Cargando…

Mass reconstruction methods for PM(2.5): a review

Major components of suspended particulate matter (PM) are inorganic ions, organic matter (OM), elemental carbon (EC), geological minerals, salt, non-mineral elements, and water. Since oxygen (O) and hydrogen (H) are not directly measured in chemical speciation networks, more than ten weighting equat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chow, Judith C., Lowenthal, Douglas H., Chen, L.-W. Antony, Wang, Xiaoliang, Watson, John G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26052367
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11869-015-0338-3
_version_ 1782373933214859264
author Chow, Judith C.
Lowenthal, Douglas H.
Chen, L.-W. Antony
Wang, Xiaoliang
Watson, John G.
author_facet Chow, Judith C.
Lowenthal, Douglas H.
Chen, L.-W. Antony
Wang, Xiaoliang
Watson, John G.
author_sort Chow, Judith C.
collection PubMed
description Major components of suspended particulate matter (PM) are inorganic ions, organic matter (OM), elemental carbon (EC), geological minerals, salt, non-mineral elements, and water. Since oxygen (O) and hydrogen (H) are not directly measured in chemical speciation networks, more than ten weighting equations have been applied to account for their presence, thereby approximating gravimetric mass. Assumptions for these weights are not the same under all circumstances. OM is estimated from an organic carbon (OC) multiplier (f) that ranges from 1.4 to 1.8 in most studies, but f can be larger for highly polar compounds from biomass burning and secondary organic aerosols. The mineral content of fugitive dust is estimated from elemental markers, while the water-soluble content is accounted for as inorganic ions or salt. Part of the discrepancy between measured and reconstructed PM mass is due to the measurement process, including: (1) organic vapors adsorbed on quartz-fiber filters; (2) evaporation of volatile ammonium nitrate and OM between the weighed Teflon-membrane filter and the nylon-membrane and/or quartz-fiber filters on which ions and carbon are measured; and (3) liquid water retained on soluble constituents during filter weighing. The widely used IMPROVE equations were developed to characterize particle light extinction in U.S. national parks, and variants of this approach have been tested in a large variety of environments. Important factors for improving agreement between measured and reconstructed PM mass are the f multiplier for converting OC to OM and accounting for OC sampling artifacts. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11869-015-0338-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4449935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44499352015-06-05 Mass reconstruction methods for PM(2.5): a review Chow, Judith C. Lowenthal, Douglas H. Chen, L.-W. Antony Wang, Xiaoliang Watson, John G. Air Qual Atmos Health Article Major components of suspended particulate matter (PM) are inorganic ions, organic matter (OM), elemental carbon (EC), geological minerals, salt, non-mineral elements, and water. Since oxygen (O) and hydrogen (H) are not directly measured in chemical speciation networks, more than ten weighting equations have been applied to account for their presence, thereby approximating gravimetric mass. Assumptions for these weights are not the same under all circumstances. OM is estimated from an organic carbon (OC) multiplier (f) that ranges from 1.4 to 1.8 in most studies, but f can be larger for highly polar compounds from biomass burning and secondary organic aerosols. The mineral content of fugitive dust is estimated from elemental markers, while the water-soluble content is accounted for as inorganic ions or salt. Part of the discrepancy between measured and reconstructed PM mass is due to the measurement process, including: (1) organic vapors adsorbed on quartz-fiber filters; (2) evaporation of volatile ammonium nitrate and OM between the weighed Teflon-membrane filter and the nylon-membrane and/or quartz-fiber filters on which ions and carbon are measured; and (3) liquid water retained on soluble constituents during filter weighing. The widely used IMPROVE equations were developed to characterize particle light extinction in U.S. national parks, and variants of this approach have been tested in a large variety of environments. Important factors for improving agreement between measured and reconstructed PM mass are the f multiplier for converting OC to OM and accounting for OC sampling artifacts. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11869-015-0338-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Netherlands 2015-05-07 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4449935/ /pubmed/26052367 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11869-015-0338-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
spellingShingle Article
Chow, Judith C.
Lowenthal, Douglas H.
Chen, L.-W. Antony
Wang, Xiaoliang
Watson, John G.
Mass reconstruction methods for PM(2.5): a review
title Mass reconstruction methods for PM(2.5): a review
title_full Mass reconstruction methods for PM(2.5): a review
title_fullStr Mass reconstruction methods for PM(2.5): a review
title_full_unstemmed Mass reconstruction methods for PM(2.5): a review
title_short Mass reconstruction methods for PM(2.5): a review
title_sort mass reconstruction methods for pm(2.5): a review
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26052367
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11869-015-0338-3
work_keys_str_mv AT chowjudithc massreconstructionmethodsforpm25areview
AT lowenthaldouglash massreconstructionmethodsforpm25areview
AT chenlwantony massreconstructionmethodsforpm25areview
AT wangxiaoliang massreconstructionmethodsforpm25areview
AT watsonjohng massreconstructionmethodsforpm25areview