working together for clean air pm 2.5 continuous methods lynnwood, washington site

Working Together for Clean Air

www.pscleanair.org

PM 2.5 Continuous Methods

Lynnwood, Washington Site

Study Objectives

To share information regarding Continuous Fine Particle Monitoring vs the Federal Reference Method for PM 2.5 at a Woodsmoke Impacted Site

To specifically compare the technologies employed by vendors in continuous fine particle monitoring

To assist us in Long Term Network Management Decisions Which Device (s) should we invest in for future Fine Particle Monitoring

for Woodsmoke Impacted Areas?

Abstract

The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has a long history of using continuous fine particle monitors in the Seattle Metropolitan Area. In an ongoing continuous improvement effort, we have used a site in a wood smoke impacted area to test new technologies for continuous fine particle monitoring. This presentation is a data update studying both the technical data issues of intercomparison and quality assurance, and the practical issues of maintenance and operations between various samplers including the Rupprecht & Patashnik TEOM (tapered element oscillating microbalance), the TEOM FDMS (filter dynamics measurement system), the Radiance Research Nephelometer, and the Met-One 1020 BAM (beta attenuation monitor) and E-BAM. The standard PM 2.5 method that will be used for comparison is the Federal Reference Method.

Lynnwood, Washington Site

Lynnwood Site

Detailed Site Description

Lynnwood Monitoring Site

2003 Study Design

In 2003, we collected data:

FRM PM 2.5 -- 1 in 6TEOM PM 2.5Nephelometer PM 2.5TEOM FDMS PM 2.5

Looking for a measure of performance with significant aerosol volatility

Regression: Continuous vs FRM 2003

PM 2.5 Continuous Methods vs FRM24 Hour Daily Averages

2003

y = 0.9034x + 1.4759

R2 = 0.9262

y = 0.9482x + 0.2703

R2 = 0.9379

y = 1.1561x + 2.2596

R2 = 0.884

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Federal Reference Method (in ug/m3)

PM

2.5

Co

nti

nu

ou

s M

eth

od

s (i

n u

g/m

3)

TEOM PM 2.5 vs FRM

TEOM FDMS PM 2.5 vs FRM

NEPH PM 2.5 vs FRM

Linear (TEOM PM 2.5 vs FRM)

Linear (NEPH PM 2.5 vs FRM)

Linear (TEOM FDMS PM 2.5 vs FRM)

Time Series: First Half of 2003

PM 2.5 Methods Time Series24 Hour Averages

Jan-Jun2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1/1/03 3/2/03 5/1/03 6/30/03

Date

PM

2.5

(in

ug

/m3)

FRM PM 2.5

TEOM PM 2.5

TEOM FDMS PM 2.5

NEPH PM 2.5

Time Series: Second Half of 2003


Jul-Dec2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

6/30/03 8/29/03 10/28/03 12/27/03

Date

PM

2.5

(in

ug

/m3)

FRM PM 2.5

TEOM PM 2.5

TEOM FDMS PM 2.5

NEPH PM 2.5


Jul-Dec2003

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

6/30/03 8/29/03 10/28/03 12/27/03

Date

PM

2.5

(in

ug

/m3)

FRM PM 2.5

TEOM PM 2.5

TEOM FDMS PM 2.5

NEPH PM 2.5

Statistics – Annual Averages

Annual Average ComparisonLynnwood 2003

9.2

12.3

8.89.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Mic

rog

ram

s/cu

bic

met

er

Partisol

FDMS

TEOM2.5 (adj)

Neph PM 2.5

2004 Study Design

Look at “Wood Smoke” Season comparing:

FRM PM 2.5 -- 1 in 3TEOM PM 2.5Nephelometer PM 2.5TEOM FDMS PM 2.5Met-One BAM PM 2.5Met-One E-BAM PM 2.5

