Correcting TEOM Measurements using the KCL Volatile Correction Model David Green, Gary Fuller & Timothy Baker.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Some recent studies using Models-3 Ian Rodgers Presentation to APRIL meeting London 4 th March 2003.
Advertisements

DustScan Ltd Fine PM – Only Part of the Monitoring Story Oliver Puddle DustScan Ltd 14 March 2013.
STUDY OF PM CORRECTION FACTORS IN THE UK Dr Janet Dixon Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.
AMS Performance at DC3-Test Some preliminary results Pedro Campuzano Jost, Douglas Day, Michael Lechner, Jose Luis Jimenez.
Chemical Composition of Organic Carbon Fractions Barbara Zielinska.
Chemical speciation of PM and mass closure David Green, Gary Fuller & Anja Tremper King’s College London.
EIONET Perspective – UK’s experience of air quality assessment Janet Dixon Air Quality and Industrial Pollution Programme Department for Environment, Food.
Quantifying uncertainties of OMI NO 2 data Implications for air quality applications Bryan Duncan, Yasuko Yoshida, Lok Lamsal, NASA OMI Retrieval Team.
J. K. Gietl * and O. Klemm Institute of Landscape Ecology, University of Münster, Germany Corresponding author:
BAM-1022 Continuous Beta Gauge
UK feedback on MQO Presented by: John Stedman, Daniel Brookes, Brian Stacey, Keith Vincent, Emily Connolly 10 April 2013.
Slide 1 Chief Executive’s Department Bristol Futures A Linked Data Pilot for Air Quality Steve Crawshaw - Bristol CC Brian McBride – Epimorphics Ltd.
A Project to Characterize The Effects of Transient Air Pollutants on the Health of African-Americans in Atlanta, Georgia John H. Hall Morehouse College.
Source apportionment of PM in the ADMS model David Carruthers Workshop on Source Apportionment of Particulate Matter Imperial College London Friday, 23.
PM mapping in Scotland, 2007 Andrew Kent. What are we presenting today? 1) Context to the work 2) Modelling process 3) Model results 4) Future work possibilities.
Modelling urban pollution within the UK scale integrated assessment model, UKIAM Helen ApSimon, Tim Oxley and Marios Valiantis UK Centre for Integrated.
WORKING GROUP I MONITORING DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION TFMM Workshop, Paris, 2006, Nov 29 –Dec 1.
1 Source apportionment of PM in the PCM model John Stedman 23 April 2010.
Clean air for London: ClearfLo David Green, King’s College London.
ADVANCES IN MONITORING METHODS FOR AIRBORNE PARTICLES Philip K. Hopke Department of Chemical Engineering, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY USA.
THE REGENTS PARK AND TOWER ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERIMENT REPARTEE 2006 & 2007 Roy M. Harrison University of Birmingham.
Felicity Thomas Interim Head of Learning and Organisational Development Adult Social Care.
ULTRAFINE PM IN NEAR GROUND LAYER OF URBAN ATMOSPHERE, PRAGUE 2002/2003 JAN HOVORKA, LUBOMÍR BETUŠ ; Institute.
QA/QC of Scottish Air Quality Data Ken Stevenson.
1 Key Monitoring Issues Status of PM 2.5 monitoring methodologies Criteria for acceptance of monitors and sites Special considerations for comparing ambient.
Temporal and Spatial Variations of PM2.5 Mass in Georgia Xiaolu Zhang EAS 6410 Spring 2007.
1 Guest Speaker: Brandy Toft Leech Lake Ojibwe.  Overview of FRM/FEM/ARM status, requirements, and reporting  QC (routine checks, audits, and method-
The DAPPLE project: Overview and wind tunnel experiments Alan Robins 1, Paul Hayden 1, Janet Barlow 2, and the DAPPLE Consortium Home Office CBRN S&T Programme.
1 Saxony-Anhalt State Environmental Protection Agency Wolfgang Garche Bukarest EU-Twinning Project RO 2006 IB EN 09 Wolfgang Garche Saxony-Anhalt.
Continuous Particulate Monitoring Using Light Scatter Photometers.
The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water.
Measuring OM/OC on individual IMPROVE Teflon filters using FT-IR analysis Ann M. Dillner, Travis C. Ruthenburg Lake Tahoe IMPROVE Steering Committee Meeting,
