Dergiler / Atmospheric Pollution Research / 2016 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 5

A comparative analysis of temporary and permanent beta attenuation monitors: The importance of understanding data and equipment limitations when creating PM2.5 air quality health advisories

Sayfa
865–875
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

As a result of this study, it is advised to invalidate hourly data when the internal RH is greaterthan 40% and to only use daily AQI estimates to limit the EBAM AQI over-prediction.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Mobile particulate monitors are being widely used for smoke monitoring throughout the western UnitedStates.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:While this provides valuable additional data for public health decisions, quantifying the fieldperformance of this equipment is necessary to understand measurement limitations when beingcompared with federal compliance instruments.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:As a result of this study, it is advised to invalidate hourly data when the internal RH is greaterthan 40% and to only use daily AQI estimates to limit the EBAM AQI over-prediction.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Mobile particulate monitors are being widely used for smoke monitoring throughout the western UnitedStates. While this provides valuable additional data for public health decisions, quantifying the fieldperformance of this equipment is necessary to understand measurement limitations when beingcompared with federal compliance instruments. Met One Instruments, Inc. Environmental Beta AttenuationMonitors (EBAMs) were co-located at permanently established Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM)sites to determine agreement under normal field operating conditions. Monitors were assessed foragreement between fine particulate matter (PM2.5) measurements. The instruments correlated for hourly(R2 0.70) and daily (R2 0.90) means. Mean difference for EBAM to BAM comparison showed the EBAMover-predicting the BAM by 24% (3 mg m3). Hourly concentrations fluctuated more in the EBAM. Dailymean concentrations were the most equitably comparable measurement for these monitors. Increases inrelative humidity (RH) were associated with increased disagreement between monitors. When EBAMinternal RH was below 40%, R2 increased (0.76 hourly, 0.93 daily). The EBAM produced higher hourly AQIestimates. As a result of this study, it is advised to invalidate hourly data when the internal RH is greaterthan 40% and to only use daily AQI estimates to limit the EBAM AQI over-prediction.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SCHWEİZER, D., CİSNEROS, R., SHAW, G. (2016). A comparative analysis of temporary and permanent beta attenuation monitors: The importance of understanding data and equipment limitations when creating PM2.5 air quality health advisories. Atmospheric Pollution Research, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 5, 865–875. https://ajindex.com/articles/351430

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Altman, D.G., Bland, J.M., 1983. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician 32, 307e317. Baldauf, R.W., Lane, D.D., Marotz, G.A., Wiener, R.W., 2001. Performance evaluation of the portable MiniVOL particulate matter sampler. Atmos. Environ. 35, 6087e6091. Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G., 1995. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard methods is misleading. Lancet 346, 1085e1087. Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G., 1986. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327, 307e310. Boer, M.M., Price, O.F., Bradstock, R.A., 2015. Wildfires: weigh policy effectiveness. Science 350, 920. Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Lowenthal, D.H., Chen, L.W.A., Tropp, R.J., Park, K., Magliano, K.A., 2006. PM2.5 and PM10 mass measurements in California's San Joaquin Valley. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 40, 796e810. Chow, J.C., Watson, J.G., Lowenthal, D.H., Magliano, K.L., 2005. Loss of PM2.5 nitrate from filter samples in central California. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 55, 1158e1168. Chung, A., Chang, D.P., Kleeman, M.J., Perry, K.D., Cahill, T.A., Dutcher, D., McDougall, E.M., Stroud, K., 2001. Comparison of real-time instruments used to monitor airborne particulate matter. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 51, 109e120. Collins, B.M., Kelly, M., van Wagtendonk, J.W., Stephens, S.L., 2007. Spatial patterns of large natural fires in Sierra Nevada wilderness areas. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 545e557. Haber, M., Gao, J., Barnhart, H.X., 2010. Evaluation of agreement between measurement methods from data with matched repeated measurements via the coefficient of individual agreement. J. Data Sci. 8, 1e11. Hains, J.C., Chen, L.W.A., Taubman, B.F., Doddridge, B.G., Dickerson, R.R., 2007. A side-by-side comparison of filter-based PM2.5 measurements at a suburban site: a closure study. Atmos. Environ. 41, 6167e6184. Heber, A.J., Lim, T.T., Hi, J.Q., Tao, P.C., Schmidt, A.M., Koziel, J.A., Hoff, S.J., Jacobson, L.D., Zhang, Y., Baughman, G.B., 2006. Quality-assured measurements of animal building emissions: particulate matter concentrations. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 56, 1642e1648. Huang, C.-H., 2007. Field comparison of real-time PM 2. 5 readings from a beta gauge monitor and a light scattering method. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 7, 239e250. Huang, C.-H., Tai, C.-Y., 2008. Relative humidity effect on PM 2.5 readings recorded by collocated beta attenuation monitors. Environ. Eng. Sci. 25, 1079e1090. Knapp, E.E.,