Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment (환경영향평가)

Korean Society of Environmental Impact Assessment (한국환경영향평가학회)
권호 표지

Analysis of Measurement Error for PM-2.5 Mass Concentration by Inter-Comparison Study

비교 실험을 통한 PM-2.5 질량농도의 측정오차 분석

  • Received : 2010.02.03
  • Accepted : 2010.08.12
  • Published : 2010.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In this study, inter-comparison for PM-2.5 was undertaken. The PM-2.5 mass concentrations using the gravimetric and beta-attenuation methods were compared during the winter in 2007. Two different types of conventional filter-based measurements (Cyclone type and Impactor type) were also collocated and the measurement data was compared with each other. As a result, continuous PM-2.5 data using beta attenuation method show a comparable mass concentration with gravimetric measurement when the inlet of beta-gauge sampler is heated. The results also showed that the cyclone type shows a little high PM-2.5 concentration than Impactor type. In all the sampling cases, the correlations between measurement methods are high. Subsequently, this study suggests that highly correlated relationship between PM-2.5 measurement instruments can be obtained through the inter-comparison results based on filterb-ased gravimetric method and more intensive measurement and theoretical studies are needed in order to clarify the measurement errors for different sampler types.

Keywords

References

  1. 김상렬, 정장표, 이승묵, 1999, 부산시의 PM-2.5 특성과 지역 기준 달성도 평가, 1999년 대기환경학회 추계 학술대회 논문집, 28-29.
  2. 김광례, 김영두, 차영섭, 윤중섭, 김민영, 이재영, 김신도, 2003, 서울지역의 TSP, PM10, PM2.5의 농도 변화에 관한 연구, 2003년 대기환경학회 추계 학술대회 논문집, 343-344.
  3. 정창훈, 조용성, 황승만, 정용국, 유재천, 신동석, 2007, 비교 측정을 통한 PM-10 질량농도의 오차 분석, 한국대기환경학회지, 23(6), 689-698.
  4. 한진석, 공부주, 장건우, 신선아, 안준영, 이석조, 길혜경, 이승민, 오근찬, 이호범, 변종환, 송영철, 2004, 우리나라 지역별 PM-2.5 에어로졸 특성, 2004년 대기환경학회 추계 학술대회 논문집, 331-332.
  5. Chang, C. T., C. J. Tsai, Lee C. T., Chang S. Y., Cheng M. T., and H. M. Chein, 2001, Differences in PM-10 concentrations measured by beta gauge monitor and high-vol sampler, Atmos. Env., 35, 5741- 5748. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00369-7
  6. Chang, C. T. and C. J. Tsai, 2003, A model for the relative humidity effect on the readings of the PM-10 beta-gauge monitor, Journal of Aerosol Science, 34(12), 1685-1697. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-8502(03)00356-2
  7. Motallebi., N., C. A. Taylor, Jr., K. Turkiewicz, and B. E. Croes, 2003, Particulate Matter in California: Part 1-Intercomparison of Several PM2.5, PM10-2.5, and PM10 Monitoring Networks, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 53(12), 1509?1516. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2003.10466322
  8. Quok, M. and M. McDougall. 2006, Comparison of the ARB continuous PM-2.5 monitoring network to the PM-2.5 federal reference method network, California Air Resources Boards Report, 1-21.
  9. Schwab, J. J., H. D. Felton, O. V. Rattigan, and K. L. Demerjian, 2006, New York State Urban and Rural Measurements of Continuous PM2.5 Mass by FDMS, TEOM, and BAM, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 56(4), 372-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464523
  10. Tsai, C. J. and Y. H. Cheng, 1996, Compparison of two ambient beta gauge PM-10 samplers, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc., 46(2), 142-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.1996.10467446
  11. Wu, J, A. W. Winer, and R. J. Delfino, 2006, Exposure assessment of particulate matter air pollution before, during, and after the 2003 Southern Caliifornia wildfires, Atmospberic Environment, 40(18), 3333-3348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.056