Met One Instruments Model BAM-1020
25
Met One Instruments Met One Instruments Model BAM Model BAM - - 1020 1020 FEM Configurations FEM Configurations PM PM 2.5 2.5 Method EQPM Method EQPM - - 0308 0308 - - 170 170 PM PM 10 10 - - 2.5 2.5 Method EQPM Method EQPM - - 0709 0709 - - 185 185 AWMA PM2.5 Workshop 2011, Toronto, Ontario AWMA PM2.5 Workshop 2011, Toronto, Ontario Erik Zamurs, AKRULOGIC Erik Zamurs, AKRULOGIC
Transcript of Met One Instruments Model BAM-1020
Met One InstrumentsMet One InstrumentsModel BAMModel BAM--10201020
FEM ConfigurationsFEM ConfigurationsPMPM2.52.5 Method EQPMMethod EQPM--03080308--170170
PMPM1010--2.52.5 Method EQPMMethod EQPM--07090709--185185
AWMA PM2.5 Workshop 2011, Toronto, OntarioAWMA PM2.5 Workshop 2011, Toronto, Ontario
Erik Zamurs, AKRULOGICErik Zamurs, AKRULOGIC
Beta AttenuationBeta Attenuation
Particle ConcentrationC = mass/Volume
C = A*ρ/(µ*Volume) * ln(I0/I)
Where:I = I0 * e-µxWith m = ρ * V and V = A * xx=m/(ρ*A) I = Io * e-µ/(ρ*A) * mln(I/Io) = -µ / (ρ*A) * m
Field TestsField Tests
Test ResultsTest Results
Elizabeth, New Jersey (2008)Elizabeth, New Jersey (2008)
Valid Sets:Valid Sets: 2626FRM Precision:FRM Precision: 2.4%2.4%BAM Precision:BAM Precision: 3.1%3.1%
y = 1.0081x + 0.1614R2 = 0.9819
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50
FRM (ug/m3)
BA
M-1
020
(ug/
m3)
Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Test ResultsTest ResultsElizabeth, New Jersey (2008)Elizabeth, New Jersey (2008) BAM ABAM A BAM BBAM B BAM CBAM CIndividual BAM ResultsIndividual BAM Results SlopeSlope 1.0171.017 1.0311.031 0.9820.982(Compared to FRM Mean)(Compared to FRM Mean) Int.Int. --0.4030.403 0.0340.034 0.7810.781
r2r2 0.9830.983 0.9820.982 0.9710.971
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Valid Set Number
Con
cent
ratio
n (u
g/m
3)
FRM MeanBAM ABAM BBAM C
Field Test FindingsField Test Findings
BAMBAM--1020 Tends to Underestimate PM 1020 Tends to Underestimate PM During Cooler Periods (Winter)During Cooler Periods (Winter)
BAMBAM--1020 Overestimates During Hot & 1020 Overestimates During Hot & Humid Periods (Summer)Humid Periods (Summer)
Field Test FRM Results Differ From State Field Test FRM Results Differ From State Agency FRM ResultsAgency FRM Results
Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Test ResultsTest ResultsSeasonal - Cool Test Sites
(Logan, Allen Park, Bakersfield Winter, Dearborn)Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Test ResultsTest ResultsSeasonal - Warm Test Sites
(New Haven, Elizabeth, Rubidoux Summer, Phoenix)
Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Data Set Slope and Intercept, and Limits
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Slope
Inte
rcep
t, ug
/m3
Test ResultsTest Results
y = 1.02x + 0.5854R2 = 0.9953
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Test FRM Average (ug/m3)
BA
M-1
020
(ug/
m3)
y = 1.081x + 1.0333R2 = 0.99
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
State FRM (ug/m3)
BA
M-1
020
(ug/
m3)
BAM vs. Test FRMs, compared to BAM vs. State FRM (New Haven)
Test ResultsTest Results
y = 0.9698x - 0.7436R2 = 0.9937
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Test FRM Average (ug/m3)
BA
M-1
020
(ug/
m3)
y = 1.0411x + 0.4181R2 = 0.987
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
State FRM (ug/m3)
BA
M-1
020
(ug/
m3)
BAM vs. Test FRMs, compared to BAM vs. State FRM (Bakersfield)
Test ResultsTest ResultsBAM vs. Test FRMs, compared to BAM vs. State FRM (Elizabeth 2008)
y = 1.0081x + 0.1614R2 = 0.9819
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Test FRM Average (ug/m3)
BA
M-1
020
(ug/
m3)
y = 1.1276x + 0.1968R2 = 0.9746
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 10 20 30 40 50
State FRM (ug/m3)
BA
M-1
020
(ug/
m3)
BAMBAM--1020 Users 20061020 Users 2006
BAMBAM--1020 Users 20111020 Users 2011
BAMBAM--1020 Upgrades1020 UpgradesReduced Beta Source Reduced Beta Source PMT Spacing (Close PMT Spacing (Close Geometry)Geometry)
Rigid Tape Transport Rigid Tape Transport MechanismMechanism
Characteristics of PMCharacteristics of PMSize (aerodynamic)Size (aerodynamic)DensityDensityShapeShapeSurface TextureSurface TextureColorColorComposition Composition H2O Surface AbsorptionH2O Surface AbsorptionVolatile ConstituentVolatile Constituent(Temperature + Humidity)(Temperature + Humidity)
PM Measurement TechniquesPM Measurement Techniques
Quickest Response
Greatest Variability
Delayed Measurement
Best Detection Limit
Short Delayed Measurement
Detection Limit Adjustable
Accurate Mechanics Necessary
Online Measurement
Compensation Systems Necessary
Moisture Trapped By ParticlesMoisture Trapped By Particles
Agglomerated Particles Can Be Covered With H2O
Moisture Trapped By ParticlesMoisture Trapped By Particles
Effects on MeasurementEffects on Measurement
Improper Conditioning or Improper Conditioning or CompensationCompensation
Anomalous Anomalous Measurements During Measurements During Shifting HumidityShifting Humidity
HysteresisHysteresis effects for effects for ParticleParticle--bound waterbound water
Weight Gain Of FilterWeight Gain Of Filter
(ISPRA 2003 (Vittorio Forcina + Annette Borowiak)
Sample CondensationSample Condensation
Humidity Correction Improve NetworkHumidity Correction Improve Network
Memory IssuesMemory IssuesMass anomalies on filter media is possible due to:Mass anomalies on filter media is possible due to:
Change in HumidityChange in HumidityChange in TemperatureChange in Temperature
Sampling on the same spot continuallySampling on the same spot continuallymultiplies these effects.multiplies these effects.
The BAMThe BAM--1020 reduces the likelihood of these1020 reduces the likelihood of theseerrors by advancing the tape every hour.errors by advancing the tape every hour.
Example of Memory & RH EffectsExample of Memory & RH Effects
Stepwise vs. ContinuousStepwise vs. Continuous
ConclusionConclusionGravimetric SamplersGravimetric Samplers
AdvantagesAdvantagesValues are the ReferenceValues are the ReferenceSimple Measurement TechniqueSimple Measurement Technique
DisadvantagesDisadvantagesExpensive OperationExpensive OperationLaboratory CostsLaboratory CostsNo Real Time ConcentrationNo Real Time Concentration
Continuous MonitorsContinuous Monitors
DisadvantagesDisadvantagesEquivalent to FRM?Equivalent to FRM?More Complex and More More Complex and More
Expensive Than SamplingExpensive Than Sampling
AdvantagesAdvantagesResults are Readily Available with Results are Readily Available with
Good Time ResolutionGood Time ResolutionLower Operating CostsLower Operating Costs
