Drexel University Home Pagewww.drexel.edu DREXEL UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES HOMEPAGE >>
iDEA DREXEL ARCHIVES >>

iDEA: Drexel E-repository and Archives > Drexel Theses and Dissertations > Health Sciences Theses and Dissertations > Quantitative Comparison of PM 2.5 Aerosol Measuring Devices

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1860/3100

Title: Quantitative Comparison of PM 2.5 Aerosol Measuring Devices
Authors: Chin, Michael
Keywords: Aerosol Sampling;Air Sampling;Public Health;PM2.5
Issue Date: 25-Aug-2009
Abstract: Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement of measurements among three different PM2.5 air sampling instruments: the TSI Inc. model 8520 DUSTTRAK aerosol monitor (DUSTTRAK) (TSI Inc., Shoreview, Minnesota), the SKC Inc. Sioutas Cascade Impactor (SCI) (SKC Inc., EightyFour, Pennsylvania), and the Model 200 Personal Environment Monitor (PEM) 2.5um Impactor (SKC Inc., EightyFour, Pennsylvania). These devices pr ovide similar information but with different methodologies. Methods: Three air‐sampling instruments, with controls, were utilized into 16 residential homes within the metropolitan Philadelphia area (PA) to determine 8‐hr PM2.5 concentration from each home. Temperature, CO2, relative humidity and weather conditions were recorded at sampling commencement and completion. The sampling was conducted from February 22, 2009 to May 4, 2009. Linear regressions and Pearson correlations were used as the principle statistical methods to analyze the results. A significanfor all statistical tests. ce level of 0.05 was used Results: The geometric means for SCI, PEM and DUSTTRAK were 16.17 ug/m3 (GSD 2.08), 10.23 mg/m3 (GSD 2.35), and 11.89 mg/m3 (GSD 2.23), respectively. Statistical analysis indicated that the highest correlation was observed between loge DUSTTRAK PM2.5 concentrations and loge PEM PM2.5 concentrations (R2 = 0.80) and the regression model p‐value was <0.0001. A moderate correlation was observed between loge DUSTTRAK and loge SCI PM2.5 concentrations and between loge SCI and loge PEM PM2.5 concentrations with R2 value of 0.52 and 0.48, respectively. The regression model p‐value for DUSTTRAK and SCI was <0.002. T he regression model p‐value for SCI and PEM was <0.003. Conclusion: The results suggest that there were good overall agreement between DUSTTRAK and PEM on the PM2.5 concentration measurements, whereas, SCI PM2.5 measurements had a moderate agreement with both DUSTTRAK and PEM PM2.5 measurements. The results also suggest that SCI will overall overestimate PM2.5 concentration measurements in a given study conditions reported by the DUSTTRAK and PEM. Further investigations are needed in comparing these devices with the federal reference method instruments.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1860/3100
Appears in Collections:Health Sciences Theses and Dissertations

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
Michael Chin.pdf1.59 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
View Statistics

Items in iDEA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

 

Valid XHTML 1.0! iDEA Software Copyright © 2002-2010  Duraspace - Feedback