ComparativePM 06 07

Flemish Environment Agency
Air Quality Monitoring Networks
Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 Measurements in

Flanders (Belgium)
Period 20062007
Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
Title Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 Measurements in Flanders, Period 20062007 Authors Section Air Quality Monitoring Networks: Leen Verlinden, Christine Matheeussen, Jordy Vercauteren and Edward Roekens Department Air, Environment and Communication, Flemish Environment Agency Summary This report describes the results of PM10 and PM2.5 comparison tests between 1. automated monitors and the gravimetric reference method 2. different filter materials that were carried out at 6 network sites in Flanders during the period 20062007. Way of referring VMM (2008) Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 Measurements in Flanders, Period 20062007. Publisher Philippe DHondt, Department Communication, Flemish Environment Agency
Head
Air,
Environment
and
Report available from VMMinfo A. Van De Maelestraat 96, 9320 Erembodegem; Belgium Tel: +32 (0)53 72 64 45; fax: +32 (0)53 71 10 78 email: info@vmm.be Depotnumber D/2008/6871/024
www.vmm.be
SUMMARY
Although the current European reference method for measuring PM10 in ambient air (EN12341) is based on a 24hour collection and gravimetric analysis, the monitoring networks are required to use continuous automated monitors to provide realtime information. Since these monitors use different operation principles than the reference method the networks have to demonstrate that the automated instruments can produce results that are comparable with the reference method. This process is called Demonstration of Equivalence and mainly consists of executing comparative measurements between the reference method and the automated monitors. The advised (but strictly speaking not mandatory) procedure for this can be found in the Demonstration of equivalence of ambient air monitoring 1 methods . In addition to this document there is an excel file that automatically calculates certain calibration and uncertainty parameters. The fourth intercomparison was linked with the PM10 chemical characterisation study that was th th carried out from September 16 , 2006 until September 11 , 2007 at 6 locations. Every sixth day was a measurement day. At each location 2 PM10 Leckels were placed: 1 Leckel with quartz filters (Whatman QMA) and 1 Leckel with teflon filters (Pall Teflo). Since mass determination was also done on both kind of filters for this study, the data of the automated monitors present at these locations could be compared with the gravimetrical data. At the beginning of 2007 additional Leckels for PM2.5 with quartz filters (Whatman QMA) were installed at 4 locations. This was the first time that VMM performed a PM2.5intercomparison campaign. Also TEOM and TEOMFDMS monitors were additionally installed in 2007 at some locations. The PM2.5 comparison exercise ended in January 2008. The PM10 campaign at the locations with extra automated monitors was prolonged until that date but only versus the Leckels with quartz filters. Extra sampling days for the Leckels equipped with quartz filters were planned (between the normal sampling of every sixth day for the chemical characterisation study) at the PM2.5 locations and at the PM10 locations with additional automated monitors.
2
1.
Experimental Setup
Chapter 1 of this report deals with the experimental setup of the campaigns. It contains site description, instrumental and practical information, data treatment and a campaign overview. The six sites that were used for the campaigns are: Aarschot (rural), Hasselt (suburban), Borgerhout (urban backgroundtraffic), Houtem (rural), Zelzate (industrial) and Mechelen (suburban). As an implementation of the reference method the Leckel SEQ 47/50 (a sequential sampler running at 3 2.3 m /h that is generally equipped with a set of 14 filters) was used. The automated monitors investigated in this study were: the ESM FH 62 IR (attenuation); the TEOM Series 1400ab (oscillating microbalance); the TEOM Series 8500 FDMS System (a TEOM 1400ab with an addon unit that corrects for the loss of material due to volatilization); the Grimm 180 (optical).
1 2
Europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/equivalence_report3.pdf VMM (2008), Chemkar PM10: Chemische karakterisatie van fijn stof in Vlaanderen, 20062007 www.vmm.be 5
Table i: Overview of 20062007 comparison campaigns
Location AarschotN035 HasseltN045 HasseltL800 BorgerhoutR801 HoutemN029 ZelzateR750 MechelenML01 HasseltN045 HasseltL800 PM2.5 BorgerhoutR801 HoutemN029 MechelenML01
Period 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200603/01/2008 13/07/200703/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200604/03/2007 25/02/200703/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 13/07/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 15/03/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008
Automated monitors ESM ESM FDMS ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm ESM ESM FDMS TEOM ESM FDMS ESM FDMS Grimm ESM FDMS TEOM
Leckel
Q T: until 11/09/2007
PM10
2.
Gravimetric method comparisons
Chapter 2 describes the comparison of the two filter types used in this study and a discussion of the field blanks. The concentrations for the quartz filters are on average 8% higher than for teflon filters. The intercept appears to be quite low, so the difference between the two filter types seems to be relative and not absolute.
Table ii: Calibration factors and equations for comparison quartz Teflon filters
Q (Whatman QMA) vs T (Pall Teflo) # data pairs 347 Orthogonal regression Q= 1.10*T 0.44 Orthogonal regression through origin Q= 1.08*T Average of daily ratios ( c.i.o.t.m.)* Q= 1.08*T ( 0.01) Ratio of averages Q= 1.08*T
EN14907 states that if the blank masses are more than 40 g for LVS (equivalent to a difference in measured concentration of 0.7 g/m at nominal flow and 24h sampling) the reason shall be investigated. A few times (more or less randomly spread) during the campaign field blanks were taken at all sites simultaneously. For quartz we see the largest differences between the bank levels of the different sampling periods. We did not find a correlation of the blank levels with relative humidity, precipitation or amount of organic material. The mass gain on the quartz field blanks was almost always higher than those on the teflon filters. The quartz field blanks almost always had a gain of more than 40 g. The quartz filters are more likely to take up water and organic material as they are preheated which makes them very dry and seems to activate the borosilicate in the filters. This might (partly) be an explanation for the fact that the field blanks are higher than for teflon. The average quartz field blank had a mass of 110 g (~2 g/m at nominal flow and 24h sampling). The average teflon field blank had a mass of 47 g (~0.9 g/m at nominal flow and 24h sampling).
www.vmm.be
The difference between the results of 2 consecutive weighings was generally higher for the teflon filters than for the quartz filters. Maybe this is due to the fact that we didnt use a static discharger during weighing (although EN14907 states so).
3.
Comparisons with automated monitors
Chapter 3 deals with the results of the comparisons between the reference method and the
continuous automated samplers.
PM10
As can been seen in the table below the daily calibration factors vary over quite a substantial range.
Table iii: 5% and 95% percentiles of the daily calibration factors (ref / AM) for all locations together, PM10
Monitors ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm
Whatman QMA 5% percentile 95% percentile 1.16 1.85 1.00 1.45 1.11 1.90 1.24 2.75
Pall Teflo 5% percentile 95% percentile 1.05 1.81 0.85 1.29 0.97 1.72 1.08 2.39
The following table gives an overview of the calibration factors and equations for all monitors for the complete PM10datasets.
Table iv: Calibration factors and equations for all monitors based on the results of the 20062007 campaigns
PM10 # data pairs 422 151 176 112
Q (Whatman QMA) vs automated monitors Orthogonal regression Ref= 1.43*ESM +0.39 Ref= 1.03*FDMS +3.14 Ref= 1.67*TEOM 4.60 Orthogonal regression through origin Ref= 1.44*ESM Average of daily ratios (c.i.o.t.m.)* Ref= 1.46*ESM ( 0.02) Ratio of averages Ref= 1.44*ESM
Ref= 1.12*FDMS Ref= 1.18*FDMS ( 0.03) Ref= 1.15*FDMS Ref= 1.51*TEOM Ref= 1.46*TEOM ( 0.04) Ref= 1.47*TEOM
Ref= 1.22*Grimm +8.70 Ref= 1.50*Grimm Ref= 1.80*Grimm ( 0.10) Ref= 1.60*Grimm T (Pall Teflo) vs automated monitors
# data pairs 263 92 89 50
Orthogonal regression Ref= 1.37*ESM 0.04 Ref= 0.93*FDMS +3.03 Ref= 1.49*TEOM 5.69
Orthogonal regression through origin Ref= 1.37*ESM
Average of daily ratios Ref= 1.39*ESM ( 0.03)
Ratio of averages Ref= 1.37*ESM
Ref= 1.08*Grimm +8.77 Ref= 1.36*Grimm Ref= 1.61*Grimm ( 0.12) Ref= 1.45*Grimm
* confidence interval on the mean
Comparing the different locations, we see higher calibration factors at the rural locations Aarschot and Houtem. This finding is in accordance with the results found in the VMM campaign of 2004. Rural locations have a higher ratio because the semivolatile fraction is relatively more important there.
www.vmm.be
Industrial or urban sites are more influenced by mineral dust, which isnt volatized due to heating of the automated monitors, resulting in lower factors. Using 1 calibration factor for all sites (like VMM does now) leads to some underestimation of the concentrations and number of exceedances at rural sites and some overestimation at industrial and urban sites. VMM will further investigate the possibility of using a different calibration factor depending on the type of measurement site. When taking into account the criterion for the expanded uncertainty (< 25%) at the daily limit value for 3 PM10 (50 g/m ), FDMS manages to pass without applying a calibration factor (or with applying a calibration factor of 1.00). ESM and TEOM pass after applying a calibration factor. The Grimm monitor (only tested at 1 location) doesnt pass, even after applying a calibration factor. Compared to the currently used factors (ESM: 1.37, TEOM: 1.47, TEOMFDMS: 1.00) the factors based on the quartz data from this exercise are slightly higher. Because the PM10 reference method is currently being updated by CEN (and it is still not clear which filter will comply with the updated method) VMM has so far decided not to update its factors. Equivalence for PM10 with ESM, TEOM en TEOMFDMS automated monitors versus the quartz data is obtained by applying the currently used factors.
PM2.5 As can been seen in the table below, the daily calibration factors vary over quite a substantial range. The range of daily ratios for the PM2.5equipment seems to be larger than those for the PM10 equipment for the different type of monitors, except for the Grimm (only measurements at one location).
Table v: 5% and 95% percentiles of the daily correction factors (ref / AM) for all locations together, PM2.5
Monitors ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm
Whatman QMA 5% percentile 95% percentile 1.18 2.16 0.85 1.86 1.19 2.28 0.89 1.79
The following table gives an overview of the calibration factors and equations for all monitors for the complete datasets.
Table vi: Calibration factors and equations for all monitors based on the results of the 20062007 campaigns
PM2.5 # data pairs 356 272 103 89
Q (Whatman QMA) vs automated monitors Orthogonal regression Ref= 1.35*ESM +2.50 Ref= 1.00*FDMS +2.58 Ref= 1.92*TEOM 3.40 Orthogonal regression through origin Ref= 1.46*ESM Average of daily ratios (c.i.o.t.m.)* Ref= 1.59*ESM ( 0.03) Ratio of averages Ref= 1.51*ESM
According to the equivalence document the uncertainty is expressed at the limit value. Because there is no daily limit value for PM2.5 the yearly limit value (25 g/m) is used. For PM2.5 there is no automated instrument that manages to be an equivalent method even after calibration. Application of the calibration factor obtained through orthogonal regression through the origin considerably improves the uncertainty at the limit value for ESM and TEOM. For TEOMFDMS the improvement is small. So VMM will use a calibration factor of 1.46 for ESM, 1.75 for TEOM and 1.00 for TEOMFDMS.
www.vmm.be
The portion of PM2.5 in PM10 in Flanders is more than 60%. The requirements for PM2.5 are therefore more severe than for PM10. Directive 2008/50/EC states that the percentages for uncertainty are given for individual measurements averaged over the period considered by the limit value. So strictly taken for PM2.5 the 25 % expanded uncertainty is required for the yearly average and not for the daily value. In spite of this problem we have no knowledge of other European countries using other methods than the one described in the reference document for demonstrating equivalence for PM2.5. Other types of automated PM2.5 monitors shall be tested.
www.vmm.be
SAMENVATTING
Hoewel de huidige Europese referentiemethode voor het meten van PM10 in buitenlucht (EN12341) gebaseerd is op een 24uurs monsterneming en gravimetrische analyse, dienen de netwerken toch continue automatische monitoren te gebruiken om realtime gegevens te kunnen aanbieden. Aangezien deze monitoren gebaseerd zijn op andere meetprincipes dan de referentiemethode moeten de netwerken aantonen dat deze toestellen resultaten kunnen geven die vergelijkbaar zijn met die van de referentiemethode. Dit proces staat bekend als het aantonen van equivalentie (Demonstration of Equivalence) en behelst vooral het uitvoeren van vergelijkende oefeningen tussen de referentiemethode en de automatische monitoren. De aanbevolen, maar strikt genomen niet verplichte, procedure staat beschreven in het document Demonstration of equivalence of ambient air 3 monitoring methods . Bij dit document hoort tevens een excel tabel voor het automatisch berekenen van kalibratiefactoren en onzekerheden. Deze vierde vergelijkende studie was gekoppeld aan de PM10 chemische karakterisatiestudie die uitgevoerd werd van 16 september 2006 tot en met 11 september 2007. Elke zesde dag was een bemonsteringsdag. Op elke locatie werden 2 PM10Leckels geplaatst: 1 Leckel met kwartsfilters (Whatman QMA) en 1 Leckel met teflon filters (Pall Teflo). Aangezien ook een massabepaling werd uitgevoerd op beide filtertypes, konden de gegevens van de automatische monitoren aanwezig op deze locaties vergeleken worden met de gravimetrische data. Begin 2007 werden bijkomende referentietoestellen voor PM2,5 met kwartsfilters (Whatman QMA) geplaatst op 4 locaties. Dit was de eerste keer dat VMM een vergelijkende PM2,5campagne uitvoerde. Eveneens in 2007 werden op een aantal locaties bijkomende TEOM en TEOMFDMS monitoren genstalleerd. De PM2,5vergelijking eindigde in januari 2008. De PM10campagne op de locaties met extra automatische monitoren werd ook verlengd tot die datum maar enkel voor de Leckels met kwartsfilters. Extra metingen (op kwartsfilters) werden uitgevoerd (tussen de normale bemonstering voor de chemische karakterisatiestudie op elke zesde dag) op de PM2,5locaties en op de PM10 locaties met bijkomende automatische monitoren.
4
1.
Experimentele opstelling
Hoofdstuk 1 van dit rapport beschrijft de experimentele opzet van de campagnes. Het behandelt meetplaatsbeschrijvingen, informatie over de gebruikte toestellen, databehandeling en de duurtijd van de verschillende campagnes. De 6 meetplaatsen voor deze studie waren: Aarschot (landelijk), Hasselt (voorstedelijk), Borgerhout (stedelijkverkeer), Houtem (landelijk), Zelzate (industrieel) en Mechelen (voorstedelijk). Als implementatie van de referentiemethode werd de Leckel SEQ 47/50 (een sequentile sampler die 3 meestal wordt uitgerust met een set van 14 filters) gebruikt. Het debiet bedroeg 2.3 m /uur. De automatische monitoren die in deze studie werden onderzocht, zijn: ESM FH 62 IR (attenuatie); TEOM Series 1400ab (oscillerende microbalans); TEOM Series 8500 FDMS System (een TEOM 1400ab met een addon unit die corrigeert voor verlies van materiaal door vervluchtiging) Grimm 180 (optisch).
3 4
Europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/equivalence_report3.pdf VMM (2008), Chemkar PM10: Chemische karakterisatie van fijn stof in Vlaanderen, 20062007 www.vmm.be 11
Tabel i: Overzicht vergelijkende campagnes 20062007
Locatie AarschotN035 HasseltN045 HasseltL800 BorgerhoutR801 HoutemN029 ZelzateR750 MechelenML01 HasseltN045 HasseltL800 PM2.5 BorgerhoutR801 HoutemN029 MechelenML01
Periode 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200603/01/2008 13/07/200703/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200604/03/2007 25/02/200703/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 13/07/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 15/03/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008
Automatische monitoren ESM ESM FDMS ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm ESM ESM FDMS TEOM ESM FDMS ESM FDMS Grimm ESM FDMS TEOM
Leckel
Q T: t.e.m. 11/09/2007
PM10
2.
Gravimetrische methodevergelijking
Hoofdstuk 2 beschrijft de vergelijking van de in deze studie gebruikte 2 filtertypes en bevat ook een bespreking van de veldblancos. De concentraties van de kwartsfilters blijken gemiddeld 8% hoger te zijn dan voor teflon filters. Het intercept blijkt vrij laag te zijn, dus het verschil tussen de 2 filtertypes lijkt eerder relatief dan absoluut.
Tabel ii: Kalibratiefactoren en vergelijkingen voor de vergelijking kwartsteflon
Q (Whatman QMA) vs T (Pall Teflo) # data paren 347 Orthogonale regressie Q= 1.10*T 0.44 Orthogonale Gemiddelde van dagratios regressie door de (b.i.o.g.)* oorsprong Q= 1.08*T Q= 1.08*T ( 0.01) Ratio van gemiddelden Q= 1.08*T
* betrouwbaarheidsinterval op het gemiddelde
EN14907 stelt dat indien de massatoename van de blanco filters meer dan 40 g bedraagt voor LVS (dit komt overeen met een gemeten concentratie van 0.7 g/m bij nominale flow en 24h bemonstering) men de oorzaak hiervan dient te onderzoeken. Een aantal maal (min of meer willekeurig verspreid) werden gedurende de studie veldblancos genomen, simultaan op alle locaties. We zagen voor kwarts een grote variatie tussen de verschillende periodes. Dit bleek niet gecorreleerd te zijn met relatieve vochtigheid, neerslag of hoeveelheid organisch materaal. De massatoename op kwarts veldblancos was bijna altijd hoger dan op teflon veldblancos. Op kwarts was de massatoename voor de veldblancos bijna altijd boven de 40 g. De kwartsfilters nemen gemakkelijker water en organisch materiaal op. Ze werden voorgebakken, wat hen erg droog maakt en het borosilicaat in de filters zou kunnen activeren. Dit kan (deels) een verklaring kan zijn voor het feit dat de veldblancos voor kwarts hoger zijn dan deze voor teflon. De gemiddelde veldblanco voor kwarts had een massa van 110 g (~2 g/m bij nominaal debiet en 24u bemonstering). Voor teflon had de gemiddelde veldblanco een massa van 47 g (~0,9 g/m).
www.vmm.be
12
Bij de teflon filters waren de verschillen tussen de vereiste 2 opeenvolgende wegingen doorgaans groter dan bij kwarts filters. Dit kan misschien te verklaren zijn omdat we geen statische ontlader gebruikten gedurende de weging (hoewel dit wordt gesteld door EN14907).
3.
Vergelijkingen met automatische monitoren vergelijkingen tussen de gravimetrische
Hoofdstuk 3 behandelt de resultaten van de referentiemethode en de automatische monitoren.

PM10
Zoals af te leiden uit onderstaande tabel variren de dagratios binnen een aanzienlijke range.
Tabel iii: 5% and 95% percentielen van de dagratios (ref / AM) over alle locaties, PM10
Monitoren ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm
Whatman QMA 5% percentiel 95% percentiel 1.16 1.85 1.00 1.45 1.11 1.90 1.24 2.75
Pall Teflo 5% percentiel 95% percentiel 1.05 1.81 0.85 1.29 0.97 1.72 1.08 2.39
Een overzicht van de verschillende kalibratiefactoren en vergelijkingen voor de volledige PM10 dataset van elk type monitor wordt weergegeven in onderstaande tabel.
Tabel iv: Kalibratiefactoren en vergelijkingen voor alle monitoren, gebaseerd op de meetcampagnes 20062007
PM10 # data paren 422 151 176 112
Q (Whatman QMA) vs automatische monitoren Orthogonale regressie Ref= 1.43*ESM +0.39 Ref= 1.03*FDMS +3.14 Ref= 1.67*TEOM 4.60 Orthogonale Gemiddelde van dagratios regressie door de (b.i.o.g.)* oorsprong Ref= 1.44*ESM Ref= 1.46*ESM ( 0.02) Ratio van gemiddelden Ref= 1.44*ESM
Ref= 1.22*Grimm +8.70 Ref= 1.50*Grimm Ref= 1.80*Grimm ( 0.10) Ref= 1.60*Grimm T (Pall Teflo) vs automatische monitoren
# data paren 263 92 89 50
Orthogonale regressie Ref= 1.37*ESM 0.04 Ref= 0.93*FDMS +3.03 Ref= 1.49*TEOM 5.69
Orthogonale Gemiddelde van dagratios regressie door de (b.i.o.g.)* oorsprong Ref= 1.37*ESM Ref= 1.39*ESM ( 0.03)
Ratio van gemiddelden Ref= 1.37*ESM
Bij vergelijking van de verschillende locaties zien we hogere kalibratiefactoren op de landelijke meetplaatsen Aarschot en Houtem. Deze bevinding is in overeenstemming met de resultaten van de VMM meetcampagne 2004. Landelijke locaties kunnen een hogere ratio hebben omdat de vluchtige fractie er relatief hoger is. Industrile en stedelijke locaties worden meer benvloed door mineraal stof,
www.vmm.be
13
wat niet vervluchtigt tijdens de opwarming van de aanzuiglucht bij automatische monitoren, wat resulteert in lagere factoren. Hierdoor leidt het gebruik van 1 algemene factor voor alle Vlaamse meetplaatsen (zoals VMM nu doet) tot een zekere onderschatting van de concentraties en aantal overschrijdingen op landelijke meetplaatsen en een zekere overschatting op industrile en stedelijke plaatsen. VMM zal verder nagaan of het mogelijk is om verschillende factoren te gebruiken naargelang het type meetplaats. Wanneer het criterium i.v.m. de uitgebreide onzekerheid (< 25 %) bij de daggrenswaarde van 50 3 g/m in acht wordt genomen, blijkt enkel TEOMFDMS te voldoen zonder toepassen van een kalibratiefactor (of bij toepassen van een kalibratiefactor van 1,00). ESM en TEOM voldoen wel na toepassen van een kalibratiefactor. De Grimmmonitor (enkel op 1 locatie getest) voldoet niet, zelfs niet na toepassen van een kalibratiefactor. Vergeleken met de momenteel toegepaste kalibratiefactoren (ESM: 1,37, TEOM: 1,47, TEOMFDMS: 1,00) zijn de factoren bekomen door vergelijking met de waarden van de kwartsfilters iets hoger. Daar de huidige referentiemethode voor PM10 momenteel wordt herzien door de CEN (en het nog niet duidelijk is welk filtertype in de aangepaste uitgave wordt weerhouden) beslist VMM om voorlopig zijn kalibratiefactoren niet aan te passen. ESM, TEOM en TEOMFDMSmonitoren kunnen als equivalente methoden worden beschouwd voor PM10 bij het toepassen van de momenteel in gebruik zijnde kalibratiefactoren.
PM2.5 Zoals af te leiden uit onderstaande tabel variren de dagratios binnen een aanzienlijke range.
De range van de PM2,5dagratios blijkt groter te zijn dan deze voor de PM10toestellen voor de
verschillende monitortypes, uitgezonderd voor de Grimm (enkel metingen op 1 locatie).
Tabel v: 5% en 95% percentielen van de dagratios (ref / AM) over alle locaties, PM2,5
Monitoren ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm
Whatman QMA 5% percentiel 95% percentiel 1.18 2.16 0.85 1.86 1.19 2.28 0.89 1.79
Een overzicht van de verschillende kalibratiefactoren en vergelijkingen voor de volledige PM2,5 dataset van elk type monitor wordt weergegeven in onderstaande tabel.
Tabel vi: Kalibratiefactoren en vergelijkingen voor alle monitoren, gebaseerd op de meetcampagnes 20062007
PM2,5 # data paren 356 272 103 89
Q (Whatman QMA) vs automatische monitoren Orthogonale regressie Ref= 1.35*ESM +2.50 Ref= 1.00*FDMS +2.58 Ref= 1.92*TEOM 3.40 Orthogonale Gemiddelde van dagratios regressie door de (b.i.o.g.)* oorsprong Ref= 1.46*ESM Ref= 1.59*ESM ( 0.03) Ratio van gemiddelden Ref= 1.51*ESM
Volgens het equivalentiedocument dient men de onzekerheid uit te drukken ter hoogte van de grenswaarde. Omdat er geen daggemiddelde grenswaarde bestaat voor PM2,5 wordt de jaargemiddelde grenswaarde (25 g/m) gebruikt. Voor PM2,5 blijken de automatische monitoren niet equivalent te zijn met de referentiemethode, zelfs niet na kalibratie. Het toepassen van een kalibratiefactor via orthogonale regressie door de oorsprong verbetert wel aanzienlijk de onzekerheid
www.vmm.be
14
ter hoogte van de grenswaarde voor ESM en TEOM. Voor TEOM is de verbetering slechts beperkt. VMM zal voor PM2,5 volgende kalibratiefactoren gebruiken : 1,46 voor ESM, 1,75 voor TEOM en 1,00 voor TEOMFDMS. Het aandeel van PM2,5 in PM10 in Vlaanderen bedraagt evenwel meer dan 60 %. De vereisten met betrekking tot onzekerheid voor PM2,5 zijn daarom strenger voor PM2,5 dan voor PM10. Verder stelt de Richtlijn 2008/50/EC dat de opgegeven percentages voor onzekerheid gegeven worden voor individuele metingen uitgemiddeld over de periode waarop de grenswaarde betrekking heeft. Voor PM2,5 wordt de 25 % uitgebreide onzekerheid dus strikt genomen enkel gevraagd voor het jaargemiddelde. Ondanks dit probleem hebben we geen kennis van andere Europese landen die een andere methode zouden gebruiken voor het aantonen van equivalentie voor PM2,5. Andere typen van automatische monitoren zullen getest worden.
www.vmm.be
15
TABLE OF CONTENT
Summary ................................................................................................................... 5
Samenvatting .......................................................................................................... 11
Table of content...................................................................................................... 17
List of figures.......................................................................................................... 19
List of tables ........................................................................................................... 20
Introduction............................................................................................................. 21
1. Experimental setup.......................................................................................... 23
1.1. Sampling Sites ..................................................................................................23
1.1.1. 1.1.2. 1.1.3. 1.1.4. 1.1.5. 1.1.6. Houtem (N029)........................................................................................................ 23

