Comparative assessment of a real-time particle monitor against the reference gravimetric method for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 in indoor air

详细信息	查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

• 作者：Vi&scaron ; a Tasi膰^a ; ^{visa.tasic@irmbor.co.rs} ; ^{visina.posta@gmail.com} ; Milena Jova&scaron ; evi膰-Stojanovi膰^b ; Sotiris Vardoulakis^c ; Novica Milo&scaron ; evi膰^a ; Renata Kova膷evi膰^a ; Jelena Petrovi膰^a
• 关键词：Particulate matter ; Optical monitor ; Indoor air pollution ; Aerosol monitoring ; Exposure assessment
• 刊名：Atmospheric Environment
• 出版年：2012
• 期刊代码：11_13522310
• 类别：env
• 出版时间：July, 2012
• 卷：54
• 期：Complete
• 页码：358-364
• 文件大小：454 K

摘要

Accurate monitoring of indoor mass concentrations of particulate matter is very important for health risk assessment as people in developed countries spend approximately 90%of their time indoors. The direct reading, aerosol monitoring device, Turnkey, OSIRIS Particle Monitor (Model 2315) and the European reference low volume sampler, LVS3 (Sven/Leckel LVS3) with size-selective inlets for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 fractions were used to assess the comparability of available optical and gravimetric methods for particulate matter characterization in indoor air. Simultaneous 24-hour samples were collected in an indoor environment for 60 sampling periods in the town of Bor, Serbia. The 24-hour mean PM₁₀ levels from the OSIRIS monitor were well correlated with the LVS3 levels (R² = 0.87) and did not show statistically significant bias. The 24-hour mean PM_2.5 levels from the OSIRIS monitor were moderately correlated with the LVS3 levels (R² = 0.71), but show statistically significant bias. The results suggest that the OSIRIS monitor provides sufficiently accurate measurements for PM₁₀. The OSIRIS monitor underestimated the indoor PM₁₀ concentrations by approximately 12%, relative to the reference LVS3 sampler. The accuracy of PM₁₀ measurements could be further improved through empirical adjustment. For the fine fraction of particulate matter, PM_2.5, it was found that the OSIRIS monitor underestimated indoor concentrations by approximately 63%, relative to the reference LVS3 sampler. This could lead to exposure misclassification in health effects studies relying on PM_2.5 measurements collected with this instrument in indoor environments.