrooms

“…In view of the evidence on the negative health impact of UFPs, a great effort has been made based on the characterization of the main sources and processes that can affect their levels [22][23][24], but still much need to be done. Thus far, UFPs are still poorly controlled in urban areas.…”

Deposition of Indoor Airborne Particles onto Human Body Surfaces: A Modeling Analysis and Manikin-Based Experimental Study

“…To combine the electric mobility diameter and the aerodynamic diameter, the bulk average particle density and dynamic shape factor were set as 900-1500 kg·m −3 and 1-1.9, respectively (Hinds 1982;Kulkarni et al 2011), as such densities and dynamic shape factors may be representative for the ambient particles. The relationships between the electric mobility diameter d m , the aerodynamic diameter d a , and the volume equivalent diameter d ve were described by the following equations where ρ 0 = 1000 kg·m −3 (Seinfeld and Pandis 2006;Buonanno et al 2009):…”