PM 2.5 Continuous Methods vs FRMOct - Dec 2004

Daily 24 Hour Averages

0

10

20

30

40

50

10/1 10/15 10/29 11/12 11/26 12/10 12/24 1/7 1/21 2/4

2004

Mic

rog

ram

s p

er c

ub

ic m

eter

FDMS PM 2.5

TEOM PM 2.5

NEPH PM 2.5

FRM PM 2.5

Continuous PM 2.5 Methods vs FRMWoodSmoke Season 2004-05


y = 0.806x + 2.7966

R2 = 0.9099

y = 0.9906x - 0.7987

R2 = 0.9211

y = 1.004x - 0.5537

R2 = 0.9517

y = 1.1767x - 2.3556

R2 = 0.9652y = 1.3094x + 3.7963

R2 = 0.9357

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

FRM PM 2.5 (in ug/m3)

Co

nti

nu

ou

s M

eth

od

s P

M 2

.5 (

in u

g/m

3)

FDMS PM 2.5 vs FRM

TEOM PM 2.5 vs FRM

NEPH PM 2.5 vs FRM

M1 BAM 1020 vs FRM

M1 EBAM vs FRM



Linear (FDMS PM 2.5 vs FRM)

Linear (M1 BAM 1020 vs FRM)

Linear (M1 EBAM vs FRM)



y = 0.806x + 2.7966

R2 = 0.9099

y = 0.9906x - 0.7987

R2 = 0.9211

y = 1.004x - 0.5537

R2 = 0.9517

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0


Co

nti

nu

ou

s M

eth

od

s P

M 2

.5 (

in u

g/m

3)

FDMS PM 2.5 vs FRM

TEOM PM 2.5 vs FRM

NEPH PM 2.5 vs FRM



Linear (FDMS PM 2.5 vs FRM)



y = 0.9906x - 0.7987

R2 = 0.9211

y = 1.1767x - 2.3556

R2 = 0.9652

y = 1.3094x + 3.7963

R2 = 0.9357

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0


Co

nti

nu

ou

s M

eth

od

s P

M 2

.5 (

in u

g/m

3)

NEPH PM 2.5 vs FRM

M1 BAM 1020 vs FRM

M1 EBAM vs FRM


Linear (M1 BAM 1020 vs FRM)

Linear (M1 EBAM vs FRM)

Aethalometer Experience

Dual Channel AethalometerProject objective: to learn more about nature of Carbon

Aerosol Some Surprising results…

Darrington, WA Sampling SiteHigh Concentration of Wood Smoke

Darrington, Washington

Darrington High School

Dual Channel Aethalometer Graphic

Dual Channel Aethalometer ResultsDarrington WoodSmoke Site

Nov 14-27, 2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

11/14/20040:00

11/15/20040:00

11/16/20040:00

11/17/20040:00

11/18/20040:00

11/19/20040:00

11/20/20040:00

11/21/20040:00

11/22/20040:00

11/23/20040:00

11/24/20040:00

11/25/20040:00

11/26/20040:00

11/27/20040:00

11/28/20040:00

Date/Tim e

BC

or

UV

Ch

ann

el (

in u

g/m

3)

BC (in ug/m3)

UV (in ug/m3)

Dual Channel Aethalometer ResultsFreeway Olive Street Site

Nov 14-27, 2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

11/14/20040:00

11/15/20040:00

11/16/20040:00

11/17/20040:00

11/18/20040:00

11/19/20040:00

11/20/20040:00

11/21/20040:00

11/22/20040:00

11/23/20040:00

11/24/20040:00

11/25/20040:00

11/26/20040:00

11/27/20040:00

11/28/20040:00

Date /Tim e

BC

or

UV

Ch

ann

el (

in u

g/m

3)

BC (in ug/m3)

UV (in ug/m3)

Daily Averages

Particle Monitoring Results: Darrington WoodSmoke SiteDec 23 - Feb 2, 2004

Daily Averages

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

12/23/2004 12/30/2004 1/6/2005 1/13/2005 1/20/2005 1/27/2005 2/3/2005

Date /Time

BC

or

UV

Ch

ann

el (

in u

g/m

3)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

NE

PH

PM

2.5

(in

ug

/m3)