Visualization of Particulate Air Pollution Data with AVS/Express Simon Parker Division of Environmental Health and Risk Management, University of Birmingham.
Regional Studies Association Research Network Governing Metropolitan Regions within a Localist Agenda: London, Paris and Berlin Second Seminar: 22nd February.
Field Methods of Monitoring Atmospheric Systems Measurement of Air Pollution Copyright © 2009 by DBS.
Urban vs. Rural Atlanta An assessment of : 1)PM2.5 composition and trends 2)The Atlanta Urban Heat Island Effect.
CARB Continuous PM 2.5 Monitoring Activity (BAM’s) Reggie Smith California Air Resources Board.
Science Investigation Discussion of Results to Date & Future Work Red Deer Particulate Matter Information Session Maxwell Mazur
The aim of this work was to create background and roadside maps of pollutant concentrations for Scotland and to compare these with similar maps created.
Malé Declaration Report on the Progress of. Malé Declaration: Phase IV Objectives Malé Declaration/IG11/2/1 1. Strengthen Regional Cooperation for addressing.
Online measurements of chemical composition and size distribution of submicron aerosol particles in east Baltic region Inga Rimšelytė Institute of Physics.
Assessment of Benefits Change title? John Paterson (Sheffield, 17 th September) web:
| Folie 1 Assessment of Representativeness of Air Quality Monitoring Stations Geneva, Wolfgang Spangl.
1 Saxony-Anhalt EU Twinning RO 04/IB/EN/09 State Environmental Protection Agency Wolfgang GarcheBukarest National Reference Laboratory for Air.
Model Evaluation Comparing Model Output to Ambient Data Christian Seigneur AER San Ramon, California.
Standard images are available on the intranet For more specific images please contact Matthew Hart For PowerPoint help please contact Elizabeth Leishman.
POMI kick-off meeting 7 March, 2008 Collaborative research project in support to the reduction of atmospheric pollution in REGIONE LOMBARDIA ( )
© 2013 UWE Is Local Air Quality Management a successful strategy in achieving selected EU Limit Values? Barnes, J.H., Hayes, E.H. & Longhurst, J.W.S. Air.
Commission proposal for a new LIFE Regulation ( ) Presentation to Directors Meeting DK 22 May 2012.
PM Methods Update and Network Design Presentation for WESTAR San Diego, CA September 2005 Peter Tsirigotis Director Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis.
Prof. Jiakuan Yang Huazhong University of Science and Technology Air Pollution Control Engineering.
Phoenix Metropolitan Area Urban Nephelometer Program Mike Sundblom Arizona Department of Environmental Quality April 13, 2005.
Continuous Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 ) Monitoring Tom Dann Luc White, Alain Biron Luc White, Alain Biron Environment Canada, Ottawa Tom Dann Luc White,
Environment Canada, ETC, Ottawa
COMPARISON OF APS AND BETA AS CONTINUOUS MONITORS FOR MEASURING PM10 CONCENTRATIONS IN URBAN AIR Devraj Thimmaiah, Jan Hovorka Institute for Environmental.
N Engl J Med Jun 29;376(26): doi: 10
MONITORING Mr. Jan Prášek IPPC Agency.
A.Liudchik, V.Pakatashkin, S.Umreika, S.Barodka
National Wildlife Refuge
Daytime variations of AOD and PM2
The science of urban air quality
Session 4: Air Pollution Measurements
Background CRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater thrEsholds: BRIDGE Co-ordinator: BRGM (Fr) Groundwater Characterisation workshop, 25 June 2004.
A Review of Time Integrated PM2.5 Monitoring Data in the United States
Correcting TEOM Measurements using the KCL Volatile Correction Model
U.S. Perspective on Particulate Matter and Ozone
MEASUREMENT OF PM2.5 SEMI-VOLATILE MATERIAL WITH THE FDMS TEOM MONITOR
RECEPTOR MODELLING OF AIRBORNE PARTICULATE MATTER
PM correction factor in France
WORK OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AIR QUALITY EXPERT GROUP (AQEG)
Presentation transcript:

