KIMOTO ELECTRIC CO.,LTD.
3-1 Funahashi-cho Tennoji-ku Osaka
543-0024 JAPAN
3-1 Funahashi-cho Tennoji-ku Osaka
543-0024 JAPAN
| T | E | L | . | + | 8 | 1 | - | 6 | - | 6 | 7 | 6 | 8 | - | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| F | A | X | . | + | 8 | 1 | - | 6 | - | 6 | 7 | 6 | 4 | - | 7 | 0 | 4 | 1 |
US-EPA Air Marathon
US-EPA takes particular note of PM10-2.5 (difference between PM10 and PM2.5) as a standard PM to replace PM10. The PM examinations (Air Marathon) had done various sites in the USA which have different composition of PM each other with moving the motor home since March, 2003. Below figures show the summary of Air Marathon.
| Test Site | Term | Overview | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Durham, NC |
|
Pre-Test in the Research Triangle | |||
| Gary, IN | 30 days Mar-Apr, 2003 | Heavy industry area using coal energy | |||
| Phoenix, AZ |
|
Desert area (near the international airport) | |||
| Riverside, CA | 30 days Jul -Aug, 2003 |
High-traffic area （in the orange farm） |
|||
| Birmingham, AL | 30 days Sep -Oct, 2005 |
Heavy industry area using coal energy |
Comparison SPM-613D with FRM
This observation was done the test driving at Durham in the beginning. Afterwards, The 30 days observations were done at Gary (March - April, 2003), Phoenix (Summer: May - June, 2003) and Riverside (July - August, 2003), respectively. In addition, Phoenix observation was done during 15 days in January, 2004 as the data of winter season.
The figures of right show the correlation of the PM concentra-tions of SPM-613D and FRM in each observation. As the sampling period of FRM was 22 hours (11:00 through 9:00 on next day), the data of SPM-613D were meant as the same period in order to compare. PM10-2.5 concentrations of FRM were calculated using the following equation:
The figures of right show the correlation of the PM concentra-tions of SPM-613D and FRM in each observation. As the sampling period of FRM was 22 hours (11:00 through 9:00 on next day), the data of SPM-613D were meant as the same period in order to compare. PM10-2.5 concentrations of FRM were calculated using the following equation:
[PM10-2.5] = [PM10] - [PM2.5]
The [PM10-2.5] were comparable in magnitude to [PM2.5] in Gary and Riverside, while the [PM10-2.5] were overwhelmingly in Phoenix the urban desert. The correlation of PM10-2.5 was almost 1:1 for each site, with high correlation. For PM2.5, there was a trend that the data of FRM was greater than the data of SPM-613D for all sites, although their correlation were high as well as PM10-2.5. Moreover, this trend was greater in summer season than winter season at the Phoenix site.
From above results, it is considered that the PM2.5 of FRM were influenced by volatilizing. It is considered that the influence is greater with increasing the temperature. In contrast, it is considered that PM10-2.5 is not to be influenced by thermal effect so much.
From above results, it is considered that the PM2.5 of FRM were influenced by volatilizing. It is considered that the influence is greater with increasing the temperature. In contrast, it is considered that PM10-2.5 is not to be influenced by thermal effect so much.
Discussion
The all data of SPM-613D was compared with the data of FRM. Figure A shows the comparison the SPM613D-FRM ratio for PM2.5 with the 22h mean temperature of outdoor. There is strong evidence that the ratio of PM2.5 increases with decreasing outdoor temperature (close to 1.0). A fitting curve shows that the temperature increased 1 degC, the ratio the decreased 5.40 x 10-3. It is considered that the volatile components such as VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) and water contained with PM2.5 are easier to vaporize with temperature higher. Therefore, the PM2.5 concentration of FRM was lower than SPM613D since sampling period of FRM (22h) was longer than SPM613D (1h). This result suggests the need to short term sampling for PM2.5, in order to minimize underestimate by the volatilization. Figure B shows the comparison the SPM613D-FRM ratio (for PM2.5) which temperature-collected (-5.40 x 10-3 x degC-1) with the 22h mean absolute humidity. The figure shows that the ratio decrease precipitously, when the absolute humidity increased more than 10 g/kg. It is considered that PM2.5 started to take in the moisture in the air at 10 g/kg of humidity, then the ratio decreased. This result suggests the need to control the humidity of sampling line, although the influence was smaller than the thermal effect as underestimating factor, because of each sampling site of all except for Riverside were extremely dry region, respectivaly.
Products Comparison
Regarding PM10-2.5, it is clear that SPM-613D have exactly the same properties with FRM sampler, when SPM-613D was compared with the samplers of the other companies that participated to the field examination in Durham (Mar., 2005).