Zelzate (R750) ........................................................................................................ 24
Borgerhout (R801) .................................................................................................. 25
Mechelen (ML01) .................................................................................................... 25
Aarschot (N035) ...................................................................................................... 26
Hasselt (N045) ........................................................................................................ 27
Leckel SEQ 47/50 ................................................................................................... 28
ESM FH 62 IR........................................................................................................ 28
TEOM Series 1400ab.............................................................................................. 28
Series 8500 FDMS System..................................................................................... 29
Grimm 180 .............................................................................................................. 29
1.2.
Instruments .......................................................................................................28
1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 1.2.5.
1.3. 1.4.
Weighing and handling of gravimetric samples .................................................31

Data treatment ..................................................................................................32
1.4.1. 1.4.2. 1.4.3. Validation and Quality Control ................................................................................ 32

Outlier removal........................................................................................................ 32
Calibration factor/equation calculation .................................................................... 32
Time & instruments ................................................................................................. 35
Meteorological data................................................................................................. 36
1.5.
Campaign Overview..........................................................................................35
1.5.1. 1.5.2.
2.
Gravimetric method comparisons.................................................................. 37
2.1. 2.2. 2.3. History of filter choice at VMM...........................................................................37

Filter types and brands......................................................................................38
Field comparisons & tests .................................................................................38
2.3.1. 2.3.2. Filter comparison: quartz vs teflon filter .................................................................. 38

Field blanks ............................................................................................................. 39
3.
Comparisons with automated monitors ........................................................ 41
3.1. Measured concentrations and ratios for PM10 ..................................................41
3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.1.6. 3.1.7. Aarschot PM10..................................................................................................... 41

Hasselt PM10....................................................................................................... 42
Borgerhout PM10 ................................................................................................. 43
Houtem PM10 ...................................................................................................... 44
Zelzate PM10 ....................................................................................................... 45
Mechelen PM10 ................................................................................................... 46
All locations together............................................................................................... 47
3.2.
Measured concentrations and ratios for PM2.5 .................................................51
www.vmm.be 17
3.2.1. 3.2.2. 3.2.3. 3.2.4. 3.2.5.
Hasselt PM2.5...................................................................................................... 51
Borgerhout PM2.5 ................................................................................................ 51
Houtem PM2.5 ..................................................................................................... 52
Mechelen PM2.5 .................................................................................................. 52
All locations together............................................................................................... 53
ESM......................................................................................................................... 56
TEOMFDMS .......................................................................................................... 58
TEOM ...................................................................................................................... 60
Grimm...................................................................................................................... 61
ESM......................................................................................................................... 63
TEOMFDMS .......................................................................................................... 64
TEOM ...................................................................................................................... 65
Grimm...................................................................................................................... 66
General.................................................................................................................... 66
ESM......................................................................................................................... 68
FDMS ...................................................................................................................... 69
TEOM ...................................................................................................................... 70
Grimm...................................................................................................................... 71
ESM......................................................................................................................... 72
FDMS ...................................................................................................................... 72
TEOM ...................................................................................................................... 72
Grimm...................................................................................................................... 72
Overview ................................................................................................................. 73
Suitability of datasets .............................................................................................. 73
Between sampler uncertainty.................................................................................. 73
Reference vs. automated ........................................................................................ 74
Equivalence: conclusions........................................................................................ 82
Overview ................................................................................................................. 84
Between sampler uncertainty.................................................................................. 84
Reference vs. automated ........................................................................................ 84
Equivalence: conclusions........................................................................................ 89
3.3.
Scatter plots & calibration factors/equations for PM10 ......................................56
3.3.1. 3.3.2. 3.3.3. 3.3.4.
3.4.
Scatter plots & calibration factors/equations for PM2.5 .....................................63
3.4.1. 3.4.2. 3.4.3. 3.4.4. 3.4.5.
3.5.
Effect on limit values for PM10 ..........................................................................67
3.5.1. 3.5.2. 3.5.3. 3.5.4.
3.6.
Effect on limit values for PM2.5 .........................................................................72
3.6.1. 3.6.2. 3.6.3. 3.6.4.
3.7.
Demonstration of equivalence for PM10............................................................73
3.7.1. 3.7.2. 3.7.3. 3.7.4. 3.7.5.
3.8.
Demonstration of equivalence for PM2.5...........................................................84
3.8.1. 3.8.2. 3.8.3. 3.8.4.
4.
Conclusions an recommendations ................................................................ 91
4.1. 4.2. Conclusions ......................................................................................................91

Recommendations ............................................................................................92
Lists of sampling days and filter numbering Table with meteorological data PM10: Results of demonstration of equivalence for each station individually PM2.5: Results of demonstration of equivalence for each station individually Calibration factors/equations based on common data for PM10 and PM2.5
Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5:
www.vmm.be
18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Locations of the sampling sites used in this study.................................................................................. 23

Figure 2: The rural monitoring site at Houtem ....................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3: The industrial monitoring site at Zelzate ................................................................................................. 24
Figure 4: The urban background monitoring site at Borgerhout ............................................................................ 25
Figure 5: The suburban monitoring site at Mechelen............................................................................................. 26
Figure 6: The rural monitoring station at Aarschot................................................................................................. 26
Figure 7: The suburban monitoring site at Hasselt ................................................................................................ 27
Figure 8: The different monitors used in this study ................................................................................................ 30
Figure 9: Weighing cupboard................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 10: Meteorological data, GentTolhuiskaai (M701), 16/09/200603/01/2008 .............................................. 36
Figure 11: Scatter plot of teflon filters (T) vs. quartz filters (Q) for all locations ..................................................... 39
Figure 12: Results of the field blanks of quartz filters (Whatman QMA) ............................................................... 40
Figure 13: Results of the field blanks of teflon filters (Pall teflo) ............................................................................ 40
Figure 14: Concentrations and ratios for AarschotPM10 (Q as reference)........................................................... 41
Figure 15: Concentrations and ratios for AarschotPM10 (T as reference) ........................................................... 41
Figure 16: Concentrations and ratios for HasseltPM10 (Q as reference) ............................................................. 42
Figure 17: Concentrations and ratios for HasseltPM10 (T as reference).............................................................. 42
Figure 18: Concentrations and ratios for BorgerhoutPM10 (Q as reference) ....................................................... 43
Figure 19: Concentrations and ratios for BorgerhoutPM10 (T as reference)........................................................ 43
Figure 20: Concentrations and ratios for HoutemPM10 (Q as reference) ............................................................ 44
Figure 21: Concentrations and ratios for HoutemPM10 (T as reference) ............................................................. 44
Figure 22: Concentrations and ratios for ZelzatePM10 (Q as reference) ............................................................. 45
Figure 23: Concentrations and ratios for ZelzatePM10 (T as reference).............................................................. 45
Figure 24: Concentrations and ratios for MechelenPM10 (Q as reference) ......................................................... 46
Figure 25: Concentrations and ratios for MechelenPM10 (T as reference) .......................................................... 46
Figure 26: ESM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (Q as reference) .............................................. 47
Figure 27: ESM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (T as reference) ............................................... 47
Figure 28: FDMS concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (Q as reference) ............................................ 48
Figure 29: FDMS concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (T as reference)............................................. 48
Figure 30: TEOM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (Q as reference)............................................ 49
Figure 31: TEOM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (T as reference) ............................................ 49
Figure 32: Grimm concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (Q as reference) ........................................... 50
Figure 33: Grimm concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (T as reference) ............................................ 50
Figure 34: Concentrations and ratios for HasseltPM2.5 (Q as reference) ............................................................ 51
Figure 35: Concentrations and ratios for BorgerhoutPM2.5 (Q as reference) ...................................................... 51
Figure 36: Concentrations and ratios for HoutemPM2.5 (Q as reference) ........................................................... 52
Figure 37: Concentrations and ratios for MechelenPM2.5 (Q as reference) ........................................................ 52
Figure 38: ESM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM2.5 (Q as reference) ............................................. 53
Figure 39: FDMS concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM2.5 (Q as reference) ........................................... 54
Figure 40: TEOM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM2.5 (Q as reference)........................................... 54
Figure 41: Grimm concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM2.5 (Q as reference) .......................................... 55
Figure 42: Scatter plot of ESM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations.......................... 56
Figure 43: Scatter plot of ESM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (T) for all locations .......................... 57
Figure 44: Scatter plot of FDMSconcentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations ....................... 58
Figure 45: Scatter plot of FDMSconcentrations vs. reference concentrations (T) for all locations........................ 59
Figure 46: Scatter plot of TEOM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations ....................... 60
Figure 47: Scatter plot of TEOM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (T) for all locations........................ 60
Figure 48: Scatter plot of Grimm concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations....................... 61
Figure 49: Scatter plot of Grimm concentrations vs. reference concentrations (T) for all locations ....................... 62
Figure 50: Scatter plot of ESM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations.......................... 63
Figure 51: Scatter plot of FDMSconcentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations ....................... 64
Figure 52: Scatter plot of TEOM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations ....................... 65
Figure 53: Scatter plot of Grimm concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations....................... 66
www.vmm.be
19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Overview of 20062007 comparison campaigns...................................................................................... 35

Table 2: Overview of filters used for gravimetric sampling .................................................................................... 38
Table 3: Calibration factors and equations for comparison quartz Teflon filters ................................................. 38
Table 4: Calibration factors and equations for ESM monitors, PM10 .................................................................... 57
Table 5: Calibration factors and equations for FDMSmonitors, PM10 .................................................................. 59
Table 6: Calibration factors and equations for TEOM monitors, PM10.................................................................. 61
Table 7: Calibration factors and equations for Grimm monitor, PM10 ................................................................... 62
Table 8: Calibration factors and equations for ESM monitors, PM2.5 ................................................................... 63
Table 9: Calibration factors and equations for FDMSmonitors, PM2.5 ................................................................. 64
Table 10: Calibration factors and equations for TEOM monitors, PM2.5............................................................... 65
Table 11: Calibration factors and equations for Grimm monitor, PM2.5 ................................................................ 66
Table 12: Effects of calibration factors for ESM on averages and exceedances of daily limit value, PM10........... 68
Table 13: Effects of calibration factors for FDMSon averages and exceedances of daily limit value, PM10 ........ 69
Table 14: Effects of calibration factors for TEOM on averages and exceedances of daily limit value, PM10 ........ 70
Table 15: Effects of calibration factors for Grimm on averages and exceedances of daily limit value, PM10........ 71
Table 16: Effects of calibration factors for ESM on averages, PM2.5.................................................................... 72
Table 17: Effects of calibration factors for FDMSon averages, PM2.5 ................................................................. 72
Table 18: Effects of calibration factors for TEOM on averages, PM2.5 ................................................................. 72
Table 19: Effects of calibration factors for Grimm on averages, PM2.5................................................................. 72
Table 20: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected ESM data vs. Q reference data .............................................. 75
Table 21: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected ESM data vs. T reference data ............................................... 75
Table 22: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected FDMSdata vs. Q reference data ............................................ 76
Table 23: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected FDMSdata vs. T reference data............................................. 76
Table 24: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected TEOM data vs. Q reference data............................................ 77
Table 25: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected TEOM data vs. T reference data ............................................ 77
Table 26: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected Grimm data vs. Q reference data ........................................... 78
Table 27: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected Grimm data vs. T reference data ............................................ 78
Table 28: EU spreadsheet results for corrected ESM data vs. Q and T ................................................................ 79
Table 29: EU spreadsheet results for corrected FDMSdata vs. Q and T.............................................................. 79
Table 30: EU spreadsheet results for corrected TEOM data vs. Q and T.............................................................. 79
Table 31: EU spreadsheet results for corrected Grimm data vs. Q and T ............................................................. 80
Table 32: EU spreadsheet results for ESM (current factor 1.37) corrected data vs. Q and T................................ 81
Table 33: EU spreadsheet results for TEOM (current factor 1.47) corrected data vs. Q and T ............................. 81
Table 34: Overview of equivalence criteria for raw and corrected data (V = OK, X = not OK)............................... 82
Table 35: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected ESM data vs. Q reference data .............................................. 85
Table 36: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected FDMSdata vs. Q reference data ............................................ 85
Table 37: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected TEOM data vs. Q reference data............................................ 86
Table 38: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected Grimm data vs. Q reference data ........................................... 86
Table 39: EU spreadsheet results for corrected ESM data vs. Q .......................................................................... 87
Table 40: EU spreadsheet results for corrected FDMSdata vs. Q ........................................................................ 87
Table 41: EU spreadsheet results for corrected TEOM data vs. Q........................................................................ 87
Table 42: EU spreadsheet results for corrected Grimm data vs. Q ....................................................................... 88
Table 43: Overview of equivalence criteria for raw and corrected data (V = OK, X = not OK)............................... 89
www.vmm.be
20
Introduction
Measuring particulate matter Considering the health issues of particulate matter (PM) the importance of accurate and reliable PM data can hardly be overestimated. The fact that PM is not defined by a chemical formula and that therefore PM is specified solely by a reference method (in Europe: EN12341) creates a real challenge not often encountered with other pollutants. The reference method requires PM to be collected on a filter during 24 hours. Based on the mass difference of the filter and the sampled volume the PM concentration can be calculated. The major drawback of this method is that it only provides 24hour values and this with a certain delay because filters have to be collected from the field and weighed under controlled conditions in the lab. As the EU also requires the Member States to inform the public with realtime information on PM levels the use of continuous automated PM monitors is unavoidable. The automated monitors use different operation principles than the reference method. Demonstration of equivalence For the results of the automated methods (called candidate methods) to be accepted the Member States have to demonstrate that these results are equivalent to those of the reference method. The advised (but strictly speaking not mandatory) procedure for this can be found in the Demonstration of 5 equivalence of ambient air monitoring methods . The most important point in this document is the aspect of (a minimum number of) field comparisons between the candidate method and the reference method. In addition to this document there is a European excelfile that automatically calculates certain calibration and uncertainty parameters. At a European workshop in Italy (May 2007) a number of suggestions where brought forward to update the current document, but at the time of writing no new version was in the making. The principle that was used for this report was to try to follow the current equivalence document as much as possible and to suggest some adaptations to the equivalence document. Issues with the reference method A second, and possibly even more important aspect, is the uncertainty within the current European 7 reference method. Recent studies (e. g. VMM 2007 ) have demonstrated that the uncertainty of several aspects of the reference method EN12341 have been underestimated. The two most important being the influence of the filter type and brand and the effect of conditioning. Previous VMM studies 8 A first VMM study on this matter was carried out in 2001 and 2002. By means of regular linear regression through the origin two general calibration factors were calculated: 1.37 (for ESM FH 62IN and ESM FH 62IR at 40 C) and 1.47 (for TEOM at 40 C). Cellulose nitrate (CN) was used as reference filter (in those days a previous short comparison campaign had shown no significant difference between CN and a quartz type filter). With these two values VMM was applying some of the highest calibration factors in Europe. In 2003 and 2004 a second study was done. For the ESM FH 62IR (now with dynamic heating) a factor of 1.39 was calculated while the TEOM (now at 50 C) gave a factor of 1.49. Both were calculated versus a reference method which still used cellulose nitrate filters. For this study factors where calculated based on a weighted orthogonal regression through the origin. Taking into account the uncertainty and variation on the factors and the small difference with those of the first study VMM decided to keep using the factors 1.37 and 1.47. A third study in 20052006 used quartz fibre filters for the reference method and different types and brands of filters were compared. For certain campaigns the differences between different brands of quartz filters was as high as 29%.
5 6
europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/pdf/equivalence_report3.pdf Demonstration of Equivalence of Ambient Air Monitoring Methods, 24 May 2007, JRCIES, Ispra Italy 7 VMM (2007), Comparative PM10 Measurements in Flanders, Period 20052006 8 VMM (2003). Vergelijkende PM10metingen, periode 20012002, Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, February 2003 9 VMM (2005). Vergelijkende PM10metingen, periode 2004, Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij, April 2005 Flemish Environment Agency www.vmm.be 21
Continuous automated monitors were compared with two variations of the reference method (one with MacheryNagel filters and one with Whatman filters). The range of calibration factors for ESM and TEOM more or less covered the factors in use (1.37 and 1.47 respectively). Because of this and the fact that the PM10 reference method is currently being updated by CEN (and it is still not clear which filter will comply with the updated method) VMM has so far decided not to update its factors. When taking into account the expanded uncertainty at the limit value criterion (< 25%) only TEOMFDMS managed to pass without applying a calibration factor. ESM passed after applying a calibration factor and TEOM only passed after applying a calibration factor for the MN dataset. The fourth intercomparison was linked with the PM10 chemical characterisation study that was th th carried out from September 16 , 2006 until September 11 , 2007 at 6 locations. Every sixth day was a measurement day. At each location 2 PM10 Leckels were placed: 1 Leckel with quartz filters (Whatman QMA) and 1 Leckel with teflon filters (Pall Teflo). Since mass determination was also done on both kind of filters for this study, the data of the automated monitors present at these locations could be compared with the gravimetrical data. At the beginning of 2007 additional Leckels for PM2.5 with quartz filters (Whatman QMA) were installed at 4 locations. This was the first time that VMM performed a PM2.5 intercomparison campaign. Also TEOM and TEOMFDMS monitors were additionally installed in 2007 at some locations. The PM2.5 comparison exercise ended in January 2008. The PM10 campaign at the locations with extra automated monitors was prolonged until that date but only versus the Leckels with quartz filters. Extra sampling days for the Leckels equipped with quartz filters were planned (between the normal sampling of every sixth day for the chemical characterisation study) at the PM2.5 locations and at the PM10 locations with additional automated monitors.
10
10
VMM (2008), Chemkar PM10: Chemische karakterisatie van fijn stof in Vlaanderen, 20062007
www.vmm.be
22
1. Experimental setup
1.1. Sampling Sites
Six different sites were used for comparison exercises in 20062007: HoutemVeurne (rural) Zelzate (industrial) Aarschot (rural) BorgerhoutAntwerp (urban background) Mechelen (suburban) Hasselt (suburban)
Figure 1: Locations of the sampling sites used in this study
1.1.1.
Houtem (N029)
The location at Houtem (code N029) is considered as a rural background location. The site is in the middle of cultivated fields, at 500 m of the BelgianFrench border and at 2 km of the village.
www.vmm.be
23
Figure 2: The rural monitoring site at Houtem
1.1.2.
Zelzate (R750)
The monitoring site at Zelzate (code R750), 15 km north of Ghent, is considered as an industrial site.
The site is 1.5 km northeast of a steel factory and 400 m from the highway E34.
During the campaign there were construction works near the site, which might have influenced the
measurements during a limited number of days.
Figure 3: The industrial monitoring site at Zelzate
www.vmm.be
24
1.1.3.
Borgerhout (R801)
The monitoring site at Borgerhout (code R801) can be considered as an urban background site with much influence of traffic. The station is about 30 m from a busy road (Plantin en Moretuslei) and less than 1 km from the busy city ring around Antwerp (R1). Its location is within the inner city ring of Antwerp at the eastern side.
Figure 4: The urban background monitoring site at Borgerhout
1.1.4.
Mechelen (ML01)
The monitoring site at Mechelen (code ML01), at Hombeeksesteenweg, is considered a suburban site with influence from industry and traffic. One of the busiest highways in Belgium (E19 from Antwerp to Brussels) is less than 1 km west of the site. Across the street there are industrial sources (Dupont, Procter & Gamble, ). Only at this site the gravimetric instruments were placed on the ground next to some of the automated monitors. On all the other sites the gravimetric instruments were placed on the roof of the station, next to the inlets.
www.vmm.be
25
Figure 5: The suburban monitoring site at Mechelen
1.1.5.
Aarschot (N035)
The monitoring site in Aarschot (code N035) is considered a rural background site (though rural is a relative concept in the densely populated region of Flanders). A highway (E313) is about 1.5 km south of the station and the city centre is less then 1 km away. The station lies between two small roads (both at around 75 m).
Figure 6: The rural monitoring station at Aarschot
www.vmm.be
26
1.1.6.
Hasselt (N045)
The site at Hasselt (code N045) is a suburban location, next to the Albertkanaal (lock) and less then 200 m from an industrial area. The inner city ring is about 1 km away.
Figure 7: The suburban monitoring site at Hasselt
www.vmm.be
27
1.2.
Instruments
For the intercomparison exercises 24h values were compared. The start of sampling was at 0h00 Universal Time (UT).
1.2.1.
Leckel SEQ 47/50
The Leckel SEQ 47/50 was used as the Flemish implementation of the PM10 reference method (EN12341). Based on the outcome of various intercomparison campaigns all over Europe, this low volume gravimetric instrument though strictly not the reference method can be considered a variation on a theme (as stated at the 2007 Demonstration of Equivalence of Ambient Air Monitoring Methods workshop held in Ispra, Italy by JRC European Commission). The Leckel is also the reference instrument used by the JRC in their European comparison programs. For the intercomparison campaigns the instruments were generally equipped with a set of 14 filters (on nonmeasuring days dummy filters were used). Filters were collected every 2 weeks. At these moments, flow was checked with a rotameter. When a deviation of more than 3% was observed the instrument was recalibrated. Gravimetric samplers were always placed outside on the roof of the monitoring cabin with the exception of the monitoring site at Mechelen. Technical info: 3 Air flow: 2.3 m /h at ambient conditions PM Inlet: EUtype, no heating Filter material during these comparative measurements: quartz fibre (Whatman QMA) or teflon membrane (Pall Teflo) Filter change: at 0h00 UT Sampling time: 24 h
1.2.2.
ESM FH 62 IR
For general PM10 monitoring (which is done by the Telemetric network) the Flemish Environment Agency uses ESM FH 62 IR (also known as FAG monitors). This instrument uses the technique of attenuation (the attenuation of rays by a filter is directly related to the amount of mass on the filter). To avoid condensation of water on the filter the inlet is heated. This process not only leads to the loss of water, but also of certain semivolatile compounds such as ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). Technical info: 3 Air flow: 1 m /h at ambient conditions Inlet: UStype, dynamic heating, slightly above ambient temperature, for PM2.5 a sharp cut cyclone is placed between the PM10head and the monitor Filter material: glass fibre 85 Beta source: Kr
1.2.3.
TEOM Series 1400ab
The TEOM (Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance) Series 1400ab instrument is used in the Specific Studies network in Flanders. In this instrument dust is collected on an oscillating filter. A change in mass on the filter induces a change in frequency which allows calculation of the mass increase. Because of its better time resolution this instrument is more suited for monitoring at (industrial) hotspot sites than the attenuation monitors. Even more than the ESM, this instrument suffers from loss of material due to the inlet heating. Technical info: 3 Air flow through sampling head: 1 m /h at ambient conditions
www.vmm.be
28
Air flow through filter: 0.18 m /h at ambient conditions Inlet: UStype, heated to 50 C, for PM2.5 a sharp cut cyclone is placed between the PM10head and the monitor Filter material: teflon coated glass fibre (Pallflex TX40)
1.2.4.
Series 8500 FDMS System
The FDMS (Filter Dynamics Measurement System) consists of a TEOM 1400ab system with an add on unit that allows correction for the loss of mass due to volatilization. The instrument works in 2 cycles of each 6 minutes. During one cycle the base PM10 is recorded, more or less comparable to the Series 1400ab TEOM. During the next cycle the air is sent over a zerofilter (at 4 C) prior to passing through the sampling filter and the mass decrease on the filter (= volatized PM) is recorded. The combination of the results of both cycles allows for the calculation of total PM10. Technical info: 3 Air flow through sampling head: 1 m /h at ambient conditions 3 Air flow through filter: 0.18 m /h at ambient conditions Inlet: US type, heating: 30 C + Nafion dryer, for PM2.5 a sharp cut cyclone is placed between the PM10head and the monitor Filter material: teflon coated glass fibre (Pallflex TX40)
1.2.5.
Grimm 180
Unlike the other instruments the Grimm 180 does not use a PM10 sampling head or PM2.5 sharp cut cyclone. The instrument uses an optical technique (based on light scattering) to count particles in different size ranges. Specific algorithms are used to transfer the number of particles into mass. Technical info: 3 Air flow through sampling head: 1 m /h at ambient conditions Inlet: TSP (Total Suspended Particulate matter) type, no heating, Nafion dryer
www.vmm.be
29
Figure 8: The different instruments used in this study a: Leckel SEQ47/50 b:Grimm180 c: ESM FH 62 IR d: Series 8500 FDMSSystem e: TEOM Series 1400ab
www.vmm.be
30
1.3.
Weighing and handling of gravimetric samples
For both the PM10 and PM2.5 filters, the more stringent weighing criteria of the PM2.5 reference method (EN14907) were used. This implies that filters are weighed twice before sampling and twice afterwards. Blank filters are placed for at least 48 h in a (custom made) climate controlled weighing cupboard (inside a temperature controlled room) prior to the first weighing, 48 h later a second weighing is carried out. The same procedure is used for sampled filters. Filters are collected every 2 weeks. Transport from the field to the lab is done in the Leckel sampling canisters which are placed inside special cases. Transport time (from Leckel to controlled conditions) generally ranges from 30 minutes to approximately 5 hours. Upon arrival in the lab the filters are taken out of the filter rings and placed immediately in the climate controlled weighing cupboard.
Figure 9: Weighing cupboard
Technical info: Balance: Sartorius M5P (resolution 1 g) Weighing cupboard temperature: 20 1 C Weighing cupboard humidity: 50 2%
www.vmm.be
31
1.4.
1.4.1.
Data treatment
Validation and Quality Control
Gravimetric reference method Flow of the Leckel instruments was checked every 2 weeks with a rotameter. When deviation of the flow was less than 3% no action was undertaken. 3 When deviation of the flow was between 3% and 5% the flow was adjusted to 2.3 m /h and the samples were considered valid. 3 When deviation of the flow was more than 5% the flow was adjusted to 2.3 m /h and the samples were considered invalid. During weighing all filters were visually inspected for any irregularities. Filters were also considered invalid when the difference between 1 and 2 weighing was too high: For PM2.5: higher than 40 g (blank filters) or 60 g (sampled filters) EN14907. For PM10: higher than 80 g (blank filters) or 120 g (sampled filters) due to lack of specifications for PM10, we have chosen to double the values for PM2.5. Automated monitors The standard routine validation procedure for the automated monitors was used during the
campaigns.
Daily average concentrations were calculated using half hourly values by means of XR software.
Average values are rounded to the nearest whole number by the software. Although this can create a
significant bias for small concentrations, the average effect will be negligible. The 24h average values
for automated monitors with less than 80% of half hour values (# < 39) were considered invalid.
st nd
1.4.2.
Outlier removal
In addition to the removal of data because of technical reasons, the Grubbs outlier test was carried out at the 99% level on the data series of 1) the referencecandidate absolute difference and 2) reference/candidate ratio. Data were only removed from the dataset when technical reasons were found.
1.4.3.
Calibration factor/equation calculation
Various methods can be used to describe the relationship between two PM monitors. In this work 4 different techniques were applied.
1. Orthogonal regression (OR) This is the technique advised by the Demonstration of equivalence of ambient air monitoring methods 11 document . In ordinary linear regression, the goal is to minimize the sum of the squared vertical distances between the data points and the corresponding points on the fitted line. In orthogonal regression (also referred to as total least squares) the goal is to minimize the orthogonal (perpendicular) distances from the data points to the fitted line (y= bx +a). Because of that, orthogonal 12 regression is a technique that leads to a symmetrical treatment of both variables. This is preferable because the experimental errors in the PM reference method are in the same order of magnitude as the errors in the candidate method.
b=
Syy Sxx +
(Syy Sxx )2 + 4( Sxy) 2