BC (in ug/m3)

UV (in ug/m3)

Neph PM 2.5 (in ug/m3)

Hourly Averages

Particle Monitoring Results: Darrington WoodSmoke Site

Jan 8-12, 2005Hourly Averages

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1/8/2005 0:00 1/9/2005 0:00 1/10/2005 0:00 1/11/2005 0:00 1/12/2005 0:00

Date /Time

BC

or

UV

Ch

an

ne

l (i

n

ug

/m3

)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

NE

PH

PM

2.5

(in

ug

/m3

)BC (in ug/m3)

UV (in ug/m3)

Neph PM 2.5 (in ug/m3)


www.pscleanair.org

U. of WashingtonDiesel Exposure Lab

Testing

Aethalometer Pilot Experiment

Opportunity

UW Diesel Exposure Laboratory Health Studies: Humans and Mice

Principal Investigator – Dr. Joel Kaufman, MD, MPHEngineering Investigator – Dr. Tim Larson, PHD

Diesel engine Current model turbocharged direct-injection 5.9 liter Cummins B-series

engine (6BT5.9G6, Cummins, Inc., Columbus, IN). 100 kW generator set. Comparable to delivery trucks and school buses.

Fuel Fuel is #2 un-dyed on-highway fuel from a commercial source

Visual

Diesel Engine outside: Controlled exposure chamber inside.

30x20x8 foot chamber with instrumentation

Initial Study Questions

What will the Aethalometer measure when we expose it to this Acute, High Pollution Level Environment?

What will the ratio be between the PM 2.5 DPM being measured by the TEOM and the PM 2.5 BC being measured by the Aethalometer? How Variable?

How will the Nephelometer measurements relate to the measurements taken with the other devices?

What will the BC and UV channel show us about the nature of the Diesel Particulate Matter?

Study Objectives

Learn more about both channels of the Aethalometer by testing it in the Diesel Exposure Lab Learn about the Maximum Limits of the Aethalometer Learn about the linearity of the Aethalometer over a wide range of

exposures Learn about the relationship between the BC and UV channels

Learn more about the TEOM and NEPH in the Diesel Exposure Lab

Method

Monitored Air in the chamber using TEOM, NEPH, and dual channel Aethalometer at various levels of Total PM 2.5 (in this case, total Diesel Particulate Matter) Experiment lasted 9 weeks Gathered data on 7 sessions of opportunity during those 9 weeks We were able to validate 5 of those sessions (extremely high levels

caused instrument malfunction)

Assumption: TEOM is our Standard PM 2.5 device for this experiment. Historically, we have shown that both the TEOM PM 2.5 device, and the Nephelometer have excellent correlations with the PM 2.5 Federal Reference Method.

Time Synch Problem

Time Synch Problem: The instrument’s clocks were not in synch. For analysis, we used the TEOM’s time standard and subjectively adjusted the other devices’ data accordingly to synch the time. Data Resolution Limiting Factor: Aethalometer 5 minute Averages. For comparison, we calculated 5 minute average data for all 3 devices.

PSCAA Method to Convert Bscat to PM 2.5 for Ambient Air

We use a wide network of Nephelometers to monitor PM 2.5 in Snohomish, King, Pierce, and Kitsap Counties.We use a 24 Hour Average Correlation Factor to convert from Bscat to PM 2.5. We have used nephelometer to PM 2.5 Federal Reference Method historical data (24 Hr Averages) to calculate these factors.Examples:

SITE DOMINANT SOURCES CORRECTION

Marysville Woodsmoke, Mobile 25.8 x104

South Tacoma Woodsmoke, Mobile 24.7 x104

Seattle Duwamish Industrial, Mobile

33.1 x104

Units are meter * g/m3

Data Sets - Comparisons

Relationship between NEPH and TEOMDiesel Particle Chamber

Using 5 Minute Avg

y = 501,087x + 6R2 = 0.947

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

0.0E+00 1.0E-04 2.0E-04 3.0E-04 4.0E-04 5.0E-04

NEPH Light Scattering in (Bscat)

TE

OM

PM

2.5

in

(u

g/m

3)

NEPH vs TEOM

Linear (NEPH vs TEOM)

Neph and TEOM Discussion

The direct linear relationship shown between the Nephelometer and the TEOM indicate that they both detect and measure Diesel Particulate Matter.