Correcting TEOM Measurements using the KCL Volatile Correction Model David Green, Gary Fuller & Timothy Baker

Presented by David Green 2 Contents Model Development Context UK PM Monitoring Problem Model derivation Model testing Proposed monitoring strategy for the UK

Presented by David Green 3 Model Development Context January LAQN Seminar – London FDMS Defra funded work early 2007 – Grounded in statistics used to demonstrate equivalence – UK wide applicability Named it: “Volatile Correction Model” Future steps

Presented by David Green 4 PM 10 Monitoring Problem Complex pollutant – Different components – Constantly changing Reference Method – Labour intensive – Poor time resolution – Slow data dissemination Reference Method TEOM FDMS TEOM – Heats sample inlet to 50°C to eliminate water but looses volatile PM FDMS – Uses a diffusion dryer to eliminate water and retain a sample temperature of 30°C – Equivalent to Reference UK Monitoring Networks – Predominately TEOM – Need to use equivalent methods for reporting to EU BAM

Presented by David Green 5 PM 10 Measurement Time Series

Presented by David Green 6 PM 10 Measurement Time Series

Presented by David Green 7 PM 10 Measurement Correlation

Presented by David Green 8 How do we achieve an Equivalent Network? Upgrade TEOM to FDMS – Expensive (capital) – Retains some continuity of measurement Change monitoring equipment – Gravimetric – (capital and revenue) – Loose continuity of measurement – Delay in reporting time – BAM – Expensive (capital) – Loose continuity of measurement A ‘Third Way’? – Using FDMS measurements of volatile PM to correct TEOM measurements

Presented by David Green 9 KCL Volatile Correction Model Provides a daily, site specific correction factor for TEOM measurements Correction based on FDMS purge measurement made some distance away Results in reference equivalent daily mean concentration within the 25% expanded uncertainty specified by the AQ Directive

Presented by David Green 10 Model Derivation

Presented by David Green 11 FDMS – Filter Dynamics Measurement System 2 measurement modes: – Base (analogous to standard TEOM) – Purge, which measures mass lost from the filter when particle free air is passing through it FDMS Mass = Base - Purge

Presented by David Green 12 Model Derivation

Presented by David Green 13 TEOM and FDMS Monitoring East Kilbride Birmingham Bristol Teddington

Presented by David Green 14 TEOM – Base vs. FDMS Purge

Presented by David Green 15 TEOM – FDMS Base vs. FDMS Purge

Presented by David Green 16 PM 10 Measurements

Presented by David Green 17 PM 10 Measurements

Presented by David Green 18 Model Derivation

Presented by David Green 19 Uniform FDMS Purge Concentrations

Presented by David Green 20 Equivalence Testing Experiment 1 – test the model at the equivalence programme sites excluding regional aspects Experiment 2 - test the model at the equivalence programme sites including regional aspects Criteria n≥ 40 n ≥ 50 % of limit value≥ 25% Between reference sampler uncertainty ≤ 2 µg m -3 Between candidate sampler uncertainty ≤ 3 µg m -3 Expanded Uncertainty≥ 25%

Presented by David Green 21 Experiment 2

Presented by David Green 22 Expanded Uncertainty

Presented by David Green 23 Monitoring Strategy based on the VCM Model

Presented by David Green 24 Conclusion Model provides a daily, site specific correction factor for TEOM measurements to provide a reference equivalent measurement: Reference Equivalent PM 10 = TEOM – 1.87 FDMS purge Works up to a distance of 200 km Allows smaller number of FDMS instruments to correct larger network of TEOMs – Financial and data continuity implications Further work…

Presented by David Green 25 Further Work Physical and chemical basis for model – Concentrations on TEOM and FDMS filters – Ammonium nitrate – Volatile organic compounds – Collocated measurements – Ammonium nitrate – Volatile organic compounds – Water Extend to hourly public dissemination Provide method for local authorities to use the model Extend to PM 2.5

Presented by David Green 26 Acknowledgements Defra London Borough of Bexley London Borough of Greenwich London Borough of Ealing City of Westminster Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Air Monitors

Presented by David Green 27 Thank you for you attention!