2Sxy
11 12
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/equivalence_report3.pdf A symmetrical approach leads to the same results when the datasets are exchanged
www.vmm.be
32
Sxx = ( xi x) 2 Syy = ( yi y ) 2 Sxy = ( xi x).( yi y )

a = y bx
For the application of this method the EU Excel spreadsheet was used . 2. Orthogonal regression forced through origin When the normal orthogonal regression leads to an intercept that is not significantly different from 0 it is justifiable to force the regression through the origin, thereby describing the relationship between the two methods by a single value or calibration factor. Even if the intercept is small but significantly different from 0 one could opt to use this technique, although it is than up to the user to decide whether the benefits of using one single factor outweigh the mathematical error that is made. For the application of this method an inhouse Excel spreadsheet was used, based on the following 14 formula (where b is the slope of the regression line):
13
tan (2b ) =
2 xi yi
2 i
yi2
factor = b 1
3. Ratio of averages A very simple, but effective way of calculating a calibration factor is taking the ratio of the averages of both methods. This is a symmetrical approach for which data points in the higher concentration range have somewhat more weight than those in the lower range. Calculating the calibration factor like this also gives per definition the best results for calculating the annual average value.
factor =
x y
13 14
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pdf/test_equivalencev31004.xls http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/68362.html
www.vmm.be
33
4. Average of daily ratios Another simple approach is taking the average of the daily ratios. The advantage of this is that all data pairs (days) have the same weight in calculating the calibration factor. Also the uncertainty is easily calculated from the standard deviation of the set of daily ratios. Downside is that this method is not symmetrical and that absolute differences in the lower range have more weight than in the higher range.
factor =
xi 1 y n i
Note: in this work the uncertainty on average ratios is expressed as the 95% confidence interval on the mean, being the 95% confidence interval on the individual value divided by the square root of the number of data points.
www.vmm.be
34
1.5.
1.5.1.
Campaign Overview
Time & instruments
15
The fourth intercomparison was linked with the PM10 chemical characterisation study that was th th carried out from September 16 , 2006 until September 11 , 2007 at 6 locations. Every sixth day was a measurement day. At each location 2 PM10 Leckels were placed: 1 Leckel with quartz filters (Whatman QMA) and 1 Leckel with teflon filters (Pall Teflo). Since mass determination was also done on both kind of filters for this study, the data of the automated monitors present at these locations could be compared with the gravimetrical data. At the beginning of 2007 additional Leckels for PM2.5 with quartz filters (Whatman QMA) were installed at 4 locations. This was the first time that VMM performed a PM2.5intercomparison campaign. Also at the beginning of 2007 at the location Borgerhout the TEOMFDMS PM10 monitor was transformed to a TEOMFDMS PM2.5 monitor and a TEOM PM10 monitor was additionally installed. At the location Mechelen a TEOM PM2.5 was additionally installed. The mobile van (code L800) with TEOMFDMS equipment for PM2.5 and PM10 was only available in Hasselt from July 2007 onwards. The PM2.5 comparison exercise ended in January 2008. The PM10 campaign at the locations with extra automated monitors was prolonged until that date but only versus the Leckels with quartz filters. Extra sampling days for the Leckels (on quartz filters) were planned (between the normal sampling of every sixth day for the chemical characterisation study) at the PM2.5 locations and at the PM10 locations with additional automated monitors. An overview of the measurement days is given in annex 1. An overview of the period of all campaigns is given below.
Table 1: Overview of 20062007 comparison campaigns
Location AarschotN035 HasseltN045 HasseltL800 BorgerhoutR801 HoutemN029 ZelzateR750 MechelenML01 HasseltN045 HasseltL800 PM2.5 BorgerhoutR801 HoutemN029 MechelenML01
Period 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200603/01/2008 13/07/200703/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200604/03/2007 25/02/200703/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200611/09/2007 16/09/200603/01/2008 16/09/200603/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 13/07/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 15/03/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008 07/02/200703/01/2008
Automated monitors ESM ESM FDMS ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm ESM ESM FDMS TEOM ESM FDMS ESM FDMS Grimm ESM FDMS TEOM
Leckel
Q T: until 11/09/2007
PM10
15
VMM (2008), Chemkar PM10: Chemische karakterisatie van fijn stof in Vlaanderen, 20062007
www.vmm.be
35
1.5.2.
Meteorological data
The table in annex 2 show the meteorological data for the VMM meteo station in GhentTolhuiskaai (M701) during the campaign (16/09/200603/01/2008). These data should be seen as indicative since the data were not collected at the sites themselves and daily averages values were used. The figure below also shows these meteo data.
M701
40 100 90 80 30 70 25 60 50 40 30 10 20 5 10 0
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 6 7 8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 2/ 2 2/ 2 5/ 2 6/ 2 2/ 2 1/ 2 7/ 2 0/ 2 1/ 2 1/ 2 1/ 2 8/ 2 9/ 2 0/ 2 2/ 2 3/ 2 4/ 2 00 8
35
mm C m/s
20
15
0
9/ 2 00 6
/0
/0
/0
/0
/1
/1
/0
/0
/0
/0
/1
/1
/1
/0
/0
/1
/0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
precipitation (mm)
01
relative humidity (%)
temperature (C)
wind speed (m/s)
Figure 10: Meteorological data, GhentTolhuiskaai (M701), 16/09/200603/01/2008
www.vmm.be
01
01
01
01
/0
36
2. Gravimetric method comparisons

2.1. History of filter choice at VMM
Up to 2005 cellulose nitrate filters were used for gravimetric sampling (and heavy metal determination). This was because: At the time the tested cellulose filters had shown to have better blank values for heavy metals than the tested quartz fibre filters. No significant difference in PM mass capture between cellulose filters and quartz fibre filters had been observed at a short comparison campaign in Hoboken. Therefore they were thought to be equivalent to quartz filters. Cellulose filters were (and still are) less fragile. Additional information regarding artefacts on cellulose filters and the availability of quartz fibre filters with low metal content led to new tests on quartz fibre filters. Based on metal blank levels and price MachereyNagels QF10 filters were chosen as reference filters. During the comparison campaign 20052006 different type of filters (quartz fibre, teflon, cellulose nitrate) were tested and also different brands of quartz fibre filter (MacheryNagel, Whatman, Pall, Schleiger&Schuell). This study clearly showed that different filters can lead to significant differences in sampled PM mass. For one campaign the difference between different brands of quartz filters was as high as 29%. For this study Whatman QMA was chosen for gravimetric sampling because EN12341 (PM10) only approves quartz as reference filter and in many other European networks (like RIVMThe Netherlands) and JRCIspra they also use this type of filter. For PM10 gravimetric sampling was also done on teflon filters (Pall Teflo) since it was necessary for the chemical characterisation project. EN14907 (PM2.5) allows different filter materials as reference including quartz filters. It is also advisable to stay aware of the problems of the current reference method when comparing its results with automated monitors. It is likely that on some occasions the differences between the results of automated monitors and reference instruments are due to the fact that the latter suffers from artefacts.
www.vmm.be
37
2.2.
Filter types and brands
In 2006 and 2007 the following filters were used:

Table 2: Overview of filters used for gravimetric sampling
Company Whatman Pall
Type Quartz fibre Teflon membrane 2 m
Name/ Code QMA Teflo
Abbreviation Q T
Fraction tested PM10, PM2.5 PM10
Additional technical info:

Whatman QMA: 95% quartz, 5% borosilicate as binder, heat treated.
Although the Whatman QMA filters are already heat treated in the factory, they appeared to absorb a
certain amount of organic material during storage. On recommendation of Prof. Maenhaut of the
Ghent University (an expert on EC/OC) the filters were heat treated (24h at 550C) a second time and
stored in tinfoil until usage.
2.3.
2.3.1.
Field comparisons & tests

Filter comparison: quartz vs teflon filter
The table below gives the results of the comparison of the two types of reference filters. The concentrations for the quartz filters are on average 8% higher than for teflon filters. The intercept appears to be quite low, so the difference between the two filter types seems to be relative and not absolute. At Mechelen we notice the highest difference between quartz and teflon filters. The fact that 16 the highest relative amount of organic material (see report chemkar , VMM 2008) was measured at this location may point to the the fact that organic compounds are involved.
Table 3: Calibration factors and equations for comparison quartz Teflon filters
Q (Whatman QMA) vs T (Pall Teflo)

# Location data Orthogonal regression pairs Orthogonal regression through origin Q as reference Aarschot Hasselt Borgerhout Houtem Zelzate Mechelen All 58 57 59 57 56 60 347 Q= 1.05*T +0.54 Q= 1.09*T 0.97 Q= 1.09*T +0.17 Q= 1.09*T 0.85 Q= 1.10*T 1.60 Q= 1.15*T +0.08 Q= 1.10*T 0.44 Q= 1.07*T Q= 1.06*T Q= 1.09*T Q= 1.06*T Q= 1.06*T Q= 1.15*T Q= 1.08*T Q= 1.08*T ( 0.02) Q= 1.06*T ( 0.03) Q= 1.10*T ( 0.03) Q= 1.06*T ( 0.03) Q= 1.05*T ( 0.02) Q= 1.16*T ( 0.02) Q= 1.08*T ( 0.01) Q= 1.07*T Q= 1.06*T Q= 1.10*T Q= 1.06*T Q= 1.06*T Q= 1.15*T Q= 1.08*T Average of daily ratios Ratio of averages ( c.i.o.t.m.)*
16
VMM (2008), Chemkar PM10 : Chemische karakterisatie van fijn stof in Vlaanderen, 20062007
www.vmm.be
38
PM10
100 90 80
reference concentration (T)
70
N035
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
N045
R801
N029
R750
ML01
reference concentration (Q)
Figure 11: Scatter plot of teflon filters (T) vs. quartz filters (Q) for all locations
2.3.2.
Field blanks
EN14907 states that if the blank masses are more than 40 g for LVS (equivalent to a difference in measured concentration of 0.7 g/m at nominal flow and 24h sampling) the reason shall be investigated. A few times (more or less randomly spread) during the campaign field blanks were taken at all sites simultaneously. for quartz 7 filters (5 during PM10comparison, 2 during PM2.5comparison) for teflon 5 filters (5 during PM10comparison) So for 5 similar periods there were results of field blanks for both quartz and teflon filters. For quartz we see the largest differences between the blank levels of the different sampling periods. We did not find a correlation of the blank levels with relative humidity, precipitation or amount of organic material. The mass gain on the quartz field blanks was almost always higher than those on the teflon filters. The th quartz field blanks almost always had a gain of more than 40 g, except for the period September 30 , th 2007 to October 13 , 2007. The quartz filters are more likely to take up water and organic material as they are preheated which makes them very dry and seems to activate the borosilicate in the filters. This might (partly) be an explanation for the fact that the field blanks are higher than for teflon. The average quartz field blank had a mass of 110 g (~2 g/m at nominal flow and 24h sampling). The average teflon field blank had a mass of 47 g (~0.9 g/m at nominal flow and 24h sampling). The difference between the results of 2 consecutive weighings was generally higher for the teflon filters than for the quartz filters. From the field blanks, two teflon filters had to be skipped from the dataset because the difference between the 2 weighings was too large. EN14907 says that a static discharger shall be used during weighing for PFTEfilters. This wasnt done, so maybe this might be the reason why with teflon filters (also sampled filters) the difference between two consecutive weighings was more frequently too large.
www.vmm.be
39
Mass field blanks (Q)

0.250
PM10
0.200
PM2.5
N035
mass (mg)
0.150
N045
R801
N029
0.100
R750
ML01
0.050
40 g mass gain
0.000 30/09 13/10/2006 11/11 24/11/2006 03/02 16/02/2007 28/04 11/05/2007 01/09 14/09/2007 17/02 02/03/2007 08/12 21/12/2007
Figure 12: Results of the field blanks of quartz filters (Whatman QMA)
Mass field blanks (T)

0.250
PM10
0.200
PM2.5
N035
mass (mg)
0.150
N045 R801 N029
0.100
R750 ML01
0.050
40 g mass gain
0.000 30/09 13/10/2006 11/11 24/11/2006 03/02 16/02/2007 28/04 11/05/2007 01/09 14/09/2007 17/02 02/03/2007 08/12 21/12/2007
Figure 13: Results of the field blanks of teflon filters (Pall teflo)
www.vmm.be
40
3. Comparisons with automated monitors

3.1. Measured concentrations and ratios for PM10
The graphs below show the daytoday variation of the calibration factors (reference divided by automated monitor) and therefore give an idea of the errors associated by using single calibration factors per instrument (independent of season or location). 3.1.1. Aarschot PM10
Q
300
Aarschot PM10
3.00
ESM
Q/ESM
250 2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0.00
Figure 14: Concentrations and ratios for AarschotPM10 (Q as reference)
01 /0 9/ 20 06 01 /1 0/ 20 06 01 /1 1/ 20 06 01 /1 2/ 20 06 01 /0 1/ 20 07 01 /0 2/ 20 07 01 /0 3/ 20 07 01 /0 4/ 20 07 01 /0 5/ 20 07 01 /0 6/ 20 07 01 /0 7/ 20 07 01 /0 8/ 20 07 01 /0 9/ 20 07 01 /1 0/ 20 07 01 /1 1/ 20 07 01 /1 2/ 20 07 01 /0 1/ 20 08
T
300
Aarschot PM10
3.00
ESM
T/ESM
250 2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
01 /0 9/ 20 06 01 /1 0/ 20 06 01 /1 1/ 20 06 01 /1 2/ 20 06 01 /0 1/ 20 07 01 /0 2/ 20 07 01 /0 3/ 20 07 01 /0 4/ 20 07 01 /0 5/ 20 07 01 /0 6/ 20 07 01 /0 7/ 20 07 01 /0 8/ 20 07 01 /0 9/ 20 07 01 /1 0/ 20 07 01 /1 1/ 20 07 01 /1 2/ 20 07 01 /0 1/ 20 08
0.00
Figure 15: Concentrations and ratios for AarschotPM10 (T as reference) Flemish Environment Agency www.vmm.be 41
ratio
ratio
ComparativePM10andPM2.5measurementsinFlanders,20062007
3.1.2.
HasseltPM10
Q ESM 300 FDMS Q/ESM 250 Q/FDMS 2.50
HasseltPM10
3.00
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
20 06 01 /1 0/ 20 06 01 /1 1/ 20 06 01 /1 2/ 20 06 01 /0 1/ 20 07 01 /0 2/ 20 07 01 /0 3/ 20 07 01 /0 4/ 20 07 01 /0 5/ 20 07 01 /0 6/ 20 07 01 /0 7/ 20 07 01 /0 8/ 20 07 01 /0 9/ 20 07 01 /1 0/ 20 07 01 /1 1/ 20 07 01 /1 2/ 20 07 01 /0 1/ 20 08
0.00
01 /0 9/
ratio
Figure16:ConcentrationsandratiosforHasseltPM10(Qasreference)

