|
Particle and Aerosol Research
Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2023, Pages 13-20
|
ISSN : 1738-8716 (Print)
ISSN : 2287-8130 (Online)
|
PM10 ¥â-ray attenuation samplers (¥â-ray absorption method)
equivalence evaluation and comparatively observed study
WonSeok Jung1), Hee-Jung Ko1) *, Wonick Seo1), Jiyoung Jeong1), Sang Min Oh1), Kyung-On Boo1)
1)Climate Research Department, National Institute of Meteorological Sciences, Jeju, Republic of Korea
*Corresponding author.
Tel.: +82-64-780-6634, E-mail: khj0614@korea.kr
Received 21 February 2023, Revised 21 March 2023, Accepted 22 March 2023, Available online 31 March 2023
http://dx.doi.org/10.11629/jpaar.2023.19.1.01
Abstracts
The Asian dust observation network operates ¥â-ray attenuation samplers to measure PM10 concentrations. In addition,
equivalence evaluation and accuracy inspection(Precision Tests) are conducted every year for the reliability of data. ¥â
-ray attenuation samplers(16 units) were comparatively observed from May to June 2020 and from July to December
2021. During the observation period, the average daily temperature was the lowest at 6.4¡É in December and the highest
at 27.3¡É in August. The average daily humidity ranged from 60% to 100%, but the average daily humidity was over
75% from July to September. The minimum value of the PM10 Gravimetric method was 5.0 ¥ìg/m3, the maximum value
was 53.4 ¥ìg/m3, and the average value was 17.8 ¥ìg/m3. The equivalence evaluation results of the PM10 Gravimetric
method and ¥â-ray attenuation samplers satisfied the criteria (slope: 1¡¾0.1, intercept: 0¡¾0.5). A relative error analysis
between the PM10 Gravimetric method and ¥â-ray attenuation samplers equipment showed that the relative error
increased when the concentration was low and the temperature and humidity were high. In addition, in the ¥â-ray
attenuation samplers 5-minute interval observation data in May 2020, a relatively large Standard devication was shown
as an average maximum ¡¾23.4 ¥ìg/m3 and a minimum ¡¾15.2 ¥ìg/m3. At standard deviations of 10% and 90%,
equipment with high variability (deviation) was measured at 6 ¥ìg/m3and 61 ¥ìg/m3, and equipment with low
variability was measured at 12 ¥ìg/m3 and 47 ¥ìg/m3. It was confirmed that concentration differences occurred due to
differences in variability for each equipment.
Keywords
PM10, ¥â-ray absorption method, Gravimetric method, Relative error, variability(deviation)