Abstract
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 $2.5{\mu}m$ ($PM_{2.5}$). Five real-time particle samplers of BAM1020, FH62C_14, TEOM, PM-711 and SPM-613 were evaluated by comparing its measured 23 hr average $PM_{2.5}$ 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 $35{\sim}40^{\circ}C$ to minimize the fluctuation of the real-time measurement data and background value of BAM1020 is the key factor affecting the accuracy of $PM_{2.5}$ mass concentration. We classified the $PM_{2.5}$ concentration according to relative humidity (80%) to identify water absorbed in aerosols by measuring the ${\beta}$-ray samplers(BAM1020, FH62C_14) and TEOM. ${\beta}$-ray samplers were not strongly affected by relative humidity that the difference of the average $PM_{2.5}$ concentration was about 5%. On the other hand, The TEOM sampler overestimated $PM_{2.5}$ mass concentration about 15% at low relative humidity (<80%).