T ESM
300
FDMS
T/ESM
250 T/FDMS
2.50
HasseltPM10
3.00
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
20 06 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 3/ 20 07 01 /0 4/ 20 07 01 /0 5/ 20 07 01 /0 6/ 20 07 01 /0 7/ 20 07 01 /0 8/ 20 07 01 /0 9/ 20 07 01 /1 0/ 20 07 01 /1 1/ 20 07 01 /1 2/ 20 07 01 /0 1/ 20 08 20 06 20 06
0.00
9/
0/
1/
01 /1 2
01 /0 1
01 /0 2
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
ratio
Figure17:ConcentrationsandratiosforHasseltPM10(Tasreference)
FlemishEnvironmentAgency
www.vmm.be
42
3.1.3.
Q TEOM 300 Q/FDMS
BorgerhoutPM10
ESM Grimm Q/TEOM FDMS Q/ESM Q/Grimm
BorgerhoutPM10
3.00
250
2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.00
2/
2/
1/
7/
1/
8/
9/
0/
9/
0/
3/
4/
5/
6/
1/
2/
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
01 /0
1/
ratio
Figure18:ConcentrationsandratiosforBorgerhoutPM10(Qasreference)

T TEOM 300
T/FDMS ESM Grimm T/TEOM FDMS T/ESM
T/Grimm
BorgerhoutPM10
3.00
250
2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
/2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 8
0.00
01 /0 9
01 /1 0
01 /1 1
01 /1 2
01 /0 3
01 /0 1
01 /0 2
01 /0 4
01 /0 5
01 /0 6
01 /0 9
01 /0 7
01 /0 8
01 /1 0
01 /1 1
01 /1 2
01 /0 1
ratio
Figure19:ConcentrationsandratiosforBorgerhoutPM10(Tasreference)
www.vmm.be
43
3.1.4.
Houtem PM10
Q
300
Houtem PM10
3.00
ESM
Q/ESM
250 2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
06 06 07 07 03 /2 00 7 01 /0 4/ 20 07 01 /0 5/ 20 07 01 /0 6/ 20 07 01 /0 7/ 20 07 01 /0 8/ 20 07 01 /0 9/ 20 07 01 /1 0/ 20 07 01 /1 1/ 20 07 01 /1 2/ 20 07 01 /0 1/ 20 08 06 11 /2 0 06 01 /2 0 09 /2 0 10 /2 0 12 /2 0 02 /2 0
0.00
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
Figure 20: Concentrations and ratios for HoutemPM10 (Q as reference)
01 /
T 300 ESM T/ESM 250
Houtem PM10
3.00
2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 7 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 7 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 8
0.00
/0 9
/1 0
/1 1
/1 2
/0 1
/0 2
/0 3
/0 4
/0 5
/0 6
/1 1
/0 7
/0 8
/0 9
/1 0
/1 2
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Figure 21: Concentrations and ratios for HoutemPM10 (T as reference)
www.vmm.be
01
/0 1
ratio
ratio
44
3.1.5.
Zelzate PM10
Q
300
Zelzate PM10
3.00
ESM
Q/ESM
250 2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 7 7 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 7 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 /2 00 8
0.00
/0 9
/1 0
/1 1
/1 2
/0 2
/0 3
/0 1
/0 4
/0 5
/0 8
/0 6
/1 0
/1 1
/0 7
/0 9
/1 2
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Figure 22: Concentrations and ratios for ZelzatePM10 (Q as reference)
T 300 ESM T/ESM 250
Zelzate PM10
3.00
01
/0 1
2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 08
0.00
9/
0/
2/
2/
3/
8/
4/
5/
9/
1/
2/
1/
7/
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
0/
01 /1
01 /1
Figure 23: Concentrations and ratios for ZelzatePM10 (T as reference)
www.vmm.be
01 /0
01 /1
1/
1/
6/
ratio
ratio
45
3.1.6.
MechelenPM10
Q FDMS 300 TEOM Q/FDMS 250 Q/TEOM 2.50
MechelenPM10
3.00
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
/2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 8
0.00
01 /0 9
01 /1 0
01 /1 1
01 /1 2
01 /0 1
01 /0 3
01 /0 6
01 /0 2
01 /0 4
01 /0 5
01 /0 7
01 /0 9
01 /0 8
01 /1 0
01 /1 1
01 /1 2
01 /0 1
ratio
Figure24:ConcentrationsandratiosforMechelenPM10(Qasreference)

T FDMS
300
TEOM
T/FDMS
250 T/TEOM
2.50
MechelenPM10
3.00
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
/2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 8 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7
0.00
01 /0 9
01 /1 1
01 /0 1
01 /0 4
01 /0 6
01 /0 8
01 /0 9
01 /1 1
01 /0 1
01 /1 0
01 /1 2
01 /0 2
01 /0 5
01 /0 7
01 /0 3
01 /1 0
01 /1 2
ratio
Figure25:ConcentrationsandratiosforMechelenPM10(Tasreference)
www.vmm.be
46
3.1.7.
All locations together
ESM monitors
Q/ESM PM10
250 2.5
200
2.0
150 g/m
1.5 ratio
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
6 7 6 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 7 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 1/ 20 0 8
0.0
0/
5/
1/
1/
3/
8/
0/
2/
7/
9/
2/
4/
6/
9/
01 /1
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
1/
01 /1
2/
ESMN035 Q/ESMN035
ESMN045 Q/ESMN045
ESMR801 Q/ESMR801
ESMN029 Q/ESMN029
ESMR750 Q/ESMR750
Figure 26: ESM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (Q as reference)
T/ESM PM10
300 3.0
250
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
2.5
200
g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.0
9/
0/
6/
7/
1/
4/
5/
0/
2/
1/
2/
1/
2/
3/
8/
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
9/
01 /1
01 /1
01 /1
ESMN035 T/ESMN035
ESMN045 T/ESMN045
ESMR801 T/ESMR801
ESMN029 T/ESMN029
ESMR750 T/ESMR750
Figure 27: ESM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (T as reference)
Overall range: With Q as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 1.85 and 1.16 With T as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 1.81 and 1.05
www.vmm.be
01 /0
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
1/
ratio
47
FDMS monitors
Q/FDMS PM10
300 3.0
250
2.5
200
g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.0
9/
0/
6/
7/
1/
4/
0/
2/
1/
2/
1/
2/
3/
5/
8/
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
9/
01 /1
01 /1
01 /1
FDMSN045
FDMSR801
FDMSML01
Q/FDMSN045
Q/FDMSR801
Q/FDMSML01
Figure 28: FDMS concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (Q as reference)
T/FDMS PM10
300 3.0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
1/
250
2.5
200
2.0
g/m
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.0
09 /
10 /
11 /
12 /
04 /
03 /
05 /
06 /
07 /
08 /
01 /
02 /
09 /
10 /
11 /
12 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
FDMSN045 T/FDMSN045
FDMSR801 T/FDMSR801
FDMSML01 T/FDMSML01
Figure 29: FDMS concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (T as reference)
Overall range: With Q as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 1.45 and 1.00 With T as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 1.29 and 0.85
When compared to the other monitors the FDMS has the smallest range in daily ratios.
www.vmm.be
01 /
01 /
ratio
ratio
48
TEOM monitors
Q/TEOM PM10
300 3.0
250
2.5
200 g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.0
09 /
10 /
11 /
12 /
03 /
04 /
05 /
06 /
07 /
08 /
01 /
02 /
09 /
10 /
11 /
12 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
TEOMR801 Q/TEOMR801
TEOMML01 Q/TEOMML01
Figure 30: TEOM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (Q as reference)
T/TEOM PM10
300 3.0
01 /
01 /
250
2.5
200 g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07
0.0
09 /
12 /
01 /
10 /
03 /
04 /
07 /
06 /
10 /
11 /
11 /
02 /
05 /
08 /
09 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
12 /
TEOMR801 T/TEOMR801
TEOMML01 T/TEOMML01
Figure 31: TEOM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (T as reference)
Overall range: With Q as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 1.90 and 1.11 With T as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 1.72 and 0.97 From the data for TEOM it appears that the range of daily ratios is significantly higher than for FDMS and of the same magnitude as for ESM. In the previous study the range of daily ratios of TEOM was higher than for ESM.
www.vmm.be
01 /
01 /
ratio
ratio
49
Grimm monitor
Q/Grimm PM10
300 3.0
250
2.5
200 g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08 20 07 20 06 20 07
0.0
09 /
12 /
01 /
03 /
04 /
10 /
07 /
10 /
06 /
11 /
11 /
02 /
05 /
08 /
09 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
12 /
GrimmR801
Q/GrimmR801
Figure 32: Grimm concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (Q as reference)
T/Grimm PM10
300 3.0
250
01 /
01 /
2.5
200 g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07
0.0
9/
1/
1/
6/
8/
0/
0/
3/
5/
7/
2/
2/
9/
1/
2/
4/
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
GrimmR801 T/GrimmR801
Figure 33: Grimm concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM10 (T as reference)
Overall range: With Q as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 2.75 and 1.24 With T as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 2.39 and 1.08 The range of daily ratios for Grimm is larger than for the other tested automated monitors. Conclusions regarding the Grimm monitor are of course limited because the instrument was only tested at one location.
www.vmm.be
01 /0
1/
ratio
ratio
50
3.2.
Measured concentrations and ratios for PM2.5
The graphs below show the daytoday variation of the calibration factors.
3.2.1.
Hasselt PM2.5
Q ESM 300 FDMS Q/ESM 250 Q/FDMS 2.50
Hasselt PM2.5
3.00
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.00
2/
1/
2/
7/
8/
9/
1/
6/
9/
0/
3/
4/
5/
0/
1/
2/
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
Figure 34: Concentrations and ratios for HasseltPM2.5 (Q as reference)
3.2.2.
Borgerhout PM2.5
Q FMDS 300 Q/ESM Q/Grimm 250 2.50 ESM Grimm Q/FDMS
Borgerhout PM2.5
3.00
01 /0
1/
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
/2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 8 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7
0.00
01 /1 0
01 /1 1
01 /0 1
01 /0 2
01 /0 4
01 /0 7
01 /0 8
01 /1 0
01 /1 1
01 /0 9
01 /1 2
01 /0 3
01 /0 6
01 /0 9
01 /1 2
Figure 35: Concentrations and ratios for BorgerhoutPM2.5 (Q as reference)
www.vmm.be
01 /0 1
01 /0 5
ratio
ratio
51
3.2.3.
Houtem PM2.5
Q 300 ESM Q/ESM 250 2.50
Houtem PM2.5
3.00
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.00
2/
1/
2/
7/
8/
9/
1/
6/
9/
0/
3/
4/
5/
0/
1/
2/
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /1
Figure 36: Concentrations and ratios for HoutemPM2.5 (Q as reference)
3.2.4.
Mechelen PM2.5
Q
FDMS
300
Mechelen PM2.5
3.00
TEOM
Q/FDMS
250
Q/TEOM
01 /0
1/
2.50
200
2.00
g/m
150
1.50
100
1.00
50
0.50
0
/2 00 6 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 8 /2 00 6 /2 00 7 /2 00 7 /2 00 7
0.00
01 /0 9
01 /1 1
01 /0 1
01 /0 4
01 /0 6
01 /0 8
01 /0 9
01 /1 1
Figure 37: Concentrations and ratios for MechelenPM2.5 (Q as reference)
www.vmm.be
01 /0 1
01 /1 0
01 /1 2
01 /0 2
01 /0 5
01 /0 7
01 /0 3
01 /1 0
01 /1 2
ratio
ratio
52
3.2.5.
All locations together
The range of daily ratios for the different types of monitors seems to be larger for PM2.5 than for PM10 except for the Grimm (only measurements at one location).
th
Note: On July 20 , 2007 comparative measurements versus quartz filters were available for all PM2,5 locations and for the PM10 locations at Borgerhout and Hasselt. On that day we see a very low ratio for both PM10 and PM2.5. At first sight one could think that this in an outlier, but because this low ratio (ratio<<1) occurs at multiple sites with multiple automated monitors for both PM10 and PM2.5, this is probably due to a specific aerosol that day.
ESMmonitors
Q/ESM PM2.5
300 3.0
250
2.5
200
g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.0
9/
0/
6/
7/
1/
4/
5/
0/
2/
1/
2/
1/
2/
3/
8/
01 /0
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
9/
01 /1
01 /1
01 /1
01 /0
ESMN045
ESMR801
ESMN029
Q/ESMN045
Q/ESMR801
Q/ESMN029
Figure 38: ESM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM2.5 (Q as reference)
Overall range: With Q as reference 90% of the daily ratios lie between 2.16 and 1.18
www.vmm.be
01 /0
01 /1
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
01 /0
1/
ratio
53
FDMS monitors
Q/FDMS PM2.5
300 3.0
250
2.5
200 g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.0
09 /
10 /
11 /
12 /
03 /
04 /
05 /
06 /
07 /
08 /
01 /
02 /
09 /
10 /
11 /
12 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
FDMSN045
FDMSR801
FDMSML01
Q/FDMSN045
Q/ESMR801
Q/FDMSML01
Figure 39: FDMS concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM2.5 (Q as reference)
TEOM monitor
Q/TEOM PM2.5
300 3.0
01 /
01 /
250
2.5
200 g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07
0.0
09 /
12 /
01 /
03 /
04 /
10 /
07 /
10 /
06 /
11 /
11 /
02 /
05 /
08 /
09 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
12 /
TEOMML01
Q/TEOMML01
Figure 40: TEOM concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM2.5 (Q as reference)
www.vmm.be
01 /
01 /
ratio
ratio
54
Grimm monitor
Q/Grimm PM2.5
300 3.0
250
2.5
200 g/m
2.0
150
1.5
100
1.0
50
0.5
0
20 06 20 06 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 07 20 08
0.0
09 /
10 /
11 /
12 /
03 /
04 /
05 /
06 /
07 /
08 /
01 /
02 /
09 /
10 /
11 /
12 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
01 /
GrimmR801
Q/GrimmR801
Figure 41: Grimm concentrations and ratios for all locationsPM2.5 (Q as reference)
www.vmm.be
01 /
01 /
ratio
55
3.3.
Note:
Scatter plots & calibration factors/equations for PM10

The diagonal lines in the scatter plots present the 1:1 ratio. 3 Concentrations are all in g/m .
When comparing the results in the tables below, one should pay attention to the fact that the data for the different locations are not completely comparable because of the different duration of the campaigns and additional measurements at some locations.
3.3.1.
ESM
PM10
100
ESM
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
automatic concentration
N035
N045
R801
N029
R750
Figure 42: Scatter plot of ESM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations
www.vmm.be
56
PM10
100
ESM
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
N035
N045
R801
N029
R750
Figure 43: Scatter plot of ESM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (T) for all locations
Table 4: Calibration factors and equations for ESM monitors, PM10
ESMPM10
# Location data Orthogonal regression pairs Orthogonal regression through origin Average of daily ratios Ratio of averages ( c.i.o.t.m.)*
Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Aarschot Hasselt Borgerhout Houtem Zelzate All 45 Ref= 1.61*ESM 0.65 Ref= 1.57*ESM 126 Ref= 1.32*ESM +1.68 Ref= 1.37*ESM 133 Ref= 1.41*ESM +0.17 Ref= 1.42*ESM 57 Ref= 1.59*ESM +0.40 Ref= 1.59*ESM 61 Ref= 1.61*ESM 5.21 Ref= 1.45*ESM Ref= 1.58*ESM ( 0.06) Ref= 1.41*ESM ( 0.03) Ref= 1.43*ESM ( 0.03) Ref= 1.61*ESM ( 0.07) Ref= 1.43*ESM ( 0.06) Ref= 1.57*ESM Ref= 1.38*ESM Ref= 1.42*ESM Ref= 1.60*ESM Ref= 1.42*ESM
422 Ref= 1.43*ESM +0.39 Ref= 1.44*ESM Ref= 1.46*ESM ( 0.02) Ref= 1.44*ESM Pall Teflo (T) as reference
Aarschot Hasselt Borgerhout Houtem Zelzate All
43 52 58 54 56 263
Ref= 1.54*ESM 1.45 Ref= 1.30*ESM +0.12 Ref= 1.33*ESM 1.13 Ref= 1.45*ESM +1.32 Ref= 1.43*ESM 2.00
Ref= 1.48*ESM Ref= 1.30*ESM Ref= 1.30*ESM Ref= 1.50*ESM Ref= 1.36*ESM
Ref= 1.47*ESM ( 0.07) Ref= 1.32*ESM ( 0.06) Ref= 1.29*ESM ( 0.03) Ref= 1.54*ESM ( 0.06) Ref= 1.36*ESM ( 0.06)
Ref= 1.44*ESM Ref= 1.30*ESM Ref= 1.29*ESM Ref= 1.52*ESM Ref= 1.35*ESM
Ref= 1.37*ESM 0.04 Ref= 1.37*ESM Ref= 1.39*ESM ( 0.03) Ref= 1.37*ESM
Observations: As expected the use of a different filter types has a significant effect on the calibration equations or factors. This is comparable with the 8% difference found between quartz and teflon filters (see 2.3.1)
www.vmm.be
57
The differences in factors and equations between the various locations are significant (up to 16%). We see higher factors at the rural locations Aarschot and Houtem. This finding is in accordance with the results found in the VMM campaign of 2004. Rural locations may have a higher ratio because the semivolatile fraction is relatively higher there. Industrial or urban sites are more influenced by mineral dust, which isnt volatized due to heating of the automated monitors, resulting in lower factors.
3.3.2.
TEOMFDMS
PM10
100
FDMS
90 80 70 60
N045
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R801
ML01
Figure 44: Scatter plot of FDMS concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations
www.vmm.be
58
PM10
100
FDMS
90 80 70 60 N045 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 R801 ML01
Figure 45: Scatter plot of FDMS concentrations vs. reference concentrations (T) for all locations
Table 5: Calibration factors and equations for FDMS monitors, PM10
FDMSPM10
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Hasselt 41 Ref= 1.15*FDMS 1.53 Ref= 1.10*FDMS Ref= 1.12*FDMS ( 0.06) Ref= 1.09*FDMS Borgerhout 34 Ref= 1.04*FDMS +4.83 Ref= 1.18*FDMS Ref= 1.25*FDMS ( 0.06) Ref= 1.21*FDMS Mechelen 76 Ref= 1.00*FDMS +4.28 Ref= 1.10*FDMS Ref= 1.18*FDMS ( 0.03) Ref= 1.14*FDMS All 151 Ref= 1.03*FDMS +3.14 Ref= 1.12*FDMS Ref= 1.18*FDMS ( 0.03) Ref= 1.15*FDMS Pall Teflo (T) Hasselt 8 Ref= 1.19*FDMS 3.27 Ref= 1.05*FDMS Ref= 1.04*FDMS ( 0.08) Ref= 1.04*FDMS Borgerhout 27 Ref= 0.96*FDMS +5.01 Ref= 1.10*FDMS Ref= 1.17*FDMS ( 0.04) Ref= 1.13*FDMS Mechelen 57 Ref= 0.87*FDMS +3.26 Ref= 0.96*FDMS Ref= 1.03*FDMS ( 0.04) Ref= 0.98*FDMS All 92 Ref= 0.93*FDMS +3.03 Ref= 1.01*FDMS Ref= 1.07*FDMS ( 0.03) Ref= 1.03*FDMS
Ratio of averages
Observations: Similar to the results for ESM, the calibration equations or factors for TEOMFDMS are different for the different filter types. Again we see differences in factors and equations between the various locations. The campaigns were not at the same time and/or of the same duration. The intercept of the orthogonal regression equation is quite large
www.vmm.be
59
3.3.3.
TEOM
PM10
100
TEOM
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R801
ML01
Figure 46: Scatter plot of TEOM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations
PM10
100
TEOM
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R801
ML01
Figure 47: Scatter plot of TEOM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (T) for all locations
www.vmm.be
60
Table 6: Calibration factors and equations for TEOM monitors, PM10
TEOMPM10
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Borgerhout 102 Ref= 1.67*TEOM 5.30 Ref= 1.50*TEOM Ref= 1.45*TEOM ( 0.05) Ref= 1.46*TEOM Mechelen 74 Ref= 1.64*TEOM 3.72 Ref= 1.52*TEOM Ref= 1.48*TEOM ( 0.06) Ref= 1.49*TEOM All 176 Ref= 1.67*TEOM 4.60 Ref= 1.51*TEOM Ref= 1.46*TEOM ( 0.04) Ref= 1.47*TEOM Pall Teflo (T) as reference Borgerhout 33 Mechelen 56 All 89 Ref= 1.49*TEOM 6.00 Ref= 1.30*TEOM Ref= 1.25*TEOM ( 0.08) Ref= 1.27*TEOM Ref= 1.52*TEOM 5.86 Ref= 1.29*TEOM Ref= 1.25*TEOM ( 0.06) Ref= 1.26*TEOM Ref= 1.49*TEOM 5.69 Ref= 1.30*TEOM Ref= 1.25*TEOM ( 0.05) Ref= 1.26*TEOM Ratio of averages
Observations: The different filter types give a significant difference on the calibration equations or factors. The campaign on teflon filters ended in September 2007. High ratios on quartz filters were measured during autumn en winter 2007. The differences in factors and equations between the two locations are small. Partly because of the builtin equation which is used to comply with EPA guidelines (output = 3 TEOM raw signal * 1.03 + 3 g/m ), we see large negative intercepts for the TEOM.
3.3.4.
Grimm
PM10
100
Grimm
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R801
Figure 48: Scatter plot of Grimm concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations
www.vmm.be
61
PM10
100
Grimm
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R801
Figure 49: Scatter plot of Grimm concentrations vs. reference concentrations (T) for all locations
Table 7: Calibration factors and equations for Grimm monitor, PM10
GrimmPM10
# Location data Orthogonal regression pairs Orthogonal regression through origin Average of daily ratios ( c.i.o.t.m.)* Ratio of averages
Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Borgerhout 112 Ref= 1.22*Grimm +8.70 Ref= 1.50*Grimm Ref= 1.80*Grimm ( 0.10) Ref= 1.60*Grimm All 112 Ref= 1.22*Grimm +8.70 Ref= 1.50*Grimm Ref= 1.80*Grimm ( 0.10) Ref= 1.60*Grimm Pall Teflo (T) as reference Borgerhout 50 All Ref= 1.08*Grimm +8.77 Ref= 1.36*Grimm Ref= 1.61* Grimm ( 0.12) Ref= 1.45*Grimm
50 Ref= 1.08*Grimm +8.77 Ref= 1.36*Grimm Ref= 1.61*Grimm ( 0.12) Ref= 1.45*Grimm
Observations: As for the other types of automated monitors, the calibration equations or factors for Grimm are different for the two different filter types. As for TEOM the ratios versus quartz filters during autumn and winter 2007 were high. The comparison versus the teflon filters had already ended by then. The slope of the current equation at Borgerhout (urban) is different from the previous one at Aarschot (rural). In Aarschot (20052006) we saw a slope below 1, now we have a slope above 1.
www.vmm.be
62
3.4.
Note:
Scatter plots & calibration factors/equations for PM2.5

