1 / 16

STUDY OF PM CORRECTION FACTORS IN THE UK

STUDY OF PM CORRECTION FACTORS IN THE UK. Dr Janet Dixon Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK. Content. Background to the UK equivalence study UK equivalence study Criteria used Results + problems Equivalence Guidance Policy issues. Current UK PM 10 network.

keilah
Download Presentation

STUDY OF PM CORRECTION FACTORS IN THE UK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. STUDY OF PM CORRECTION FACTORS IN THE UK Dr Janet DixonDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK

  2. Content • Background to the UK equivalence study • UK equivalence study • Criteria used • Results + problems • Equivalence Guidance • Policy issues

  3. Current UK PM10 network

  4. Previous equivalence work in the UK • May 99 to Oct 02, • Published May 04 (www.airquality.co.uk) • 6 sites • Single PM10 Kleinfiltergerat (KfG) and TEOM at each site • Data evaluated using the then draft Guidance • Expanded uncertainty of full data set = 30.5% - FAIL

  5. UK Equivalence study • Began Mar 04, published June 06 (www.airquality.co.uk) • Costs: • Equipment - £280,000 (400,000 Euros) • Study - £240,000 (345,000 Euros) • 9 organisations involved • Equipment on national network • Other equipment offered by suppliers/ manufacturers

  6. East Kilbride Birmingham Teddington Bristol

  7. Equipment on the study • PM10 – Kleinfiltergerat (ref sampler) • PM10 Partisol 2025; • PM10 TEOM; • PM10 TEOM retrofitted with a Filter Dynamics Measurement System (FDMS); • PM10 OPSIS SM200, (SM200 Beta and SM200 Mass); • PM10 Met-One Beta Attenuation Monitor (BAM); • PM10 Met-One BAM retrofitted with a heater (Smart BAM); • PM2.5 – Kleinfiltergerat (ref sampler) • PM2.5 TEOM retrofitted with an FDMS .

  8. Practical Problems encountered • KfG –samplers stopping at high temp and %RH • Partisol – minor problems • TEOM – minor problems • FDMS – sensitive to temp of station – 18-22oC • SM200 – filter identification; initial filter thickness • BAM – leak flow test failures • Smart BAM – major problems with initial set-up – excluded from statistical analysis

  9. Summary of deviations from CEN standards and Equivalence Guidance • EN12341 – teflon coated glass fibre filters used • EN14907 – no commercially available monitors • Equivalence Guidance • outliers due to human error rather than instrument error • slopes of all datasets were all greater or all less than 1, and/or the intercepts of all datasets were all greater or all less than zero • failure on WCM for the <50 % LV dataset alone • Logic steps to determine whether an instrument meets the criteria for equivalence

  10. Data examples: TEOM(3,1.03,1.3) and FDMS TEOM Expanded uncertainty: • Annual LV = 32.68% Annual LV = 15.37% • Daily LV = 40.38% Daily LV = 14.68%

  11. Data examples: PM2.5 FDMS TEOM Expanded uncertainty: • Annual concentration cap = 24.45% • Daily LV = not applicable

  12. Results of the UK Study

  13. Policy Implications • TEOM – UK currently applies the ‘consistent’ relationship allowed in the Directive • TEOM x 1.3 is overly conservative at some sites • Although non-equivalent – broad conclusions from TEOM will be same as those from equivalent instruments • elevated levels of PM in some places; and • particles pose a large public health risk across the UK • Checking of UK national modelling will be affected

  14. Policy Implications • UK has begun a transitional period of making the network equivalent – initially using FDMS units retrofitted to existing TEOMs • UK local authorities can continue to use TEOMs to fulfil their obligations under the Local Air Quality Management regime • Implications on any epidemiology studies currently underway

  15. Comparison of FDMSbase vs TEOM • 3 measurements from FDMS: non-volatile (base); volatile and total • relationship between the FDMSbase and TEOM measurements with and without the USEPA and UK correction factors: • TEOM(0,1,1) = (PM10 FDMSbase+ 2.061)/1.360 • TEOM(3,1.03,1.3) = PM10 FDMSbase+ 5.826

  16. Summary • Study report published 13 June 06 • In the UK: • TEOM fails equivalence tests • Partisol 2025 Sequential Sampler; TEOM retrofitted with FDMS (for PM10 and PM2.5); and the OPSIS SM200 (by Beta) pass without correction • OPSIS SM200 (by Mass) and Met One BAM pass with correction • Have determined relationship between FDMSbase and TEOM for future comparisons • UK has commenced upgrading National Network initially using FDMS units retrofitted to existing TEOMs

More Related