Comparison between different traffic-related particle indicators:: Elemental. carbon (EC), PM2.5 mass, and absorbance

Here we compare PM2.5 (particles with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 mum) mass and filter absorbance measurements with elemental carbon (EC) concentrations measured in parallel at the same site as well as collocated PM2.5 and PM10 (particles with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 mum) mass and absorbance measurements. The data were collected within the Traffic-Related Air Pollution on Childhood Asthma (TRAPCA) study in Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden. The study was designed to assess the health impact of spatial contrasts in long-term average concentrations. The measurement sites were distributed between background and traffic locations. Annual EC and PM2.5 absorbance measurements were at traffic sites on average 43-84% and 26-76% higher, respectively, compared to urban background sites. The contrast for PM2.5 mass measurements was lower (8-35%). The smaller contrast observed for PM2.5 mass in comparison with PM2.5 absorbance and EC documents that PM2.5 mass underestimates exposure contrasts related to motorized traffic emissions. The correlation between PM10 and PM2.5 was high, documenting that most of the spatial variation of PM10 was because of PM2.5. The measurement of PM2.5 absorbance was highly correlated with EC measurements and suggests that absorbance can be used as a simple, inexpensive and non-destructive method. to estimate motorized traffic-related particulate air pollution. The EC/absorbance relation differed between countries and site type (background/traffic), supporting the need for site-specific calibrations of the simple absorbance method. While the ratio between PM2.5 and PM10 mass ranged from 0.54 to 0.68, the ratio of PM2.5 absorbance and PM10 absorbance was 0.96-0.97, indicating that PM2.5 absorbance captures nearly all of the particle absorbance.