the diagonal lines in the scatter plots present the 1:1 ratio. 3 Concentrations are all in g/m .
3.4.1.
ESM
PM2.5
100
ESM
90 80 70 60
N045
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R801
N029
Figure 50: Scatter plot of ESM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations
Table 8: Calibration factors and equations for ESM monitors, PM2.5
ESMPM2.5
# Location data Orthogonal regression pairs Orthogonal regression through origin Average of daily ratios Ratio of averages ( c.i.o.t.m.)*
Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Hasselt 148 Ref= 1.30*ESM +2.71 Ref= 1.41*ESM Ref= 1.52*ESM ( 0.04) Ref= 1.46*ESM Borgerhout 100 Ref= 1.33*ESM +1.85 Ref= 1.42*ESM Ref= 1.51*ESM ( 0.06) Ref= 1.45*ESM Houtem 108 Ref= 1.49*ESM +2.54 Ref= 1.61*ESM Ref= 1.77*ESM ( 0.06) Ref= 1.68*ESM All 356 Ref= 1.35*ESM +2.50 Ref= 1.46*ESM Ref= 1.59*ESM ( 0.03) Ref= 1.51*ESM
Observations: The differences in factors and equations between the various locations are up to 14%. Again we notice a higher factor for the rural station Houtem compared to the (sub)urban sites.
www.vmm.be
63
3.4.2.
TEOMFDMS
PM2.5
100
FDMS
90 80 70 60
N045
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R801
ML01
Figure 51: Scatter plot of FDMS concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations
Table 9: Calibration factors and equations for FDMS monitors, PM2.5
FDMSPM2.5
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Hasselt 88 Ref= 0.95*FDMS +1.88 Ref= 1.01*FDMS Ref= 1.09*FDMS ( 0.04) Ref= 1.03*FDMS Borgerhout 90 Ref= 1.01*FDMS +1.57 Ref= 1.06*FDMS Ref= 1.18*FDMS ( 0.06) Ref= 1.09*FDMS Mechelen 94 Ref= 1.05*FDMS +3.91 Ref= 1.19*FDMS Ref= 1.44*FDMS ( 0.08) Ref= 1.27*FDMS All 272 Ref= 1.00*FDMS +2.58 Ref= 1.08*FDMS Ref= 1.24*FDMS ( 0.04) Ref= 1.11*FDMS
Ratio of averages
Remark: The TEOMFDMSPM2.5 monitor at Hasselt and Borgerhout stood inside the shelter (temperature controlled), the TEOMFDMSPM2.5 at Mechelen outside. So during hot days the working temperature of the TEOMFDMS (30C) at Mechelen could be below the ambient temperature, which might cause a problem on the TEOMFDMS monitor (no sufficient cooling at the TEOMFDMSreference filter). Observations: The differences in factors and equations between the various locations are significant (up to 18%). Again we see differences in factors and equations between the various locations. The intercept of the orthogonal regression equation is quite large.
www.vmm.be
64
3.4.3.
TEOM
PM2.5
100
TEOM
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ML01
Figure 52: Scatter plot of TEOM concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations
Table 10: Calibration factors and equations for TEOM monitors, PM2.5
TEOMPM2.5
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Mechelen 103 Ref= 1.92*TEOM 3.40 Ref= 1.75*TEOM Ref= 1.65*TEOM ( 0.07) Ref= 1.69*TEOM All 103 Ref= 1.92*TEOM 3.40 Ref= 1.75*TEOM Ref= 1.65*TEOM ( 0.07) Ref= 1.69*TEOM
Ratio of averages
Observations: Because of the builtin equation which is used to comply with EPA guidelines (output = TEOM 3 raw signal * 1.03 + 3 g/m ), we see (similar as for PM10) a large negative intercept for the TEOM.
www.vmm.be
65
3.4.4.
Grimm
PM2.5
100
Grimm
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
R801
Figure 53: Scatter plot of Grimm concentrations vs. reference concentrations (Q) for all locations
Table 11: Calibration factors and equations for Grimm monitor, PM2.5
GrimmPM2.5
Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Borgerhout 89 All Ref= 1.09*Grimm +1.46 Ref= 1.13*Grimm Ref= 1.26*Grimm ( 0.06) Ref= 1.15*Grimm
89 Ref= 1.09*Grimm +1.46 Ref= 1.13*Grimm Ref= 1.26*Grimm ( 0.06) Ref= 1.15*Grimm
Observations: The PM2.5factor for Grimm is much lower than for PM10.
3.4.5.
General
At some locations both PM10 and PM2.5 were simultaneously measured with the same type of automated instrument. The calibration factors and equitations were calculated for these days where data were available for the PM10 and PM2.5 Leckels and the PM10 and PM2.5 automated instruments. They can be found in appendix 5. The factor based on orthogonal regression through origin is only slightly higher for PM2,5 than for PM10 for the automated monitors ESM and TEOMFDMS. For TEOM the factor for PM2.5 is 12% higher than for PM10. For the Grimm instrument the factor for PM2.5 is lower than for PM10.
www.vmm.be
66
3.5.
Effect on limit values for PM10

3
The following section contains calculations for the overall averages (cfr. annual limit value of 40 g/m ) 3 and exceedances of the 50 g/m daily limit value for uncorrected (raw) values, values corrected with the current (=old) factor and values corrected with the factor for orthogonal regression through the origin (for both the Q and T data sets).
www.vmm.be
67
3.5.1.
ESM
Table 12: Effects of calibration factors for ESM on averages and exceedances of daily limit value, PM10
Q Location Q (ref) ESM (raw) ESM*1.37 (old factor) ESM*1.44 (Q factor) ESM*1.37 (T factor)
Averages (g/m )
Difference with reference (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 31.3 30.8 37.6 30.2 37.1 20 22.3 26.4 18.9 26.1 33.8 23.4 11.3 8.5 11.1 11.3 10.9 32.1 33.7 32.1 4.0 2.6 4.0 0.3 1.2 0.3 1.4 0.5 1.4 4.3 3.0 4.3 1.3 0.6 1.3 10.4 1.7 0.1 1.7
27.3 30.5 36.2 25.9 35.8 28.7 32.0 38.1 27.2 37.6 27.3 30.5 36.2 25.9 35.8
Exceedances of limit value (number) Location Q (ref) ESM (raw) ESM*1.37 (old factor) ESM*1.44 (Q factor) ESM*1.37 (T factor) T Location T (ref) ESM (raw) ESM*1.37 (old factor) ESM*1.44 (Q factor) ESM*1.37 (T factor)
Difference with reference (#)
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 7 0 4 7 4 14 4 12 15 12 25 9 19 23 19 7 1 5 7 5 11 1 10 13 10
3
64 15 50 65 50 7 3 0 3 10 2 1 2 16 6 2 6 6 2 0 2 10 1 2 1
3
49 14 1 14
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 29.1 27.0 35.1 28.9 34.8 19.8 20.8 27.2 19.0 25.9 27.2 28.5 37.2 26.1 35.5 28.6 30.0 39.1 27.4 37.3 27.2 28.5 37.2 26.1 35.5 31.2 22.8 31.2 32.8 31.2 9.3 2.0 0.6 2.0 6.2 1.5 3.0 1.5 7.9 2.1 4.0 2.1 9.9 2.9 1.5 2.9 8.9 0.6 2.4 0.6 8.4 0.0 1.6 0.0
Exceedances of limit value (#) Location T (ref) ESM (raw) ESM*1.37 (old factor) ESM*1.44 (Q factor) ESM*1.37 (T factor)
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 4 0 3 6 3 2 1 5 5 5 9 6 10 12 10 7 1 5 7 5 9 1 9 12 9 31 9 32 42 32 4 1 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 6 2 0 2 8 0 3 0 22 1 11 1
www.vmm.be
68
3.5.2.
FDMS
Table 13: Effects of calibration factors for FDMSon averages and exceedances of daily limit value, PM10
Q Location Q (ref) FDMS (raw) No old factor FDMS*1.12 (Q factor) FDMS*1.01 (T factor)
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 26.5 35.5 24.3 29.3 34.5 32.6 30.3 28.4 2.2 6.2 4.3 4.1
27.2 32.8 24.5 29.6
33.9 31.8 30.6 28.7
0.7 2.0
2.7 5.9
0.6 3.9
0.7 3.8
Exceedances of limit value (#) Location Q (ref) FDMS (raw) No old factor FDMS*1.12 (Q factor) FDMS*1.01 (T factor) T Location T (ref) FDMS (raw) No old factor FDMS*1.12 (Q factor) FDMS*1.01 (T factor) 24.9 34.2 22.5 30.8 32.1 32.1 28.9 28.9 1 1 6 2
3
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 2 1 5 2 10 9 17 12 1 3 1 5
11 9
18 12
1 1
1 3
1 1
3
1 5
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 23.1 34.4 22.3 30.5 28.2 29.6 28.6 28.6 0.9 3.9 0.4 1.0
1.8 0.7
0.2 3.6
3.8 0.7
2.5 0.7
Exceedances of limit value (#) Location T (ref) FDMS (raw) No old factor FDMS*1.12 (Q factor) FDMS*1.01 (T factor) 0 0 5 2 7 6 12 8
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 0 0 3 2 4 6 7 8 0 1 2 1
0 0
2 1
3 2
5 1
www.vmm.be
69
3.5.3.
TEOM
Table 14: Effects of calibration factors for TEOM on averages and exceedances of daily limit value, PM10
Q Location TEOM (raw) TEOM*1.47 (old factor) TEOM*1.51 (Q factor) TEOM*1.30 (T factor)
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 37.1 25.4 37.4 38.4 33.1 35.2 36.3 23.7 24.7 34.8 36.3 35.8 37.3 30.8 32.1 11.7 0.2 1.3 4.1 11.5 11.6 0.4 0.6 4.4 0.0 1.0 4.2
Exceedances of limit value (#) Location Q (ref) TEOM (raw) TEOM*1.47 (old factor) TEOM*1.51 (Q factor) TEOM*1.30 (T factor) T Location T (ref) TEOM (raw) TEOM*1.47 (old factor) TEOM*1.51 (Q factor) TEOM*1.30 (T factor)
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 18 5 16 17 13
3
11 2 11 12 8
29 7 27 29 21 13 2 1 5 9 0 1 3
3
22 2 0 8
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 34.2 27.0 39.7 40.8 35.1 28.8 30.8 22.9 24.4 33.7 35.9 34.6 36.9 29.8 31.7 7.2 5.5 6.5 0.9 5.9 4.9 5.8 1.0 6.4 5.1 6.1 0.9
Exceedances of limit value (#) Location T (ref) TEOM (raw) TEOM*1.47 (old factor) TEOM*1.51 (Q factor) TEOM*1.30 (T factor)
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 5 2 7 7 6 5 1 7 8 6 10 3 14 15 12 3 2 2 1 4 2 3 1 7 4 5 2
www.vmm.be
70
3.5.4.
Grimm
Table 15: Effects of calibration factors for Grimm on averages and exceedances of daily limit value, PM10
Q Location Q (ref) Grimm (raw) No old factor Grimm *1.50 (Q factor) Grimm *1.36 (T factor)
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 37.1 23.2 37.1 23.2 13.9 13.9
34.8 31.6
34.8 31.6
2.3 5.5
2.3 5.5
Exceedances of limit value (#) Location Q (ref) Grimm (raw) No old factor Grimm *1.50 (Q factor) Grimm *1.36 (T factor) T Location T (ref) Grimm (raw) No old factor Grimm *1.50 (Q factor) Grimm *1.36 (T factor) 36.1 32.7 36.1 32.7 22 20
3
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 23 8 23 8 15 15
22 20
1 3
1 3
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 34.7 24.0 34.7 24.0 10.7 10.7
1.3 2.0
1.3 2.0
Exceedances of limit value (#) Location T (ref) Grimm (raw) No old factor Grimm *1.50 (Q factor) Grimm *1.36 (T factor) 9 8 9 8
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 7 5 7 5 2 2
2 1
2 1
www.vmm.be
71
3.6.
Effect on limit values for PM2.5
The following section contains calculations for the overall averages (cfr. Future annual limit value of 25 3 g/m ) for uncorrected (raw) values and values corrected with the factor for orthogonal regression through the origin (Q data set). 3.6.1. ESM
Table 16: Effects of calibration factors for ESM on averages, PM2.5
Q Location Q (ref) ESM (raw) ESM*1.46 (Q factor) 3.6.2.
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 23.3 23.1 21.2 16.0 16.0 12.6 23.3 23.3 18.4 22.6 14.9 21.8 7.4 0.0 7.2 0.2 8.6 2.8 7.7 0.8
FDMS
Table 17: Effects of calibration factors for FDMSon averages, PM2.5
Q Location Q (ref) FDMS (raw) FDMS*1.08 (Q factor) 3.6.3.
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 23.9 23.8 23.1 21.9 25.0 23.7 23.9 23.9 18.9 21.3 20.4 23.0 0.8 1.1 1.9 0.1 5.0 3.5 2.6 0.9
TEOM
Table 18: Effects of calibration factors for TEOM on averages, PM2.5
Q Location Q (ref) TEOM (raw) TEOM*1.75 (Q factor) 3.6.4.
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 23.5 23.5 14.0 14.0 24.5 24.5 9.6 0.9 9.6 0.9
Grimm
Table 19: Effects of calibration factors for Grimm on averages, PM2.5
Q Location Q (ref) Grimm (raw) Grimm *1.13 (Q factor)
Averages (g/m )
N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT N035 N045 R801 N029 R750 ML01 TOT 23.7 20.5 23.2 23.7 20.5 23.2 3.2 0.5
www.vmm.be
72
3.7.
3.7.1.
Demonstration of equivalence for PM10

Overview
The most important criteria in the current equivalence document are: 3 The between sampler uncertainty of the Reference Method shall be smaller than 2 g/m 3 The between sampler uncertainty of the Candidate Method shall be smaller than 3 g/m A minimum of 4 comparisons of at least 40 measurements The expanded uncertainty of the Candidate Method at the limit value shall be smaller than 25% Even when the Candidate Method passes the equivalence test a correction may be applied to approve the accuracy of Candidate Method. When the Candidate Method is not accepted as Equivalent Method it is permitted to apply a correction factor or term resulting from the regression equation obtained for the full dataset.
3.7.2.
Suitability of datasets
The document demonstration of equivalence states that of the full dataset at least 20% of the results
shall be greater than 50% of the limit value (daily limit value: 50 g/m).
We have tested for PM10 that the P80 of the automated results is greater than 25 g/m. This was so
for all the tested types of monitors.
For PM2.5 we have only a yearly limit value (25 g/m). Also here the P80 of each automated dataset
was larger than 50% of this limit value.
3.7.3.
Between sampler uncertainty
The Reference method For PM10 VMM already did some short intercomparisons in the past to determine the between sampler uncertainty of the reference method. 2004: a between sampler uncertainty of 1.21 g/m was found (cellulose nitrate filter, PM10). 2005: a between sampler uncertainty of 0.46 g/m was found (quartz; MacheryNagel QF10; 48 datapairs). 3 Both values are well below the criterion for the reference method (< 2 g/m ). Strictly speaking, this does not prove that this criteria is also met for Leckels with Whatman or other types of filters, but one can assume that the between sampler uncertainty will be in the same range. 17 The study of GGD Amsterdam had a between sampler uncertainty of 0.5 g/m for KFG with Whatman QMA filter. The value of 0.46 g/m from the PM10 campaign of 2005 was used as the between sampler uncertainty of the reference method for the demonstration of equivalence both for Whatman QMA and Pall teflo. Automated samplers 2004: determination of between sampler uncertainty for ESM and TEOM. Both values are well below the allowed 3 g/m for the candidate method. o ESM: 1.44 g/m o TEOM: 0.65 g/m 2005: determination of between sampler uncertainty for TEOMFDMS was scheduled, but failed due to technical problems with one of the TEOMFDMS instruments. For Grimm and TEOMFDMS VMM has not yet carried out between sampler uncertainty experiments. But since these instruments have been featured in foreign equivalence studies we could refer to those for this aspect in the equivalence demonstration.
17
Field experiment on 11 automated PM monitors, GGD Amsterdam, Feb 2008 (report no 071124)
www.vmm.be
73
3.7.4.
Reference vs. automated
The second, and often more difficult part of the equivalence demonstration, focuses on the relation between the reference and the automated monitor and the latters uncertainty at the limit value. Although the current equivalence document doesnt state that correction for significant slope and/or intercept (generated by means of a standard orthogonal regression) should be performed, this aspect seems to be a point of discussion between various EU member states / networks. Another aspect to be considered is the use of orthogonal regression forced through the origin instead of standard orthogonal regression. One could also allow the use of orthogonal regression through zero 3 when the intercept is not significant or significant but relatively small (e.g. < 3 g/m ). This allows for an easier calibration by means of one factor instead of having to use a calibration equation. Hereafter (section a) are the result tables generated with the EUspreadsheet after insertion of the uncorrected data. In section b the corrected data (factor based on orthogonal regression through origin) were inserted in the EU spreadsheet to check whether they would, as such, meet the criterion for uncertainty at the limit value. Of course the corrected data were compared with the respective reference data set. Section c uses data corrected with the (old) factors that are currently in use.
www.vmm.be
74
a. Uncorrected data
ESM
Table 20: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected ESM data vs. Q reference data
PM10: ESM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
422 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.70 significant uncertainty of b 0.01 intercept a 0.27 not significant uncertainty of a 0.40 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.81 bias at LV 15.22 combined uncertainty 15.69 relative uncertainty at the LV 31.37 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.02 not significant uncertainty of b 0.01 intercept a 0.94 not significant uncertainty of a 0.57 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 5.52 bias at LV 0.12 combined uncertainty 5.52 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 11.04 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.70 uncertainty of b 0.01 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.40 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 3.83 0 bias at LV 14.95 0 combined uncertainty 15.43 relative uncertainty at the LV 30.86 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.02 not significant uncertainty of b 0.01 intercept a 0.56 not significant uncertainty of a 0.57 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 5.53 bias at LV 0.27 combined uncertainty 5.54 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 11.07 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
significant not significant
fail
Table 21: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected ESM data vs. T reference data
PM10: ESM vs T Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
www.vmm.be
75
FDMS
Table 22: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected FDMS data vs. Q reference data
PM10: FDMS vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
151 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.97 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 3.05 significant uncertainty of a 0.63 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.49 bias at LV 4.70 combined uncertainty 5.86 relative uncertainty at the LV 11.71 pass RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 3.18 significant uncertainty of a 0.65 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.71 bias at LV 3.14 combined uncertainty 4.86 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 9.72 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.97 uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.63 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 3.55 0 bias at LV 1.66 0 combined uncertainty 3.91 relative uncertainty at the LV 7.83 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.03 not significant uncertainty of a 0.65 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.77 bias at LV 0.01 combined uncertainty 3.77 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 7.53 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
not significant not significant
pass
Table 23: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected FDMS data vs. T reference data
PM10: FDMS vs T Equivalence field test Number of data points:
92 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.08 significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 3.27 significant uncertainty of a 0.96 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.94 bias at LV 0.62 combined uncertainty 3.99 relative uncertainty at the LV 7.98 pass RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 2.96 significant uncertainty of a 0.90 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.94 bias at LV 3.09 combined uncertainty 5.00 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 10.01 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.08 uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.96 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 4.06 0 bias at LV 3.89 0 combined uncertainty 5.62 relative uncertainty at the LV 11.25 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.08 not significant uncertainty of a 0.90 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.05 bias at LV 0.05 combined uncertainty 4.05 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 8.11 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
pass
www.vmm.be
76
TEOM
Table 24: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected TEOM data vs. Q reference data
PM10: TEOM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
176 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.60 significant uncertainty of b 0.01 intercept a 2.76 significant uncertainty of a 0.60 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.75 bias at LV 17.05 combined uncertainty 17.45 relative uncertainty at the LV 34.91 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.03 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 3.66 significant uncertainty of a 1.00 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.34 bias at LV 4.92 combined uncertainty 8.02 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 16.04 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.60 uncertainty of b 0.01 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.60 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 3.80 0 bias at LV 19.81 0 combined uncertainty 20.17 relative uncertainty at the LV 40.34 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.03 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.91 not significant uncertainty of a 1.00 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.37 bias at LV 0.34 combined uncertainty 6.38 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 12.75 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
Table 25: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected TEOM data vs. T reference data
PM10: TEOM vs T Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
www.vmm.be
77
Grimm
Table 26: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected Grimm data vs. Q reference data
PM10: Grimm vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
Table 27: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected Grimm data vs. T reference data
PM10: Grimm vs T Equivalence field test Number of data points:
50 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.93 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 8.16 significant uncertainty of a 1.76 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 5.33 bias at LV 11.81 combined uncertainty 12.96 relative uncertainty at the LV 25.92 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 8.97 significant uncertainty of a 1.90 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.21 bias at LV 8.73 combined uncertainty 10.71 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 21.43 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.93 uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 1.76 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 5.61 0 bias at LV 3.65 0 combined uncertainty 6.69 relative uncertainty at the LV 13.39 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 0.17 not significant uncertainty of a 1.90 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.45 bias at LV 0.07 combined uncertainty 6.45 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 12.90 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
www.vmm.be
78
b. Values corrected with orthogonal regression through origin factor
ESM
Table 28: EU spreadsheet results for corrected ESM data vs. Q and T PM10: ESM*1.44 vs Q (# 422) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.55 0.36 5.56 11.12 pass 0.46 1.03 not significant 0.01 0.97 not significant 0.57 PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 263) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.13 0.28 5.14 10.28 pass 0.46 1.02 not significant 0.02 0.49 not significant 0.7
FDMS
Table 29: EU spreadsheet results for corrected FDMSdata vs. Q and T PM10: FDMS*1.12 vs Q (# 151) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.92 0.78 4.00 8.00 pass 0.46 1.09 significant 0.02 3.51 significant 0.7 PM10: FDMS*1.01 vs T (# 92) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.98 1.13 4.14 8.28 pass 0.46 1.09 significant 0.03 3.32 significant 0.97
TEOM
Table 30: EU spreadsheet results for corrected TEOM data vs. Q and T PM10: TEOM*1.51 vs Q (# 176) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.72 0.01 5.72 11.45 pass 0.46 0.93 significant 0.02 3.5 significant 0.91 PM10: TEOM*1.30 vs T (# 89) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.94 1.15 6.05 12.1 pass 0.46 0.89 significant 0.04 4.29 significant 1.39
www.vmm.be
79
Grimm
Table 31: EU spreadsheet results for corrected Grimm data vs. Q and T PM10: Grimm*1.50 vs Q (# 112) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 7.59 1 7.65 15.3 fail 0.46 1.25 significant 0.04 11.7 significant 1.56 PM10: Grimm*1.36 vs T (# 50) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 7.34 2.31 7.69 15.39 fail 0.46 1.29 significant 0.06 12 significant 2.4
www.vmm.be
80
c. Values corrected with current (old) factors
ESM
Table 32: EU spreadsheet results for ESM (current factor 1.37) corrected data vs. Q and T PM10: ESM*1.37 vs Q (# 422) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.27 2.12 5.68 11.36 pass 0.46 0.97 not significant 0.01 0.84 not significant 0.54 slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.13 0.28 5.14 10.28 pass 0.46 PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 263) REGRESSION OUTPUT 1.02 not significant 0.02 0.49 not significant 0.7
TEOM
Table 33: EU spreadsheet results for TEOM (current factor 1.47) corrected data vs. Q and T PM10: TEOM*1.47 vs Q (# 176) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.57 1.33 5.72 11.45 pass 0.46 0.9 significant 0.02 3.46 significant 0.89 slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 6.76 5.48 8.71 17.41 fail 0.46 PM10: TEOM*1.47 vs T (# 89) REGRESSION OUTPUT 1.02 not significant 0.05 4.47 significant 1.57
www.vmm.be
81
3.7.5.
Equivalence: conclusions
Table 34: Overview of equivalence criteria for raw and corrected data (V = OK, X = not OK)
PM10
Uncertainty at LV. pass
Slope not significant Q as reference
Intercept not significant
# data pairs (# at different locations)
ESM raw ESM ESM *1.37 (old factor) ESM *1.44 (Qfactor) FDMS FDMS raw No old factor FDMS * 1.12 (Qfactor) TEOM raw TEOM * 1.47 (old factor) TEOM * 1.51 (Qfactor) Grimm raw No old factor Grimm * 1.50 (Qfactor)
X V V V
X V V V
V V V X
422 (Aarschot : 45 Hasselt : 126 Borgerhout : 133 Houtem : 57 Zelzate : 61) 151 (Hasselt : 41 Borgerhout : 34 Mechelen : 76)
V X V V X
X X X X X
X X X X X
TEOM
176 (Borgerhout : 102 Mechelen : 74)
Grimm
112 (Borgerhout : 112)
X
T as reference
ESM raw ESM ESM *1.37 (old factor) ESM *1.37 (Tfactor) FDMS FDMS raw No old factor FDMS * 1.01 (Tfactor) TEOM raw TEOM * 1.47 (old factor) TEOM * 1.30 (Tfactor) Grimm raw No old factor Grimm * 1.36 (Tfactor)
X V V V
X V V X
V V V X
263 (Aarschot : 43 Hasselt : 52 Borgerhout : 58 Houtem : 54 Zelzate : 56) 92 (Hasselt : 8 Borgerhout : 27 Mechelen : 57)
V X X V X
X X V X V
X X X X X
TEOM
89 (Borgerhout : 33 Mechelen : 56)
Grimm
*: some locations didnt have the minimum of 40 data pairs
Locations with more then 80 data pairs can be considered as 2 campaigns since the intercomparisons were performed during a long period, containing both a warm and cold period. Until now EN12341 only approves quartz as filter material. The conclusions underneath are therefore based only on the comparison between the automated instruments and the Leckels equipped with quartz filters.
www.vmm.be
82
a. ESM The ESM instrument underestimates PM when compared to the reference method. It manages to be an equivalent method after using the value of the slope (both of orthogonal regression and orthogonal regression through origin) as the calibration factor. Taking into account that more than 4 campaigns were carried out we can state that ESM can be used as an equivalent method. VMM has decided not to change the current factor (1.37) because there are still uncertainties regarding the currently being updated PM10 reference method. Equivalence for the ESM instrument is also obtained when using the factor of 1.37. b. FDMS The table above shows that the TEOMFDMS manages to pass the expanded uncertainty criterion without applying a calibration factor. Taking into account the value of the intercept would improve the uncertainty at the limit value. The comparative measurements at Mechelen were spread over a whole year, so one can state that the minimum number of comparative measurements is (almost) obtained. VMM will use a calibration factor of 1.00 for TEOMFDMS. c. TEOM In contradiction to the previous VMM study (VMM, 2007) the regular TEOM monitors meet the expanded uncertainty criterion after applying a calibration factor. We see a pass for the uncertainty at the limit value when using the old factor (1.47) and using the value of the slope obtained by orthogonal regression through origin (1.51). The campaigns at Borgerhout and Mechelen were spread over a whole year or more, so the minimum number of comparative measurements is (almost) obtained. VMM will not change the current factor of 1.47. d. Grimm With only one single campaign its difficult to make a thorough assessment of the Grimm monitor. For this study the expanded uncertainty criterion could not be met by using a calibration factor or equation.
www.vmm.be
83
3.8.
3.8.1.
Demonstration of equivalence for PM2.5

