4.7 Article

Field comparison of portable and stationary instruments for outdoor urban air exposure assessments

Journal

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
Volume 123, Issue -, Pages 220-228

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.076

Keywords

Intercomparison; Relative error; Uncertainty; Performance; Outdoor; Indoor

Funding

  1. European Research Council under the ERC [268479]
  2. national project IMPACT [CGL2011-26574]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment [UCA2009020083]
  4. project VAMOS [CLG2010-19464-CLI]
  5. Generalitat de Catalunya [2009 SGR8]
  6. FP7 Marie Curie ITN HEXACOMM [315760]
  7. [GRACCIECSD2007-00067]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performance of three portable monitors (micro-aethalometer AE51, DiscMini, Dusttrak DRX) was assessed for outdoor air exposure assessment in a representative Southern European urban environment. The parameters evaluated were black carbon, particle number concentration, alveolar lung-deposited surface area, mean particle diameter, PM10, PM2.5 and PM1. The performance was tested by comparison with widely used stationary instruments (MAAP, CPC, SMPS, NSAM, GRIMM aerosol spectrometer). Results evidenced a good agreement between most portable and stationary instruments, with R-2 values mostly >0.80. Relative differences between portable and stationary instruments were mostly <20%, and <10% between different units of the same instrument. The only exception was found for the Dusttrak DRX measurements, for which occasional concentration jumps in the time series were detected. Our results validate the performance of the black carbon, particle number concentration, particle surface area and mean particle diameter monitors as indicative instruments (tier 2) for outdoor air exposure assessment studies. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available