260 likes | 996 Views
BAM-1020 PM 2.5 Federal Equivalent Method Monitor. David Gobeli, Ph.D. April 11, 2008. Update (4/08). BAM-1020 PM 2.5 FEM designation application successfully completed by Met One BAM-1020 PM 2.5 FEM published in Federal Register 3/08 as Class III Equivalent Method EQPM-0308-170
E N D
BAM-1020 PM2.5 Federal Equivalent Method Monitor David Gobeli, Ph.D. April 11, 2008
Update (4/08) • BAM-1020 PM2.5 FEM designation application successfully completed by Met One • BAM-1020 PM2.5 FEM published in Federal Register 3/08 as Class III Equivalent Method • EQPM-0308-170 • Manual is being updated to reflect these changes
Background • 40CFR §53 revised in October, 2006 • No Coarse (PM10-2.5) Standard • Very unexpected change of course • US network will be minimal (~75 sites total, probably far fewer with automatic monitors) • At least 5 years before issue is revisited. • 1987 PM10 regulations reaffirmed • Detailed designation procedures developed for automatic (Class III) PM2.5 monitors
New Regulations 40 CFR §53 • Expect PM monitoring sites currently using Federal Reference Method (FRM) samplers to be replaced with continuous monitors after PM2.5 FEM monitors become available. • US-EPA is encouraging development of particulate speciation samplers for PM10-2.5 fraction
PM2.5 Comparability Test Protocol • 5 Test Campaigns • 3 Winter • 2 Summer • Triplicate BAM-1020 and Triplicate FRM • Minimum 23 Valid Days of Data • 46 Valid Days for Winter/Summer Site • Strict criteria for multiplicative (slope), additive (intercept) bias and precision
PM2.5 Comparability Test Protocol • Only single-channel FRM samplers allowed (BGI PQ-200) • 23-hour “day” • Filters retrieved, equipment serviced during one-hour daily downtime • “Days” did not start at midnight • All protocol pre-approved by EPA
New Haven CT Allen Park MI Logan UT Bakersfield CA
BAM-1020 PM2.5 FEM Status • PM2.5 Designation published to Federal Register in 3/08 • EQPM-0308-170
Comparability of Candidate and FRM Methods* 50 y = 0.973x + 0.1285 45 40 35 Candidate method concentration, mg/m3 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 FRM concentration, mg/m3 Logan, UT Winter
Comparability of Candidate and FRM Methods* 45 y = 0.9404x - 0.9552 40 35 30 Candidate method concentration, mg/m3 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 FRM concentration, mg/m3 Allen Park, MI Winter
Comparability of Candidate and FRM Methods* 120 y = 0.9698x - 0.7541 100 80 Candidate method concentration, mg/m3 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 FRM concentration, mg/m3 Bakersfield, CA Winter/Summer
Comparability of Candidate and FRM Methods* 60 y = 1.02x + 0.5854 50 40 Candidate method concentration, mg/m3 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 FRM concentration, mg/m3 New Haven, CT - Summer
Test Summary • All slopes/intercepts almost identical • No geographical influence • No seasonal influence • Changes to BAM-1020 required to meet new designation rules are relatively modest • No increased complexity • No site specific calibration factors
Upgrade Path • BAM-1020 monitors sold after 1/1/07 are in FEM PM2.5 configuration • BAM-1020 monitors sold before 1/1/07 may be upgradeable to FEM PM2.5 configuration • A generous trade in allowance will be offered on units more than 3-4 years old