Overview
The criteria are the same as for PM10.
3.8.2.
Between sampler uncertainty
The Reference method Until now VMM didnt do an intercomparison for PM2.5 to determine the between sampler uncertainty of the reference method. For the calculation of the equivalence in the European file we used also the 0.46 g/m from the 2005 PM10campaign. Remark: The local network of Amsterdam (The Netherlands) calculated a between sampler uncertainty of 1.1 g/m for Whatman (QMA) PM2.5filters with a KFG as reference instrument. In the European excel file to demonstrate the equivalence one has to enter a limit value at which to test the uncertainty. For PM10 the value of the daily limit value (50 g/m) is used, but because there is no daily limit value for PM2.5 we use the yearly limit value (25 g/m). Automated instruments Until now VMM hasnt carried out parallel measurements with automated monitors to determine a between sampler uncertainty.
18
3.8.3.
Reference vs. automated
Hereafter (section a) are the result tables generated with the EUspreadsheet after insertion of the uncorrected data. In section b the corrected data (factor based on orthogonal regression through origin) were inserted in the EU spreadsheet to check whether they would, as such, meet the criterion for uncertainty at the limit value. A correction with the old factors (sector c) isnt applicable for PM2.5 since this was the first study.
18
Field experiment on 11 automated PM monitors, GGD Amsterdam, Feb 2008 (report no 071124)
www.vmm.be
84
a. Uncorrected data
ESM
Table 35: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected ESM data vs. Q reference data
PM2.5: ESM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
FDMS
Table 36: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected FDMS data vs. Q reference data
PM2.5: FDMS vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
www.vmm.be
85
TEOM
Table 37: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected TEOM data vs. Q reference data
PM2.5: TEOM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
Grimm
Table 38: EU spreadsheet results for uncorrected Grimm data vs. Q reference data
PM2.5: Grimm vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
89 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.92 significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 1.34 not significant uncertainty of a 0.71 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.79 bias at LV 3.26 combined uncertainty 5.00 relative uncertainty at the LV 20.01 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 1.51 not significant uncertainty of a 0.77 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.16 bias at LV 1.44 combined uncertainty 4.41 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 17.63 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.92 uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.71 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 3.86 0 bias at LV 1.93 0 combined uncertainty 4.31 relative uncertainty at the LV 17.25 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.06 not significant uncertainty of a 0.77 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.22 bias at LV 0.00 combined uncertainty 4.22 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 16.90 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
www.vmm.be
86
b. Values corrected with orthogonal regression through origin factor
ESM
Table 39: EU spreadsheet results for corrected ESM data vs. Q PM2.5: ESM*1.46 vs Q (# 356) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.37 0.56 4.4 17.61 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.1 significant 0.02 3.05 significant 0.42
FDMS
Table 40: EU spreadsheet results for corrected FDMSdata vs. Q PM2.5: FDMS*1.08 vs Q (# 272) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.68 0.8 4.75 19.01 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.08 significant 0.02 2.85 significant 0.5
TEOM
Table 41: EU spreadsheet results for corrected TEOM data vs. Q PM2.5: TEOM*1.75 vs Q (# 103) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.04 0.83 5.11 20.44 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 0.93 significant 0.03 2.5 significant 0.86
www.vmm.be
87
Grimm
Table 42: EU spreadsheet results for corrected Grimm data vs. Q PM2.5: Grimm*1.13 vs Q (# 89) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.3 0.43 4.32 17.28 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.05 not significant 0.03 1.61 not significant 0.81
c. Values corrected with current (old) factors no current factors for PM2.5
www.vmm.be
88
3.8.4.
Equivalence: conclusions # data pairs (# at different locations)
Table 43: Overview of equivalence criteria for raw and corrected data (V = OK, X = not OK)
PM2.5
Uncertainty at LV. pass
Slope not significant Q as reference
Intercept not significant
ESM
ESM raw ESM *1.46 (Qfactor) FDMS raw FDMS * 1.08 (Qfactor) TEOM raw TEOM * 1.75 (Qfactor) Grimm raw Grimm * 1.13 (Qfactor)
X X X X X X X X
X X V X X X X V
X X X X X X V V
356 (Hasselt : 148 Borgerhout : 100 Houtem : 108) 272 (Hasselt : 88 Borgerhout : 90 Mechelen : 94) 103 (Mechelen : 103)
Grimm
TEOM
FDMS
Locations with more then 80 data pairs can be considered as 2 campaigns since the comparative measurements were performed during a long period, containing both a warm and cold period. At each location we had more than 80 data pairs, so for ESM and TEOM FDMS we have 6 campaigns. According to the equivalence document the uncertainty is expressed at the limit value. The expanded uncertainty of the Candidate Method at the limit value shall be smaller than 25 %. For PM10 the value of the daily limit value (50 g/m) is used. Because there is no daily limit value for PM2.5 the yearly limit value (25 g/m) is used. For PM2,5 there is no automated instrument that manages to be an equivalent method even after calibration. Application of the calibration factor obtained through orthogonal regression through the origin considerably improves the uncertainty at the limit value for ESM and TEOM. For TEOMFDMS the improvement is small. So VMM will use a calibration factor of 1.46 for ESM, 1.75 for TEOM and 1.00 for TEOMFDMS. The portion of PM2.5 in PM10 in Flanders seems to be more than 60%. Based on parallel PM2.5 and PM10 filter measurements during this exercise the portion of PM2.5 in PM10 varies from 63% (R801) to 72 % (N045). The requirements for PM2.5 are therefore more severe than for PM10. Directive 2008/50/EC states that the percentages for uncertainty (25 % for the expanded uncertainty in the case of PM) are given for individual measurements averaged over the period considered by the limit value. So strictly taken for PM2.5 the 25 % expanded uncertainty is given for the yearly average. In spite of this problem we have no knowledge of other European countries using other methods for demonstrating equivalence for PM2.5.
www.vmm.be
89
4. Conclusions an recommendations
4.1.

Conclusions
The concentrations for the quartz filters are on average 8% higher than for teflon filters. This study again proves that there are differences in filter types and allowing different filter types for the gravimetrical reference method (as in 14907 for PM2.5) can lead tot large differences in number of exceedances and yearly averages. The mass gain of the quartz field blanks was almost always higher than those of the teflon filters. The quartz field blanks almost always had a mass gain of more than 40 g. The difference between the filters is thought to be due to a difference in collection of semivolatile compounds and/or water. Whatman QMA filters are heattreated in the factory. Certain sources report that heat treatment of quartz filters activates the filters and make them less suitable for gravimetric measurements. Another aspect is the conditioning of the filters. Although the reference method requires at least 48 hours of conditioning at 20 C and 50% RH, recent findings show that some filters take much more time to stabilize, especially when they are very dry after heattreatment. The fact that filters are brought to the field when not fully equilibrated at 50% RH could lead to significant positive blank artefacts due to extra takeup of water. The difference between the results of 2 consecutive weighings was generally higher for the teflon filters than for the quartz filters. From the field blanks, two teflon filters had to be skipped from the dataset because the difference between the 2 weighings was too large. EN14907 says that a static discharger shall be used prior to weighing for PFTEfilters. This wasnt done, so maybe this might be the reason why with teflon filters (also sampled filters) the difference between two consecutive weighings was more frequently too large. The daily calibration factors (reference method/automated monitor) vary over quite a substantial range. The range of daily ratios for the PM2.5 instruments seems to be larger than those for the PM10 instruments, except for the Grimm. Higher calibration factors are found for the ESM monitors at the rural locations Aarschot and Houtem. This finding is in accordance with the results found in the VMM campaign of 2004. Rural locations may have a higher ratio because the semivolatile fraction is relatively more important there. Industrial or urban sites are more influenced by mineral dust, which isnt volatized due to heating of the automated monitors, resulting in lower factors. This is why using 1 calibration factor for all sites (like VMM does now) leads to some underestimation of the concentrations and number of exceedances at rural sites and some overestimation of the concentrations at industrial and urban sites. VMM will further investigate if it is possible to use a different calibration factor depending on the type of measurement site. When taking into account criterion for the expanded uncertainty (< 25%) at the limit value value 3 (50 g/m ) for PM10, TEOMFDMS manages to pass without applying a calibration factor (or with applying a calibration factor of 1.00). ESM and TEOM pass after applying calibration factor. The Grimm monitor (only 1 location) doesnt pass, even after applying a calibration factor. Compared to the currently used factors (ESM: 1.37, TEOM: 1.47, TEOMFDMS: 1.00) the factors based on the quartz data from this exercise are slightly higher. Because the PM10 reference method is currently being updated by CEN (and it is still not clear which filter will comply with the updated method) VMM has so far decided not to update its factors. Equivalence for PM10 with ESM, TEOM en TEOMFDMS automated monitors versus the quartz data is obtained by applying the currently used factors. The calibration factors for PM2.5 in comparison with PM10 are slightly higher for ESM and for TEOMFDMS. The PM2.5 calibration factor for TEOM is 16 % higher than for PM10. According to the equivalence document the uncertainty is expressed at the limit value. Because there is no daily limit value for PM2.5 the yearly limit value (25 g/m) is used. For PM2.5 there is no automated instrument that manages to be equivalent even after calibration. Application of the calibration factor obtained through orthogonal regression through the origin considerably improves the uncertainty at the limit value for ESM and TEOM. For TEOMFDMS the improvement is small. So VMM will use a calibration factor of 1.46 for ESM, 1.75 for TEOM and 1.00 for TEOMFDMS. Other types of automated PM2.5 monitors shall be tested. The portion of PM2.5 in PM10 in Flanders is more than 60%. The requirements for PM2.5 are therefore more severe than for PM10. Directive 2008/50/EC states that the percentages for uncertainty are given for individual measurements averaged over the period considered by the
www.vmm.be 91
limit value. So strictly taken for PM2.5 the 25 % expanded uncertainty is required for the yearly average. In spite of this problem we have no knowledge of other European countries using other methods than the one described in the reference document for demonstrating equivalence for PM2.5.
4.2.

Recommendations
The requirement of non significance of slope and intercept (before or after an actual correction) is not written down in the current equivalence document. A strict application of this is often highly impractical but the opposite situation, where only the expanded uncertainty criterion is taken into account, does not guarantee sufficient comparability between equivalent methods. Therefore we recommend the introduction of limits for intercept and slope (cfr. EPAUS) and for the ratio of the overall averages (ref / AM). More measurements on different types of locations (rural, city, industrial) are needed to investigate the necessity of introducing site specific factors.
www.vmm.be
92
ANNEX 1
Lists of sampling days and filter numbering
www.vmm.be
Annex1 1
Filter numbering PM10 chemkar project

