Practicalities of mapping PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations on city-wide scales using a portable particulate monitor

Michael E Deary; Samantha J Bainbridge; Amy Kerr; Adam McAllister; Thomas Shrimpton

doi:10.1007/s11869-016-0394-3

Practicalities of mapping PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 concentrations on city-wide scales using a portable particulate monitor

Air Qual Atmos Health. 2016;9(8):923-930. doi: 10.1007/s11869-016-0394-3. Epub 2016 Feb 21.

Authors

Michael E Deary¹, Samantha J Bainbridge¹, Amy Kerr¹, Adam McAllister¹, Thomas Shrimpton¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Geography, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Ellison Building, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST UK.

Abstract

Fine particulate matter is considered to be the most significant ambient air pollutant in terms of potential health impacts. Therefore, it is important that regulators are able to accurately assess the exposure of populations to PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 across municipal areas. We report on the practicalities of using a laser light scattering portable particulate monitor (Turnkey Instruments DustMate), in combination with a GPS, to map PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 concentrations on city-wide scales in Newcastle upon Tyne/Gateshead (UK), during a series of walking surveys. A heated inlet is necessary to remove moisture droplets from the sampled air prior to analysis by the instrument, though this also results in the loss of volatile particulate components, particularly from the PM_2.5 fraction. A co-location calibration study was carried out with a reference urban background Tapered Element Oscillating Micro-Balance/Filter Dynamics Measuring System (TEOM-FDMS) system in Newcastle that is part of the UK's Automatic Urban and Rural Network (AURN) of air quality monitoring stations. For PM₁₀, orthogonal regression of the DustMate against TEOM-FDMS data gave a slope and intercept of 1.02 ± 0.06 and -3.7 ± 1.2, respectively (R² = 0.73), whereas for PM_2.5, the respective values were 0.78 ± 0.06 and -0.63 ± 0.55 (R² = 0.79). These parameters are comparable to literature calibration studies using this technology. There was good agreement between simultaneous samples taken using two DustMate instruments: for PM₁₀, a slope and intercept of 1.05 ± 0.03 and 0.36 ± 0.5, respectively (R² = 0.73), were obtained, whereas for the PM_2.5, the respective values were 0.79 ± 0.01 and 0.19 ± 0.06 (R² = 0.86). Correction factors based on the slope and intercepts obtained from the calibration exercise were applied to raw data collected from the DustMate. An annually-normalised correction procedure was then used to account for different background particulate concentrations on different sampling days. These corrected PM₁₀ and PM_2.5 concentrations and corresponding GPS coordinates were displayed on a base map using Google Fusion Tables and Google Earth Professional. Almost all areas surveyed in Newcastle/Gateshead were well below the EU Air Quality Standards for PM₁₀ and PM_2.5.

Keywords: Ambient monitoring; DustMate; Osiris; PM10; PM2.5.