Based on the light scattering properties of DPM, there is a different relationship (slope) than what we would see in the ambient atmosphere when more than just DPM is being measured. Particles from other sources have other light scattering properties.

Diesel particles scatter much less light than the ambient PM 2.5 particles that we see in the ambient atmosphere.


www.pscleanair.org

Data Slides


12/2/04 Exposure UWDsl Chamber Zero Testing

5 Min Averages

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00

Time

PM

2.5

in

ug

/m3

0.00E+00

2.00E-06

4.00E-06

6.00E-06

8.00E-06

1.00E-05

1.20E-05

TEOM PM 2.5

Aeth PM 2.5 BC

NEPH Bscat

Nep

h B

scat

Axi

s


11/23/04 Exposure UWDsl Chamber 5 Min Averages

0

20

40

60

80

10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30

Time

PM

2.5

in

ug

/m3

0.00E+00

4.00E-05

8.00E-05

1.20E-04

1.60E-04

TEOM PM 2.5

Aeth PM 2.5 BC

NEPH Bscat

Nep

h B

scat

Axi

s



0

20

40

60

80

12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30

Time

PM

2.5

in

ug

/m3

0.00E+00

4.00E-05

8.00E-05

1.20E-04

1.60E-04

TEOM PM 2.5

Aeth PM 2.5 BC

NEPH Bscat

Nep

h B

scat

Axi

s



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30

Time

PM

2.5

in

ug

/m3

0.00E+00

1.00E-04

2.00E-04

3.00E-04

4.00E-04

5.00E-04

6.00E-04

TEOM PM 2.5

Aeth PM 2.5 BC

NEPH Bscat

Nep

h B

scat

Axi

s


0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00 16:30 17:00 17:30

Time

PM

2.5

in

ug

/m3

0.00E+00

3.00E-05

6.00E-05

9.00E-05

1.20E-04

1.50E-04

1.80E-04

2.10E-04

2.40E-04TEOM PM 2.5

Aeth PM 2.5 BC

NEPH Bscat


Nep

h B

scat

Axi

s


www.pscleanair.org

Data Analysis

Aethalometer BC and TEOM

Relationship between TEOM, AETH BCDiesel Particle Chamber

Using 5 Minute Avg

y = 0.943x - 7.429

R2 = 0.858

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

TEOM in (ug/m3)

AE

TH

BC

in

(u

g/m

3)

TEOM vs AETH

Linear (TEOM vs AETH)

Aethalometer BC and Neph

Relationship between NEPH, AETH BCDiesel Particle Chamber

Using 5 Minute Avg

y = 509295x - 4.96

R2 = 0.9541

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

0.0E+00 5.0E-05 1.0E-04 1.5E-04 2.0E-04 2.5E-04 3.0E-04 3.5E-04 4.0E-04

NEPH in (Bscat)

AE

TH

BC

in

(u

g/m

3)

NEPH Bscat vs AETH BC

Linear (NEPH Bscat vs AETH BC)

Diesel Particulate Matter UV/BC Ratio

UV/BC Ratio is a means to qualitatively differentiate between Wood Smoke type Black Carbon and Diesel type Black Carbon. Examples:

Wood Smoke Darrington Site UV/BC Ratios was 1.93 Diesel UV/BC Ratio determined by this study 0.76

Aeth Woodsmoke Contrast

Daily Avg

y = 1.9314x - 0.1627

R2 = 0.9477

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 3 6 9

BC (ug/m3)