Borgerhout1 R801CKQ1 CHEMKARAKT 06PE 02/0054 ZM00117 PM10 Op RTU za vr do woe di ma zo za vr do woe di ma zo za vr do woe di ma zo za vr do woe do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr 16/sep/06 22/sep/06 28/sep/06 04/okt/06 10/okt/06 16/okt/06 22/okt/06 28/okt/06 03/nov/06 09/nov/06 15/nov/06 21/nov/06 27/nov/06 03/dec/06 09/dec/06 15/dec/06 21/dec/06 27/dec/06 02/jan/07 08/jan/07 14/jan/07 20/jan/07 26/jan/07 01/feb/07 07/feb/07 08/feb/07 13/feb/07 14/feb/07 19/feb/07 20/feb/07 25/feb/07 26/feb/07 03/mrt/07 04/mrt/07 09/mrt/07 BOCQ0001 BOCQ0002 BOCQ0003 BOCQ0004 BOCQ0005 BOCQ0006 BOCQ0007 BOCQ0008 BOCQ0009 BOCQ0010 BOCQ0011 BOCQ0012 BOCQ0013 BOCQ0014 BOCQ0015 BOCQ0016 BOCQ0017 BOCQ0018 BOCQ0019 BOCQ0020 BOCQ0021 BOCQ0022 BOCQ0023 BOCQ0024 BOCQ0025 BOVQ0001 BOCQ0026 BOVQ0002 BOCQ0027 BOVQ0003 BOCQ0028 BOVQ0004 BOCQ0029 BOVQ0005 BOCQ0030 Borgerhout2 R801CKT2 05/0092 ZM00160 PM10 Op RTU BOCT0001 BOCT0002 BOCT0003 BOCT0004 BOCT0005 BOCT0006 BOCT0007 BOCT0008 BOCT0009 BOCT0010 BOCT0011 BOCT0012 BOCT0013 BOCT0014 BOCT0015 BOCT0016 BOCT0017 BOCT0018 BOCT0019 BOCT0020 BOCT0021 BOCT0022 BOCT0023 BOCT0024 BOCT0025 BOCT0026 BOCT0027 BOCT0028 BOCT0029 BOCT0030 Mechelen1 ML01CKQ1 03/0064 ZM00147 PM10 Op grond MLCQ0001 MLCQ0002 MLCQ0003 MLCQ0004 MLCQ0005 MLCQ0006 MLCQ0007 MLCQ0008 MLCQ0009 MLCQ0010 MLCQ0011 MLCQ0012 MLCQ0013 MLCQ0014 MLCQ0015 MLCQ0016 MLCQ0017 MLCQ0018 MLCQ0019 MLCQ0020 MLCQ0021 MLCQ0022 MLCQ0023 MLCQ0024 MLCQ0025 MLCQ0026 MLCQ0027 MLCQ0028 MLCQ0029 MLCQ0030 Mechelen2 ML01CKT2 02/0067 ZM00131 PM10 Op grond MLCT0001 MLCT0002 MLCT0003 MLCT0004 MLCT0005 MLCT0006 MLCT0007 MLCT0008 MLCT0009 MLCT0010 MLCT0011 MLCT0012 MLCT0013 MLCT0014 MLCT0015 MLCT0016 MLCT0017 MLCT0018 MLCT0019 MLCT0020 MLCT0021 MLCT0022 MLCT0023 MLCT0024 MLCT0025 MLCT0026 MLCT0027 MLCT0028 MLCT0029 MLCT0030 Aarschot1 N035CKQ1 05/0086 ZM00154 PM10 Op RTU AACQ0001 AACQ0002 AACQ0003 AACQ0004 AACQ0005 AACQ0006 AACQ0007 AACQ0008 AACQ0009 AACQ0010 AACQ0011 AACQ0012 AACQ0013 AACQ0014 AACQ0015 AACQ0016 AACQ0017 AACQ0018 AACQ0019 AACQ0020 AACQ0021 AACQ0022 AACQ0023 AACQ0024 AACQ0025 AACQ0026 AACQ0027 AACQ0028 AACQ0029 AACQ0030 12 Meetplaatsen Aarschot2 Hasselt1 N035CKT2 05/0087 ZM00155 PM10 Op RTU AACT0001 AACT0002 AACT0003 AACT0004 AACT0005 AACT0006 AACT0007 AACT0008 AACT0009 AACT0010 AACT0011 AACT0012 AACT0013 AACT0014 AACT0015 AACT0016 AACT0017 AACT0018 AACT0019 AACT0020 AACT0021 AACT0022 AACT0023 AACT0024 AACT0025 AACT0026 AACT0027 AACT0028 AACT0029 AACT0030 N045CKQ1 05/0088 ZM00156 PM10 Op RTU HACQ0001 HACQ0002 HACQ0003 HACQ0004 HACQ0005 HACQ0006 HACQ0007 HACQ0008 HACQ0009 HACQ0010 HACQ0011 HACQ0012 HACQ0013 HACQ0014 HACQ0015 HACQ0016 HACQ0017 HACQ0018 HACQ0019 HACQ0020 HACQ0021 HACQ0022 HACQ0023 HACQ0024 HACQ0025 HAVQ0001 HACQ0026 HAVQ0002 HACQ0027 HAVQ0003 HACQ0028 HAVQ0004 HACQ0029 HAVQ0005 HACQ0030 Hasselt2 N045CKT2 05/0089 ZM00157 PM10 Op RTU HACT0001 HACT0002 HACT0003 HACT0004 HACT0005 HACT0006 HACT0007 HACT0008 HACT0009 HACT0010 HACT0011 HACT0012 HACT0013 HACT0014 HACT0015 HACT0016 HACT0017 HACT0018 HACT0019 HACT0020 HACT0021 HACT0022 HACT0023 HACT0024 HACT0025 HACT0026 HACT0027 HACT0028 HACT0029 HACT0030 Zelzate1 R750CKQ1 05/0090 ZM00158 PM10 Op RTU ZECQ0001 ZECQ0002 ZECQ0003 ZECQ0004 ZECQ0005 ZECQ0006 ZECQ0007 ZECQ0008 ZECQ0009 ZECQ0010 ZECQ0011 ZECQ0012 ZECQ0013 ZECQ0014 ZECQ0015 ZECQ0016 ZECQ0017 ZECQ0018 ZECQ0019 ZECQ0020 ZECQ0021 ZECQ0022 ZECQ0023 ZECQ0024 ZECQ0025 ZECQ0026 ZECQ0027 ZECQ0028 ZECQ0029 ZECQ0030 Zelzate2 R750CKT2 05/0091 ZM00159 PM10 Op RTU ZECT0001 ZECT0002 ZECT0003 ZECT0004 ZECT0005 ZECT0006 ZECT0007 ZECT0008 ZECT0009 ZECT0010 ZECT0011 ZECT0012 ZECT0013 ZECT0014 ZECT0015 ZECT0016 ZECT0017 ZECT0018 ZECT0019 ZECT0020 ZECT0021 ZECT0022 ZECT0023 ZECT0024 ZECT0025 ZECT0026 ZECT0027 ZECT0028 ZECT0029 ZECT0030 Houtem1 N029CKQ1 05/0093 ZM00161 PM10 Op RTU HOCQ0001 HOCQ0002 HOCQ0003 HOCQ0004 HOCQ0005 HOCQ0006 HOCQ0007 HOCQ0008 HOCQ0009 HOCQ0010 HOCQ0011 HOCQ0012 HOCQ0013 HOCQ0014 HOCQ0015 HOCQ0016 HOCQ0017 HOCQ0018 HOCQ0019 HOCQ0020 HOCQ0021 HOCQ0022 HOCQ0023 HOCQ0024 HOCQ0025 HOCQ0026 HOCQ0027 HOCQ0028 HOCQ0029 HOCQ0030 Houtem2 N029CKT2 05/0094 ZM00162 PM10 Op RTU HOCT0001 HOCT0002 HOCT0003 HOCT0004 HOCT0005 HOCT0006 HOCT0007 HOCT0008 HOCT0009 HOCT0010 HOCT0011 HOCT0012 HOCT0013 HOCT0014 HOCT0015 HOCT0016 HOCT0017 HOCT0018 HOCT0019 HOCT0020 HOCT0021 HOCT0022 HOCT0023 HOCT0024 HOCT0025 HOCT0026 HOCT0027 HOCT0028 HOCT0029 HOCT0030
www.vmm.be
Annex1 3
za do za woe woe di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe woe di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do vr woe
10/mrt/07 15/mrt/07 17/mrt/07 21/mrt/07 22/mrt/07 27/mrt/07 28/mrt/07 02/apr/07 03/apr/07 08/apr/07 09/apr/07 14/apr/07 15/apr/07 20/apr/07 21/apr/07 26/apr/07 28/apr/07 02/mei/07 03/mei/07 08/mei/07 09/mei/07 14/mei/07 15/mei/07 20/mei/07 21/mei/07 26/mei/07 27/mei/07 01/jun/07 02/jun/07 07/jun/07 09/jun/07 13/jun/07 14/jun/07 19/jun/07 20/jun/07 25/jun/07 26/jun/07 01/jul/07 02/jul/07 07/jul/07 08/jul/07 13/jul/07 14/jul/07 19/jul/07 20/jul/07 25/jul/07
BOVQ0006 BOCQ0031 BOVQ0007 BOCQ0032 BOVQ0008 BOCQ0033 BOVQ0009 BOCQ0034 BOVQ0010 BOCQ0035 BOVQ0011 BOCQ0036 BOVQ0012 BOCQ0037 BOVQ0013 BOCQ0038 BOVQ0014 BOCQ0039 BOVQ0015 BOCQ0040 BOVQ0016 BOCQ0041 BOVQ0017 BOCQ0042 BOVQ0018 BOCQ0043 BOVQ0019 BOCQ0044 BOVQ0020 BOCQ0045 BOVQ0021 BOCQ0046 BOVQ0022 BOCQ0047 BOVQ0023 BOCQ0048 BOVQ0024 BOCQ0049 BOVQ0025 BOCQ0050 BOVQ0026 BOCQ0051 BOVQ0027 BOCQ0052 BOVQ0028 BOCQ0053
BOCT0031 BOCT0032 BOCT0033 BOCT0034 BOCT0035 BOCT0036 BOCT0037 BOCT0038 BOCT0039 BOCT0040 BOCT0041 BOCT0042 BOCT0043 BOCT0044 BOCT0045 BOCT0046 BOCT0047 BOCT0048 BOCT0049 BOCT0050 BOCT0051 BOCT0052 BOCT0053
MLCQ0031 MLCQ0032 MLCQ0033 MLCQ0034 MLCQ0035 MLCQ0036 MLCQ0037 MLCQ0038 MLCQ0039 MLCQ0040 MLCQ0041 MLCQ0042 MLCQ0043 MLCQ0044 MLCQ0045 MLCQ0046 MLCQ0047 MLCQ0048 MLCQ0049 MLCQ0050 MLCQ0051 MLCQ0052 MLCQ0053
MLCT0031 MLCT0032 MLCT0033 MLCT0034 MLCT0035 MLCT0036 MLCT0037 MLCT0038 MLCT0039 MLCT0040 MLCT0041 MLCT0042 MLCT0043 MLCT0044 MLCT0045 MLCT0046 MLCT0047 MLCT0048 MLCT0049 MLCT0050 MLCT0051 MLCT0052 MLCT0053
AACQ0031 AACQ0032 AACQ0033 AACQ0034 AACQ0035 AACQ0036 AACQ0037 AACQ0038 AACQ0039 AACQ0040 AACQ0041 AACQ0042 AACQ0043 AACQ0044 AACQ0045 AACQ0046 AACQ0047 AACQ0048 AACQ0049 AACQ0050 AACQ0051 AACQ0052 AACQ0053
AACT0031 AACT0032 AACT0033 AACT0034 AACT0035 AACT0036 AACT0037 AACT0038 AACT0039 AACT0040 AACT0041 AACT0042 AACT0043 AACT0044 AACT0045 AACT0046 AACT0047 AACT0048 AACT0049 AACT0050 AACT0051 AACT0052 AACT0053
HAVQ0006 HACQ0031 HAVQ0007 HACQ0032 HAVQ0008 HACQ0033 HAVQ0009 HACQ0034 HAVQ0010 HACQ0035 HAVQ0011 HACQ0036 HAVQ0012 HACQ0037 HAVQ0013 HACQ0038 HAVQ0014 HACQ0039 HAVQ0015 HACQ0040 HAVQ0016 HACQ0041 HAVQ0017 HACQ0042 HAVQ0018 HACQ0043 HAVQ0019 HACQ0044 HAVQ0020 HACQ0045 HAVQ0021 HACQ0046 HAVQ0022 HACQ0047 HAVQ0023 HACQ0048 HAVQ0024 HACQ0049 HAVQ0025 HACQ0050 HAVQ0026 HACQ0051 HAVQ0027 HACQ0052 HAVQ0028 HACQ0053
HACT0031 HACT0032 HACT0033 HACT0034 HACT0035 HACT0036 HACT0037 HACT0038 HACT0039 HACT0040 HACT0041 HACT0042 HACT0043 HACT0044 HACT0045 HACT0046 HACT0047 HACT0048 HACT0049 HACT0050 HACT0051 HACT0052 HACT0053
ZECQ0031 ZECQ0032 ZECQ0033 ZECQ0034 ZECQ0035 ZECQ0036 ZECQ0037 ZECQ0038 ZECQ0039 ZECQ0040 ZECQ0041 ZECQ0042 ZECQ0043 ZECQ0044 ZECQ0045 ZECQ0046 ZECQ0047 ZECQ0048 ZECQ0049 ZECQ0050 ZECQ0051 ZECQ0052 ZECQ0053
ZECT0031 ZECT0032 ZECT0033 ZECT0034 ZECT0035 ZECT0036 ZECT0037 ZECT0038 ZECT0039 ZECT0040 ZECT0041 ZECT0042 ZECT0043 ZECT0044 ZECT0045 ZECT0046 ZECT0047 ZECT0048 ZECT0049 ZECT0050 ZECT0051 ZECT0052 ZECT0053
HOCQ0031 HOCQ0032 HOCQ0033 HOCQ0034 HOCQ0035 HOCQ0036 HOCQ0037 HOCQ0038 HOCQ0039 HOCQ0040 HOCQ0041 HOCQ0042 HOCQ0043 HOCQ0044 HOCQ0045 HOCQ0046 HOCQ0047 HOCQ0048 HOCQ0049 HOCQ0050 HOCQ0051 HOCQ0052 HOCQ0053
HOCT0031 HOCT0032 HOCT0033 HOCT0034 HOCT0035 HOCT0036 HOCT0037 HOCT0038 HOCT0039 HOCT0040 HOCT0041 HOCT0042 HOCT0043 HOCT0044 HOCT0045 HOCT0046 HOCT0047 HOCT0048 HOCT0049 HOCT0050 HOCT0051 HOCT0052 HOCT0053
www.vmm.be
Annex1 4
do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di wo ma
26/jul/07 31/jul/07 01/aug/07 06/aug/07 07/aug/07 12/aug/07 13/aug/07 18/aug/07 19/aug/07 24/aug/07 25/aug/07 30/aug/07 01/sep/07 05/sep/07 06/sep/07 11/sep/07 12/sep/07 17/sep/07 18/sep/07 23/sep/07 24/sep/07 29/sep/07 30/sep/07 05/okt/07 06/okt/07 11/okt/07 13/okt/07 17/okt/07 18/okt/07 23/okt/07 24/okt/07 29/okt/07 30/okt/07 04/nov/07 05/nov/07 10/nov/07 11/nov/07 16/nov/07 17/nov/07 22/nov/07 24/nov/07 28/nov/07 29/nov/07 04/dec/07 05/dec/07 10/dec/07
BOVQ0029 BOCQ0054 BOVQ0030 BOCQ0055 BOVQ0031 BOCQ0056 BOVQ0032 BOCQ0057 BOVQ0033 BOCQ0058 BOVQ0034 BOCQ0059 BOVQ0035 BOCQ0060 BOVQ0036 BOCQ0061 BOVQ0037 BOCQ0062 BOVQ0038 BOCQ0063 BOVQ0039 BOCQ0064 BOVQ0040 BOCQ0065 BOVQ0041 BOCQ0066 BOVQ0042 BOCQ0067 BOVQ0043 BOCQ0068 BOVQ0044 BOCQ0069 BOVQ0045 BOCQ0070 BOVQ0046 BOCQ0071 BOVQ0047 BOCQ0072 BOVQ0048 BOCQ0073 BOVQ0049 BOCQ0074 BOVQ0050 BOCQ0075 BOVQ0051 BOCQ0076
BOCT0054 BOCT0055 BOCT0056 BOCT0057 BOCT0058 BOCT0059 BOCT0060 BOCT0061
MLCQ0054 MLCQ0055 MLCQ0056 MLCQ0057 MLCQ0058 MLCQ0059 MLCQ0060 MLCQ0061 MLCQ0062 MLCQ0063 MLCQ0064 MLCQ0065 MLCQ0066 MLCQ0067 MLCQ0068 MLCQ0069 MLCQ0070 MLCQ0071 MLCQ0072 MLCQ0073 MLCQ0074 MLCQ0075 MLCQ0076
MLCT0054 MLCT0055 MLCT0056 MLCT0057 MLCT0058 MLCT0059 MLCT0060 MLCT0061
AACQ0054 AACQ0055 AACQ0056 AACQ0057 AACQ0058 AACQ0059 AACQ0060 AACQ0061
AACT0054 AACT0055 AACT0056 AACT0057 AACT0058 AACT0059 AACT0060 AACT0061
HAVQ0029 HACQ0054 HAVQ0030 HACQ0055 HAVQ0031 HACQ0056 HAVQ0032 HACQ0057 HAVQ0033 HACQ0058 HAVQ0034 HACQ0059 HAVQ0035 HACQ0060 HAVQ0036 HACQ0061 HAVQ0037 HACQ0062 HAVQ0038 HACQ0063 HAVQ0039 HACQ0064 HAVQ0040 HACQ0065 HAVQ0041 HACQ0066 HAVQ0042 HACQ0067 HAVQ0043 HACQ0068 HAVQ0044 HACQ0069 HAVQ0045 HACQ0070 HAVQ0046 HACQ0071 HAVQ0047 HACQ0072 HAVQ0048 HACQ0073 HAVQ0049 HACQ0074 HAVQ0050 HACQ0075 HAVQ0051 HACQ0076
HACT0054 HACT0055 HACT0056 HACT0057 HACT0058 HACT0059 HACT0060 HACT0061
ZECQ0054 ZECQ0055 ZECQ0056 ZECQ0057 ZECQ0058 ZECQ0059 ZECQ0060 ZECQ0061
ZECT0054 ZECT0055 ZECT0056 ZECT0057 ZECT0058 ZECT0059 ZECT0060 ZECT0061
HOCQ0054 HOCQ0055 HOCQ0056 HOCQ0057 HOCQ0058 HOCQ0059 HOCQ0060 HOCQ0061
HOCT0054 HOCT0055 HOCT0056 HOCT0057 HOCT0058 HOCT0059 HOCT0060 HOCT0061
www.vmm.be
Annex1 5
di zo ma za zo vr za do
11/dec/07 16/dec/07 17/dec/07 22/dec/07 23/dec/07 28/dec/07 29/dec/07 03/jan/08
BOVQ0052 BOCQ0077 BOVQ0053 BOCQ0078 BOVQ0054 BOCQ0079 BOVQ0055 BOCQ0080
MLCQ0077 MLCQ0078 MLCQ0079 MLCQ0080
HAVQ0052 HACQ0077 HAVQ0053 HACQ0078 HAVQ0054 HACQ0079 HAVQ0055 HACQ0080
www.vmm.be
Annex1 6
Filter numbering PM2.5 comparisons

4 MEETPLAATSEN Borgerhout1 R801VGQ2 VERGELPM2.5 07PA 02/0058 ZM00121 PM2.5 Op RTU woe do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe don di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe don di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do vr woe do di 07/feb/07 08/feb/07 13/feb/07 14/feb/07 19/feb/07 20/feb/07 25/feb/07 26/feb/07 03/mrt/07 04/mrt/07 09/mrt/07 10/mrt/07 15/mrt/07 17/mrt/07 21/mrt/07 22/mrt/07 27/mrt/07 28/mrt/07 02/apr/07 03/apr/07 08/apr/07 09/apr/07 14/apr/07 15/apr/07 20/apr/07 21/apr/07 26/apr/07 28/apr/07 02/mei/07 03/mei/07 08/mei/07 09/mei/07 14/mei/07 15/mei/07 20/mei/07 21/mei/07 26/mei/07 27/mei/07 01/jun/07 02/jun/07 07/jun/07 09/jun/07 13/jun/07 14/jun/07 19/jun/07 20/jun/07 25/jun/07 26/jun/07 01/jul/07 02/jul/07 07/jul/07 08/jul/07 13/jul/07 14/jul/07 19/jul/07 20/jul/07 25/jul/07 26/jul/07 31/jul/07 BOVQ0200 BOVQ0201 BOVQ0202 BOVQ0203 BOVQ0204 BOVQ0205 BOVQ0206 BOVQ0207 BOVQ0208 BOVQ0209 BOVQ0210 BOVQ0211 BOVQ0212 BOVQ0213 BOVQ0214 BOVQ0215 BOVQ0216 BOVQ0217 BOVQ0218 BOVQ0219 BOVQ0220 BOVQ0221 BOVQ0222 BOVQ0223 BOVQ0224 BOVQ0225 BOVQ0226 BOVQ0227 BOVQ0228 BOVQ0229 BOVQ0230 BOVQ0231 BOVQ0232 BOVQ0233 BOVQ0234 BOVQ0235 BOVQ0236 BOVQ0237 BOVQ0238 BOVQ0239 BOVQ0240 BOVQ0241 BOVQ0242 BOVQ0243 BOVQ0244 BOVQ0245 BOVQ0246 BOVQ0247 BOVQ0248 BOVQ0249 BOVQ0250 BOVQ0251 BOVQ0252 BOVQ0253 BOVQ0254 BOVQ0255 BOVQ0256 BOVQ0257 BOVQ0258 Mechelen1 ML01VGQ2 06/0071 ZM00167 PM2.5 Op grond MLVQ0200 MLVQ0201 MLVQ0202 MLVQ0203 MLVQ0204 MLVQ0205 MLVQ0206 MLVQ0207 MLVQ0208 MLVQ0209 MLVQ0210 MLVQ0211 MLVQ0212 MLVQ0213 MLVQ0214 MLVQ0215 MLVQ0216 MLVQ0217 MLVQ0218 MLVQ0219 MLVQ0220 MLVQ0221 MLVQ0222 MLVQ0223 MLVQ0224 MLVQ0225 MLVQ0226 MLVQ0227 MLVQ0228 MLVQ0229 MLVQ0230 MLVQ0231 MLVQ0232 MLVQ0233 MLVQ0234 MLVQ0235 MLVQ0236 MLVQ0237 MLVQ0238 MLVQ0239 MLVQ0240 MLVQ0241 MLVQ0242 MLVQ0243 MLVQ0244 MLVQ0245 MLVQ0246 MLVQ0247 MLVQ0248 MLVQ0249 MLVQ0250 MLVQ0251 MLVQ0252 MLVQ0253 MLVQ0254 MLVQ0255 MLVQ0256 MLVQ0257 MLVQ0258 Hasselt1 N045VGQ2 06/0072 ZM00168 PM2.5 Op RTU HAVQ0200 HAVQ0201 HAVQ0202 HAVQ0203 HAVQ0204 HAVQ0205 HAVQ0206 HAVQ0207 HAVQ0208 HAVQ0209 HAVQ0210 HAVQ0211 HAVQ0212 HAVQ0213 HAVQ0214 HAVQ0215 HAVQ0216 HAVQ0217 HAVQ0218 HAVQ0219 HAVQ0220 HAVQ0221 HAVQ0222 HAVQ0223 HAVQ0224 HAVQ0225 HAVQ0226 HAVQ0227 HAVQ0228 HAVQ0229 HAVQ0230 HAVQ0231 HAVQ0232 HAVQ0233 HAVQ0234 HAVQ0235 HAVQ0236 HAVQ0237 HAVQ0238 HAVQ0239 HAVQ0240 HAVQ0241 HAVQ0242 HAVQ0243 HAVQ0244 HAVQ0245 HAVQ0246 HAVQ0247 HAVQ0248 HAVQ0249 HAVQ0250 HAVQ0251 HAVQ0252 HAVQ0253 HAVQ0254 HAVQ0255 HAVQ0256 HAVQ0257 HAVQ0258 Houtem1 N029VGQ2 06/0073 ZM00169 PM2.5 Op RTU HOVQ0200 HOVQ0201 HOVQ0202 HOVQ0203 HOVQ0204 HOVQ0205 HOVQ0206 HOVQ0207 HOVQ0208 HOVQ0209 HOVQ0210 HOVQ0211 HOVQ0212 HOVQ0213 HOVQ0214 HOVQ0215 HOVQ0216 HOVQ0217 HOVQ0218 HOVQ0219 HOVQ0220 HOVQ0221 HOVQ0222 HOVQ0223 HOVQ0224 HOVQ0225 HOVQ0226 HOVQ0227 HOVQ0228 HOVQ0229 HOVQ0230 HOVQ0231 HOVQ0232 HOVQ0233 HOVQ0234 HOVQ0235 HOVQ0236 HOVQ0237 HOVQ0238 HOVQ0239 HOVQ0240 HOVQ0241 HOVQ0242 HOVQ0243 HOVQ0244 HOVQ0245 HOVQ0246 HOVQ0247 HOVQ0248 HOVQ0249 HOVQ0250 HOVQ0251 HOVQ0252 HOVQ0253 HOVQ0254 HOVQ0255 HOVQ0256 HOVQ0257 HOVQ0258
www.vmm.be
Annex1 7
wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di wo ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di woe ma di zo ma za zo vr za do za woe do di woe ma di zo ma
01/aug/07 06/aug/07 07/aug/07 12/aug/07 13/aug/07 18/aug/07 19/aug/07 24/aug/07 25/aug/07 30/aug/07 01/sep/07 05/sep/07 06/sep/07 11/sep/07 12/sep/07 17/sep/07 18/sep/07 23/sep/07 24/sep/07 29/sep/07 30/sep/07 05/okt/07 06/okt/07 11/okt/07 13/okt/07 17/okt/07 18/okt/07 23/okt/07 24/okt/07 29/okt/07 30/okt/07 04/nov/07 05/nov/07 10/nov/07 11/nov/07 16/nov/07 17/nov/07 22/nov/07 24/nov/07 28/nov/07 29/nov/07 04/dec/07 05/dec/07 10/dec/07 11/dec/07 16/dec/07 17/dec/07 22/dec/07 23/dec/07 28/dec/07 29/dec/07 03/jan/08 05/jan/08 09/jan/08 10/jan/08 15/jan/08 16/jan/08 21/jan/08 22/jan/08 27/jan/08 28/jan/08
BOVQ0259 BOVQ0260 BOVQ0261 BOVQ0262 BOVQ0263 BOVQ0264 BOVQ0265 BOVQ0266 BOVQ0267 BOVQ0268 BOVQ0269 BOVQ0270 BOVQ0271 BOVQ0272 BOVQ0273 BOVQ0274 BOVQ0275 BOVQ0276 BOVQ0277 BOVQ0278 BOVQ0279 BOVQ0280 BOVQ0281 BOVQ0282 BOVQ0283 BOVQ0284 BOVQ0285 BOVQ0286 BOVQ0287 BOVQ0288 BOVQ0289 BOVQ0290 BOVQ0291 BOVQ0292 BOVQ0293 BOVQ0294 BOVQ0295 BOVQ0296 BOVQ0297 BOVQ0298 BOVQ0299 BOVQ0300 BOVQ0301 BOVQ0302 BOVQ0303 BOVQ0304 BOVQ0305 BOVQ0306 BOVQ0307 BOVQ0308 BOVQ0309 BOVQ0310 BOVQ0311 BOVQ0312 BOVQ0313 BOVQ0314 BOVQ0315 BOVQ0316 BOVQ0317 BOVQ0318 BOVQ0319
MLVQ0259 MLVQ0260 MLVQ0261 MLVQ0262 MLVQ0263 MLVQ0264 MLVQ0265 MLVQ0266 MLVQ0267 MLVQ0268 MLVQ0269 MLVQ0270 MLVQ0271 MLVQ0272 MLVQ0273 MLVQ0274 MLVQ0275 MLVQ0276 MLVQ0277 MLVQ0278 MLVQ0279 MLVQ0280 MLVQ0281 MLVQ0282 MLVQ0283 MLVQ0284 MLVQ0285 MLVQ0286 MLVQ0287 MLVQ0288 MLVQ0289 MLVQ0290 MLVQ0291 MLVQ0292 MLVQ0293 MLVQ0294 MLVQ0295 MLVQ0296 MLVQ0297 MLVQ0298 MLVQ0299 MLVQ0300 MLVQ0301 MLVQ0302 MLVQ0303 MLVQ0304 MLVQ0305 MLVQ0306 MLVQ0307 MLVQ0308 MLVQ0309 MLVQ0310 MLVQ0311 MLVQ0312 MLVQ0313 MLVQ0314 MLVQ0315 MLVQ0316 MLVQ0317 MLVQ0318 MLVQ0319
HAVQ0259 HAVQ0260 HAVQ0261 HAVQ0262 HAVQ0263 HAVQ0264 HAVQ0265 HAVQ0266 HAVQ0267 HAVQ0268 HAVQ0269 HAVQ0270 HAVQ0271 HAVQ0272 HAVQ0273 HAVQ0274 HAVQ0275 HAVQ0276 HAVQ0277 HAVQ0278 HAVQ0279 HAVQ0280 HAVQ0281 HAVQ0282 HAVQ0283 HAVQ0284 HAVQ0285 HAVQ0286 HAVQ0287 HAVQ0288 HAVQ0289 HAVQ0290 HAVQ0291 HAVQ0292 HAVQ0293 HAVQ0294 HAVQ0295 HAVQ0296 HAVQ0297 HAVQ0298 HAVQ0299 HAVQ0300 HAVQ0301 HAVQ0302 HAVQ0303 HAVQ0304 HAVQ0305 HAVQ0306 HAVQ0307 HAVQ0308 HAVQ0309 HAVQ0310 HAVQ0311 HAVQ0312 HAVQ0313 HAVQ0314 HAVQ0315 HAVQ0316 HAVQ0317 HAVQ0318 HAVQ0319
HOVQ0259 HOVQ0260 HOVQ0261 HOVQ0262 HOVQ0263 HOVQ0264 HOVQ0265 HOVQ0266 HOVQ0267 HOVQ0268 HOVQ0269 HOVQ0270 HOVQ0271 HOVQ0272 HOVQ0273 HOVQ0274 HOVQ0275 HOVQ0276 HOVQ0277 HOVQ0278 HOVQ0279 HOVQ0280 HOVQ0281 HOVQ0282 HOVQ0283 HOVQ0284 HOVQ0285 HOVQ0286 HOVQ0287 HOVQ0288 HOVQ0289 HOVQ0290 HOVQ0291 HOVQ0292 HOVQ0293 HOVQ0294 HOVQ0295 HOVQ0296 HOVQ0297 HOVQ0298 HOVQ0299 HOVQ0300 HOVQ0301 HOVQ0302 HOVQ0303 HOVQ0304 HOVQ0305 HOVQ0306 HOVQ0307 HOVQ0308 HOVQ0309 HOVQ0310 HOVQ0311 HOVQ0312 HOVQ0313 HOVQ0314 HOVQ0315 HOVQ0316 HOVQ0317 HOVQ0318 HOVQ0319
www.vmm.be
Annex1 8
Extra PM2.5 campaign
Hasselt1 N045VGQ2 VERGELPM2.5 07PA 06/0072 ZM00168 PM2.5 Op RTU zo ma di za zo ma za zo woe vr za di do ma di do zo ma woe zo ma vr za zo do za zo do za woe ma woe zo di zo di za ma za woe vr di do di do ma woe 2/09/07 3/09/07 4/09/07 8/09/07 9/09/07 10/09/07 15/09/07 16/09/07 19/09/07 21/09/07 22/09/07 25/09/07 27/09/07 1/10/07 2/10/07 4/10/07 7/10/07 8/10/07 10/10/07 14/10/07 15/10/07 19/10/07 20/10/07 21/10/07 25/10/07 27/10/07 28/10/07 1/11/07 3/11/07 7/11/07 12/11/07 14/11/07 18/11/07 20/11/07 25/11/07 27/11/07 1/12/07 3/12/07 8/12/07 12/12/07 14/12/07 18/12/07 20/12/07 25/12/07 27/12/07 31/12/07 2/01/08 HAVQ0400 HAVQ0401 HAVQ0402 HAVQ0403 HAVQ0404 HAVQ0405 HAVQ0406 HAVQ0407 HAVQ0408 HAVQ0409 HAVQ0410 HAVQ0411 HAVQ0412 HAVQ0413 HAVQ0414 HAVQ0415 HAVQ0416 HAVQ0417 HAVQ0418 HAVQ0419 HAVQ0420 HAVQ0421 HAVQ0422 HAVQ0423 HAVQ0424 HAVQ0425 HAVQ0426 HAVQ0427 HAVQ0428 HAVQ0429 HAVQ0430 HAVQ0431 HAVQ0432 HAVQ0433 HAVQ0434 HAVQ0435 HAVQ0436 HAVQ0437 HAVQ0438 HAVQ0439 HAVQ0440 HAVQ0441 HAVQ0442 HAVQ0443 HAVQ0444 HAVQ0445 HAVQ0446
www.vmm.be
Annex1 9
ANNEX 2
Table with meteorological data
www.vmm.be
Annex2 1
Meteorological data, GentTolhuiskaai (M701), 16/09/200603/01/2008

