Field comparison of instruments for exposure assessment of airborne ultrafine particles and particulate matter

- The performances of different devices for measurement of UFP and PM were compared.
- The results were analyzed using linear regression analysis and absolute deviations.
- The overestimation error increased with increasing PM and UFP concentrations.
- The studied direct-reading methods can be generally classified as comparable.
- The absolute error is correlated with relative humidity in filter-based techniques.

The objective of this study was to compare the use of co-located real-time devices and gravimetric samplers to measure ultrafine particles (UFP) and size-fractionated PM mass concentrations. The results contribute to evaluating the comparability of different monitoring instruments for size-fractionated PM concentrations. Paired light scattering devices and gravimetric samplers were used to measure the PM1, PM2.5, PM4/5, PM10 and TSP mass concentrations during 8-h monitoring sessions in an urban background site (Como, Italy) in winter. A total of 16 sampling sessions were performed: measurements were analyzed using linear regression analysis. Absolute deviations between techniques were calculated and discussed. The UFP concentrations measured using a condensation particle counter were clearly overestimated compared with the reference instrument (portable diffusion charger), with an absolute deviation that appeared to increase with the UFP concentration. The comparison of different light-scattering devices (photometers - 'PHOTs') indicated an over-estimation of two of the tested instruments (PHOT-2 and PHOT-3) with respect to the one used as the reference (PHOT-1) regarding the measurement of the size-fractioned PM, with the only exception being PM4/5. Further, the comparison of different light-scattering devices with filter-based samplers indicated that direct-reading devices tend to over-estimate (PHOT-2, PHOT-3) or under-estimate (PHOT-1) the PM concentrations from gravimetric analysis. The comparison of different filter-based samplers showed that the observed over-estimation error increased with increasing PM concentration levels; however, the good level of agreement between the investigated methods allowed them to be classified as comparable, although they cannot be characterized as having reciprocal predictability. Ambient relative humidity was correlated with the absolute error resulting from the comparison of direct-reading vs. filter-based techniques, as well as among different filter-based samplers for the same PM fraction.