Field and laboratory comparison of PM10 instruments in high winds

Abstract

Abstract Instruments capable of measuring PM10 (particulate matter ≤10 µm in aerodynamic diameter) concentrations may vary in performance as a result of different technologies utilized in measuring PM10. Therefore, the performance of five instruments capable of measuring PM10 concentrations above eroding soil surfaces was tested during high wind events at field sites in the Columbia Plateau and inside a wind tunnel. Comparisons among the Big Spring Number Eight (BSNE) sampler, DustTrak monitor, E-sampler, High-Volume sampler, and Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) monitor were made at field sites during nine wind erosion events and inside a wind tunnel at two wind speeds (7 and 12 m s−1) and two ambient PM10 concentrations (2 and 50 mg m−3). PM10 concentrations were similar for the High-Volume sampler and TEOM monitor as well as for the BSNE samplers and DustTrak monitors but higher for the High-Volume sampler and TEOM monitor than the E-sampler during field erosion events. Based upon wind tunnel experiments, the TEOM monitor measured the highest PM10 concentration while the DustTrak monitor typically measured the lowest PM10 concentration as compared with other instruments. In addition, PM10 concentration appeared to lower for all instruments at a wind speed of 12 as compared with 7 m s−1 inside the wind tunnel. Differences in the performance of instruments in measuring PM10 concentration poses risks in comparing PM10 concentration among different instrument types or using multiple instrument types to jointly measure concentrations in the field or laboratory or even the same instrument type subject to different wind speeds.