1 / 20

PM2.5 FRM vs. Continuous: One site, many numbers

Header Text. PM2.5 FRM vs. Continuous: One site, many numbers. Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services Cincinnati, Ohio. If all the continuous PM2.5 analyzers were in the same location, would the data between and among analyzers be comparable? Ideally the same? . Objectives.

marnina
Download Presentation

PM2.5 FRM vs. Continuous: One site, many numbers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Header Text PM2.5 FRM vs. Continuous: One site, many numbers Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services Cincinnati, Ohio

  2. If all the continuous PM2.5 analyzers were in the same location, would the data between and among analyzers be comparable? Ideally the same?

  3. Objectives • All sampling same air mass • Daily sampling of FRM PM2.5 • All continuous agree within 10% of one another • All continuous agree with the FRM within 10% • All inlets at same height • Inlets are minimum 1 meter apart

  4. Operating Parameters • Installed the Very Sharp Cut Cyclone • All continuous PM2.5 analyzers & FRM • Monthly Flow Checks • TEOM – with filter change as needed • Quarterly Independent Flow Audits • Ohio EPA

  5. EquipmentContinuous PM2.5 Analyzers • Thermo Sharp 5030 v1.4 • Thermo TEOM with FDMS 1400 AB • Met One BAM 1020 v2.55 • SMART Heater set: 35% FRM • Thermo Andersen RAAS PM2.5 FRM

  6. Top view of platform TEOMFDMS RASSPM10 low vol Met One ThermoSHARP RASS FRM

  7. Data • Study began March 1, 2007 • Valid data: 23-25 hours • Overall: • Agreement widely variable on a daily basis and not inherent to one analyzer • Ranges of difference: -39 to 108% • Agreement better or rather less variability on a monthly average comparison • All independent flow audits within 2.0%

  8. Daily Variability

  9. Continuous vs. Continuous

  10. Monthly Average Variability

  11. Candidate Method Analysis

  12. Candidate Method Analysis

  13. Conclusion • Each instrument does not agree consistently within 10% of one another in any combination • Data on a daily basis is more variable – greater fluctuation between instruments • Better agreement between the TEOM and the SHARP than between either and the BAM. • In this study, BAM tends to run higher than any of the other continuous and FRM. • However, better agreement is displayed at other locations with BAM and FRM. Difference is the SMART heater setting – data is more FRM like.

  14. FUTURE • Adjust the SMART Heater setting on BAM • Continuing to run the 3 analyzers side by side • Will move 2 units to other areas of network for 2009 monitoring season • Additional data analysis with full year’s data • Data analysis of Tisch Dichot units

  15. Thanks to….. • Monitoring & Analysis Staff of Hamilton County Department of Environmental Services • Technical Services Staff, Ohio EPA • Additional Information: • Anna Kelley • (513)946-7725 • Anna.Kelley@Hamilton-co.org

More Related