Correction Factors for Outdoor Concentrations of PM_2.5Measured with Portable Real-time Monitors Compared with Gravimetric Methods: Results from South Korea

Abstract

This study investigated the association between PM2.5 concentrations obtained with portable real-time monitors and those obtained with gravimetric methods in national urban air-quality monitoring sites in Seoul, South Korea. We used the SidePak AM510 Personal Aerosol Monitor (TSI Inc., 500 Cardigan Road Shoreview, MN) and DustTrak DRX 8533 (TSI Inc., 500 Cardigan Road Shoreview, MN) as portable real-time monitors for measuring PM2.5 concentrations and compared these values with those measured with the PMS-103 or SEQ 47/50 models operated by Federal Reference Method (FRM) or the European Committee for Standardization(ECS), respectively, in national urban air-quality monitoring sites in Seoul. Measurements were conducted every other day in the winter and spring seasons of 2014. The estimated daily mean concentrations of PM2.5 ranged between 13.4 and 161.9 µg/m 3 using AM 510 and between 22.0 and 156.0 µg/m 3 using DustTrak. The Spearman correlation coefficient for PM2.5 concentrations between AM 510 and gravimetric results was 0.99, and the correlation between DustTrak and gravimetric results was 0.87. The correction factor suggested was 0.42 and 0.29 for AM 510 and DustTrak, respectively. We found that PM2.5 concentrations measured with real-time monitors could overestimate true PM2.5 concentrations and therefore the application of a correction factor (0.43) is strongly suggested for quantification when Real-time monitors were operated of PM2.5 levels at urban atmospheric environment of South Korea.

Aerosol deposition to the boreal forest in the vicinity of the Alberta Oil Sands

“…The instruments were set to auto-zero every 15 min. Yun et al (2015) found that the DustTraks require a correction factor of 0.29 for PM2.5. The DustTrak measurements were concurrent with the UHSAS particle concentration sampled at 29 m. This allowed a comparison of PM1 at heights of 20 m (DustTrak) and 29 m (UHSAS), both above the canopy height of ℎ 𝑐𝑐 = 19 m. Assuming little variation in concentration between these two heights, and an average aerosol density of 1500 kg m -3 , the measurements suggest a correction factor of 0.5 ( 𝑅𝑅 2 = 0.97).…”

Spatiotemporal Association of Real-Time Concentrations of Black Carbon (BC) with Fine Particulate Matters (PM2.5) in Urban Hotspots of South Korea

“…A conversion factor of 0.4 was applied to the real time PM 2.5 concentrations obtained from AM510 using a light scattering technique to convert gravimetric method based mass concentrations [ 19 ]. The BC monitoring device (AE51) provided negative values when the difference in light attenuation between two consecutive readings was negligible.…”

Aerosol deposition to the boreal forest in the vicinity of the Alberta Oil Sands

“…The instruments were set to autozero every 15 min. Yun et al (2015) found that the Dust-Traks require a correction factor of 0.29 for PM 2.5 . The Dust-Trak measurements were concurrent with the UHSAS particle concentration sampled at 29 m. This allowed a comparison of PM 1 at heights of 20 m (DustTrak) and 29 m (UH-SAS), both above the canopy height of h c = 19 m. Assuming little variation in concentration between these two heights and an average aerosol density of 1500 kg m −3 , the measurements suggest a correction factor of 0.5 (R 2 = 0.97).…”