UV

(u

g/m

3)

Darrington WoodSmoke

Linear (DarringtonWoodSmoke)

Darrington Wood Smoke Site Univ Wash Diesel ChamberDiesel Chamber Source

Aeth S/N 451BC vs UV signature

10Nov04 - 6Jan05 data5 minute averages

y = 0.7612x + 418.24

R2 = 0.9932

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000

BC (in ng/m3)

UV

(in

ng

/m3

)

BC vs UV Linear (BC vs UV)

Pilot Study Preliminary Findings

When monitoring fine particles from a specific diesel source, the light scattering instrument (Nephelometer) and the light absorption instrument (Aethalometer) yield different results than what we see in the ambient atmosphere.

DPM Particles absorb light at 880 nm. DPM Particles scatter less light than other PM 2.5 particles when measuring with the Nephelometer.

The Aethalometer BC channel does a fairly good job measuring DPM particles in terms of g/m3 as compared to the PM 2.5 TEOM.

Combined with the knowledge of results at our wood smoke dominated sites, the UV channel does a good job identifying the difference between the wood smoke generated PM 2.5 particles and the DPM generated PM 2.5 particles

Aeth performance – Precision & Accuracy

Aethalometer (s/n 451) Performance Verification: We co-located another Aeth (s/n 517) for a period of 2 weeks. Flow Checks Completed to eliminate Flow Inaccuracy from analysis Evaluated the instrument to instrument precision and accuracy for these two

weeks which included 1 high level diesel exposure.

Conclusions:

Precision (R2) within PM 2.5 continuous monitoring standards

Bias (Accuracy) outside normal PM 2.5 monitoring standards (10%)Unable to Calibrate Device Optics

Inter-Instrument Precision and Accuracy Aethalometer Diesel Chamber Study

22Dec04 - 6Jan055 Minute Averages

y = 0.8319x + 132.16

R2 = 0.9282

y = 0.843x + 122.13

R2 = 0.9292

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

220000

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000 220000

Aeth S/N 451 BC and UV (in ng/m3)

Ae

th S

/N 5

17

BC

an

d U

V (

in n

g/m

3)

BC 451 vs BC 517

UV 451 vs UV 517

Linear (UV 451 vs UV 517)

Linear (BC 451 vs BC 517)

Maintenance Issues

Federal Reference Method (1 in 3) Use R&P 2025 Sequential Samplers Problems with Leak Checks Going into Stop Mode causes a lot of filter data retrieval and filter

exchange problems

R&P TEOM and/or TEOM FDMS (Continuous) Generally, R&P is very good about Service and Manuals We spend more time troubleshooting these than what is desirable, but

we have had good data completeness numbers.

Radiance Research Nephelometers (Continuous) Technology and Device very well understood. Service from Radiance Research lacks

Met-One Beta Attenuation Monitors (Semi-Continuous) Met One Service very good Problems with Leak Checks and Flow Checks New to us, so we’re getting used to the Software Interfaces.

Summary

2003 Data suggests that the FDMS (Filter Dynamics Measurement System) sees aerosol that possibly volatilize from other sampling systems

For example: Nephelometer uses a heated probe to knock out the moisture effects

that we see in certain environmental conditions TEOM is heated to 50° C in Summer and 30° C in Winter to maintain a

constant operating temperature for more consistent measurement FRM is kept near ambient by it’s internal pump, but there could be

volatiles that come off the filters before they are weighed in the laboratory.

Summary

All of the devices seem to do a credible job

No one device is perfect!

Determining network decisions Know the customer Cost and operation

PM 2.5 Continuous Methods vs FRMOct - Dec 2004


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

10/31 11/14 11/28 12/12 12/26 1/9 1/23 2/6

2004

Mic

rog

ram

s p

er c

ub

ic m

eter

FRM PM 2.5

METONE BAM 1020 PM 2.5

METONE EBAM PM 2.5

working together for clean air pm 2.5 continuous methods lynnwood, washington site

Documents