PM2.5 자동측정장비 비교 및 정도관리 방안
Measurements using five real-time particle samplers were compared to measurements using three NRM (National Reference Method system) filter-based samplers (Gravimetric method) at Incheon, Korea, between May and August, 2014. The purpose of this study was to suggest the quality assurance/quality cont...
Saved in:
Published in | 한국대기환경학회지(국문) Vol. 33; no. 6; pp. 616 - 625 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | Korean |
Published |
한국대기환경학회
01.12.2017
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 1598-7132 2383-5346 |
DOI | 10.5572/KOSAE.2017.33.6.616 |
Cover
Summary: | Measurements using five real-time particle samplers were compared to measurements using three NRM (National Reference Method system) filter-based samplers (Gravimetric method) at Incheon, Korea, between May and August, 2014. The purpose of this study was to suggest the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) method of each instrument for use in a real-time continuous particle sampler to measure the mass of airborne particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 μm (PM2.5). Five real-time particle samplers of BAM1020, FH62C_14, TEOM, PM-711 and SPM-613 were evaluated by comparing its measured 23 hr average PM2.5 concentrations with those measured with NRM filter-based samplers simultaneously. The parameters (e.g. Inlet heating condition, Slope factor, Film response, Intercept, Background, Span value) of the real-time samplers were optimized respectively by conducting test performance evaluation during 7 days in field sampling. For example, inlet heating temperature of TEOM sampler controls 35~40℃ to minimize the fluctuation of the real-time measurement data and background value of BAM1020 is the key factor affecting the accuracy of PM2.5 mass concentration. We classified the PM2.5 concentration according to relative humidity (80%) to identify water absorbed in aerosols by measuring the β-ray samplers (BAM1020, FH62C_14) and TEOM. β-ray samplers were not strongly affected by relative humidity that the difference of the average PM2.5 concentration was about 5%. On the other hand, The TEOM sampler overestimated PM2.5 mass concentration about 15% at low relative humidity (<80%). KCI Citation Count: 0 |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1598-7132 2383-5346 |
DOI: | 10.5572/KOSAE.2017.33.6.616 |