|
Field comparison between electrostatic charge and light scatteringmonitors for continuous monitoring of airborne PM1.0, PM2.5,and PM10 mass concentrations |
|---|---|
| รหัสดีโอไอ | |
| Creator | 1. Panich Intra 2. Artit Yawootti 3. Thanesvorn Siri-achawawath |
| Title | Field comparison between electrostatic charge and light scatteringmonitors for continuous monitoring of airborne PM1.0, PM2.5,and PM10 mass concentrations |
| Publisher | Research and Development Office, Prince of Songkla University |
| Publication Year | 2561 |
| Journal Title | Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology |
| Journal Vol. | 40 |
| Journal No. | 2 |
| Page no. | 339 |
| Keyword | particulate matter, PM, mass monitor, electrostatic charge, light scattering laser |
| URL Website | http://rdo.psu.ac.th/sjstweb/index.php |
| ISSN | 0125-3395 |
| Abstract | This study evaluates and simultaneously compares two monitors, an electrostatic PM mass and a light scattering,DustTrak 8533 mass monitor, TSI Incorporated, for PM1. 0, PM2. 5 and PM10 measurements at ambient conditions at theResearch Unit of Applied Electric Field in Engineering (RUEE), Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (Doi Saket), PaPong, Doi Saket, Chiang Mai, Thailand during May 69, 2015. The two different instruments showed good results that werehighly correlated. It was found that the comparison between the EPMM and the DustTrak 8533 values were R2 of 0.8144, 0.9364,and 0.7657, and a slope of 0.7965, 1.0260, and 0.9556 for PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10, respectively. Relative humidity andtemperature played an important role in PM mass concentration and its electrical properties. Particularly, EPMM proved itsadvantages in measuring and detecting PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 particulate air pollution for mass concentrations in the rangefrom 0.01 to 500 ?g/m3 because it was not affected by hygroscopic growth of the PM. |