wind direction 16/09/06 17/09/06 18/09/06 19/09/06 20/09/06 21/09/06 22/09/06 23/09/06 24/09/06 25/09/06 26/09/06 27/09/06 28/09/06 29/09/06 30/09/06 01/10/06 02/10/06 03/10/06 04/10/06 05/10/06 06/10/06 07/10/06 08/10/06 09/10/06 10/10/06 11/10/06 12/10/06 13/10/06 14/10/06 15/10/06 16/10/06 17/10/06 18/10/06 19/10/06 20/10/06 21/10/06 22/10/06 23/10/06 24/10/06 25/10/06 26/10/06 27/10/06 28/10/06 29/10/06 30/10/06 31/10/06 01/11/06 02/11/06 03/11/06 333.1 291.5 239.5 233.9 177.8 129.3 168.2 100.1 156.3 199.5 258.4 193.0 193.7 187.4 189.0 199.6 213.8 245.7 243.5 214.2 209.5 253.2 181.0 191.9 117.7 135.9 275.4 51.3 67.5 71.8 102.7 145.0 166.2 169.0 188.6 199.2 186.6 206.1 226.2 130.3 212.7 244.6 231.6 302.7 207.4 258.2 333.4 264.5 266.1 wind speed m/s 1.61 2.60 3.19 3.70 4.02 4.11 4.03 2.15 3.12 3.33 2.69 2.79 3.20 4.22 3.46 4.71 5.81 3.62 3.10 4.54 6.15 4.32 2.99 2.70 2.12 2.68 2.47 1.99 2.78 3.51 2.45 2.82 2.78 4.71 4.82 4.76 5.29 4.56 5.11 3.55 5.38 3.08 4.50 3.24 3.03 5.41 4.39 2.52 1.96 temperature temperature at 3m at 30m C C 21.3 18.9 17.9 16.1 17.2 20.2 20.7 19.2 20.1 17.2 17.0 16.0 18.1 18.9 17.9 17.4 16.2 14.6 13.1 13.4 15.5 13.7 13.3 15.2 17.0 16.9 15.3 13.7 14.1 12.4 12.7 13.3 15.4 16.2 15.3 15.4 15.6 16.6 13.6 13.1 18.6 13.7 15.4 14.8 12.5 12.6 8.6 6.4 8.2 21.0 18.4 17.4 15.8 16.9 20.0 20.7 19.0 19.9 17.0 16.8 15.7 18.0 18.7 17.7 17.3 16.1 14.3 13.1 13.2 15.5 13.6 13.1 15.0 16.7 16.8 15.3 13.8 13.9 12.2 12.7 13.2 15.2 16.1 15.1 15.2 15.6 16.5 13.6 13.2 18.7 13.6 15.3 14.6 12.4 12.4 8.5 6.2 8.2 relative humidity % 79 86 83 80 73 73 69 85 84 92 88 86 79 82 78 85 83 85 87 89 91 82 80 85 93 87 90 86 91 87 86 81 86 83 86 87 87 86 90 86 81 79 88 86 86 83 78 91 90 precipitation mm 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.0 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.6 3.6 0.0 6.6 2.0 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 3.6 6.6 4.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 2.8 3.2 0.4 air pressure mbar 1007.6 1011.2 1012.4 1013.8 1014.8 1008.8 1008.3 1009.8 1006.5 1007.6 1015.8 1015.0 1009.7 1007.2 1008.8 1006.6 1004.6 1001.7 1010.5 1014.6 1006.9 1014.3 1019.6 1017.5 1018.4 1011.1 1021.0 1029.7 1027.8 1025.7 1020.2 1012.2 1005.2 996.1 994.9 999.5 998.4 992.7 996.4 1006.2 1004.8 1021.3 1022.2 1022.4 1019.4 1008.4 1022.6 1030.4 1031.3
www.vmm.be
Annex2 3
wind direction 04/11/06 05/11/06 06/11/06 07/11/06 08/11/06 09/11/06 10/11/06 11/11/06 12/11/06 13/11/06 14/11/06 15/11/06 16/11/06 17/11/06 18/11/06 19/11/06 20/11/06 21/11/06 22/11/06 23/11/06 24/11/06 25/11/06 26/11/06 27/11/06 28/11/06 29/11/06 30/11/06 01/12/06 02/12/06 03/12/06 04/12/06 05/12/06 06/12/06 07/12/06 08/12/06 09/12/06 10/12/06 11/12/06 12/12/06 13/12/06 14/12/06 15/12/06 16/12/06 17/12/06 18/12/06 19/12/06 20/12/06 21/12/06 22/12/06 23/12/06 258.2 249.3 222.5 187.9 217.3 290.9 205.2 250.1 283.1 234.8 231.3 188.0 190.8 188.3 214.3 207.8 198.1 235.0 208.9 204.9 172.3 195.5 183.8 176.8 185.3 215.3 167.9 193.4 201.0 201.6 218.8 212.5 221.3 202.7 198.9 248.2 204.8 206.6 214.5 217.6 211.0 207.8 231.4 230.9 213.6 30.1 240.4 36.7 57.9 66.5
wind speed m/s 3.16 4.15 2.90 2.38 4.50 3.61 3.26 5.54 5.00 5.57 4.76 4.86 5.46 5.69 3.44 2.44 6.31 4.40 5.00 5.93 4.96 6.90 4.33 4.30 4.16 3.32 3.09 6.13 4.48 7.02 6.44 7.49 5.87 8.14 5.43 3.22 4.42 7.16 4.78 5.68 6.30 4.78 3.95 3.34 1.47 0.84 1.28 1.57 3.17 3.54
temperature temperature at 3m at 30m C C 8.2 9.7 9.4 6.8 9.3 9.6 7.3 9.7 9.7 12.1 13.1 13.7 14.7 11.8 9.5 7.6 8.9 8.2 8.0 11.4 11.5 14.3 11.7 12.6 12.0 9.5 7.0 9.5 10.3 9.1 10.8 13.2 9.8 9.5 9.7 6.2 5.3 7.7 7.8 10.2 9.1 6.7 6.4 5.1 2.5 1.9 2.2 6.9 6.5 4.2 8.1 9.4 9.1 6.5 9.0 9.7 7.2 9.6 9.6 12.0 13.2 13.8 14.7 11.8 9.3 7.4 8.7 8.2 7.7 11.4 11.5 14.4 11.6 12.5 11.9 9.3 6.6 9.2 10.1 9.1 10.6 13.2 9.7 9.4 9.6 6.2 5.2 7.5 7.7 10.1 8.8 6.4 6.2 5.0 2.4 1.6 2.0 7.0 6.3 3.9
relative humidity % 88 89 92 90 93 83 84 84 75 92 91 86 81 81 84 87 90 85 88 91 88 78 87 82 87 89 92 82 89 86 88 84 82 84 90 89 88 91 87 89 86 85 91 92 96 98 94 87 82 89
precipitation mm 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.8 0.0 6.4 0.0 2.2 3.4 0.2 4.2 0.2 3.0 3.2 7.6 5.4 3.8 5.8 0.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.0 4.6 4.6 1.4 8.6 19.6 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
air pressure mbar 1032.7 1029.6 1027.6 1021.8 1019.8 1029.1 1031.7 1016.8 1017.9 1009.0 1009.5 1007.6 1000.1 1004.6 1013.8 1017.4 1007.0 997.0 996.9 989.1 995.9 998.0 1015.7 1016.8 1015.9 1029.2 1031.1 1020.8 1013.5 1001.9 1000.0 997.6 1003.4 996.4 988.3 1009.9 1025.9 1017.0 1020.6 1023.8 1025.5 1023.3 1020.6 1025.9 1029.6 1036.4 1038.6 1041.1 1041.8 1040.1
www.vmm.be
Annex2 4
wind direction 24/12/06 25/12/06 26/12/06 27/12/06 28/12/06 29/12/06 30/12/06 31/12/06 01/01/07 02/01/07 03/01/07 04/01/07 05/01/07 06/01/07 07/01/07 08/01/07 09/01/07 10/01/07 11/01/07 12/01/07 13/01/07 14/01/07 15/01/07 16/01/07 17/01/07 18/01/07 19/01/07 20/01/07 21/01/07 22/01/07 23/01/07 24/01/07 25/01/07 26/01/07 27/01/07 28/01/07 29/01/07 30/01/07 31/01/07 01/02/07 02/02/07 03/02/07 04/02/07 05/02/07 06/02/07 07/02/07 08/02/07 09/02/07 10/02/07 11/02/07 70.9 81.6 126.8 209.3 215.0 182.3 205.9 215.7 240.9 273.8 212.8 248.5 230.1 232.9 205.8 217.4 225.7 224.3 234.4 241.2 230.6 246.5 201.9 200.1 214.0 242.9 254.5 237.2 238.4 80.9 41.9 340.0 54.4 243.0 296.8 256.5 288.6 259.1 250.0 267.4 304.3 8.7 72.8 268.9 275.5
wind speed m/s 3.24 3.18 2.46 3.26 5.01 4.76 8.87 7.34 6.20 5.24 5.41 6.14 4.82 4.24 5.94 6.36 7.83 6.90 8.46 6.98 6.07 4.43 4.14 4.92 6.29 9.81 6.16 7.66 6.86 4.27 3.41 1.87 3.30 4.08 3.43 5.33 2.65 1.89 4.20 2.12 3.41 2.66 2.18 2.06 1.90 0.97 3.92 3.52 4.04 5.59
205.7 165.9 210.8
www.vmm.be
Annex2 5
wind direction 12/02/07 13/02/07 14/02/07 15/02/07 16/02/07 17/02/07 18/02/07 19/02/07 20/02/07 21/02/07 22/02/07 23/02/07 24/02/07 25/02/07 26/02/07 27/02/07 28/02/07 01/03/07 02/03/07 03/03/07 04/03/07 05/03/07 06/03/07 07/03/07 08/03/07 09/03/07 10/03/07 11/03/07 12/03/07 13/03/07 14/03/07 15/03/07 16/03/07 17/03/07 18/03/07 19/03/07 20/03/07 21/03/07 22/03/07 23/03/07 24/03/07 25/03/07 26/03/07 27/03/07 28/03/07 29/03/07 30/03/07 31/03/07 01/04/07 02/04/07 219.8 249.9 204.6 188.8 134.0 162.1 339.7 160.4 192.7 215.9 181.2 180.0 202.7 234.2 290.7 224.4 236.2 248.2 230.0 252.9 155.3 216.1 194.2 236.4 262.1 251.4 249.2 205.2 177.5 324.5 348.7 254.7 244.9 255.7 254.3 273.1 353.6 353.8 343.7 21.7 18.8 78.8 85.8 87.2 165.8 228.8 58.0 38.2 59.6 45.3
wind speed m/s 6.40 5.31 3.91 3.67 4.00 3.06 2.49 2.63 2.56 3.86 4.23 4.80 5.70 4.34 4.09 5.11 8.76 7.25 4.43 6.65 4.25 6.27 7.16 4.25 2.78 3.78 3.58 2.96 1.55 2.17 1.42 1.61 3.48 6.04 7.70 3.28 4.81 5.62 5.48 5.19 4.29 4.80 3.74 3.47 2.45 2.13 2.68 4.95 4.98 4.07
www.vmm.be
Annex2 6
wind direction 03/04/07 04/04/07 05/04/07 06/04/07 07/04/07 08/04/07 09/04/07 10/04/07 11/04/07 12/04/07 13/04/07 14/04/07 15/04/07 16/04/07 17/04/07 18/04/07 19/04/07 20/04/07 21/04/07 22/04/07 23/04/07 24/04/07 25/04/07 26/04/07 27/04/07 28/04/07 29/04/07 30/04/07 01/05/07 02/05/07 03/05/07 04/05/07 05/05/07 06/05/07 07/05/07 08/05/07 09/05/07 10/05/07 11/05/07 12/05/07 13/05/07 14/05/07 15/05/07 16/05/07 17/05/07 18/05/07 19/05/07 20/05/07 21/05/07 22/05/07 15.8 34.1 0.9 304.7 17.5 269.7 274.8 295.6 31.6 64.5 51.8 2.3 323.0 337.0
wind speed m/s 6.11 5.67 2.15 2.91 3.72 1.76 3.37 2.66 2.32 2.95 2.66 2.38 1.57 3.33
temperature temperature at 3m at 30m C C 8.1 8.3 9.0 10.8 10.1 10.7 12.2 13.1 13.5 15.8 19.1 18.1 18.9 15.5 7.7 7.6 8.3 10.3 9.7 10.5 11.7 12.8 13.2 15.4 18.7 17.8 18.8 15.1
relative humidity % 79 71 81 79 76 70 66 74 69 69 65 72 69 76
precipitation mm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
air pressure mbar 1021.4 1021.9 1023.1 1023.1 1026.3 1025.1 1019.7 1022.6 1024.3 1020.6 1018.4 1020.0 1020.6 1021.4
280.1 48.1 65.8 208.0 242.4 192.0 320.4 354.7 28.8 39.6 52.8 73.2 80.9 60.4 13.4 4.4 356.9 243.8 243.3 246.0 240.4 234.0 231.0 234.2 165.8 218.4 222.3 278.8 321.0 219.2 244.7 11.7 348.4 333.1
2.64 3.34 2.22 1.21 2.47 1.83 3.11 2.94 3.10 2.98 3.84 4.83 4.71 5.21 4.49 5.03 5.64 4.20 7.31 6.59 3.99 4.96 6.19 5.63 3.76 5.55 4.13 3.70 2.39 4.03 3.92 2.25 2.13 1.97
12.2 11.7 11.5 15.6 18.1 19.7 19.8 17.3 19.7 20.6 19.7 17.1 17.6 16.8 15.2 15.8 12.7 13.6 14.2 13.4 12.4 14.9 13.7 14.5 16.0 13.9 12.4 12.8 13.5 17.6 14.9 14.1 15.8 14.6
11.7 10.9 10.8 15.5 17.8 19.4 19.2 16.5 19.0 19.8 18.8 16.1 16.8 15.9 14.4 15.2 11.8 12.9 14.0 13.0 12.1 14.8 13.4 14.3 15.7 13.5 11.9 12.4 13.1 17.1 14.2 13.6 15.3 14.2
70 69 58 51 54 57 65 79 67 64 59 42 42 41 72 75 80 77 89 81 91 86 78 78 74 79 77 85 87 81 67 79 91 90
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.6 4.6 0.6 8.0 2.6 0.2 11.0 3.2 12.2 3.8 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
1020.3 1022.4 1022.1 1020.6 1019.9 1017.2 1014.2 1017.1 1019.4 1019.7 1016.7 1013.6 1013.5 1013.4 1013.3 1011.1 1015.9 1017.4 1010.8 1011.6 1013.2 1006.9 1003.2 1006.4 1002.9 1004.8 1014.1 1010.4 1011.8 1013.4 1013.4 1014.4 1014.6 1019.6
www.vmm.be
Annex2 7
wind direction 23/05/07 24/05/07 25/05/07 26/05/07 27/05/07 28/05/07 29/05/07 30/05/07 31/05/07 01/06/07 02/06/07 03/06/07 04/06/07 05/06/07 06/06/07 07/06/07 08/06/07 09/06/07 10/06/07 11/06/07 12/06/07 13/06/07 14/06/07 15/06/07 16/06/07 17/06/07 18/06/07 19/06/07 20/06/07 21/06/07 22/06/07 23/06/07 24/06/07 25/06/07 26/06/07 27/06/07 28/06/07 29/06/07 30/06/07 01/07/07 02/07/07 03/07/07 04/07/07 05/07/07 06/07/07 07/07/07 08/07/07 09/07/07 10/07/07 11/07/07 16.3 22.5 345.5 32.2 222.5 188.1 285.6 180.2 93.1 316.6 356.6 11.0 15.7 18.1 5.2 5.6 308.8 304.5 2.3 335.4 251.6 224.7 154.7 203.0 204.3 212.3 243.8 92.4 235.3 193.7 195.2 237.1 185.2 204.4 290.4 237.2 246.9 219.9 221.0 221.8 226.1 212.1 251.9 247.4 242.8 249.4 243.3 245.3 241.9 245.2
wind speed m/s 2.49 2.30 2.17 2.48 2.97 1.65 4.90 4.56 2.02 1.84 2.67 2.44 3.18 3.99 4.67 4.26 2.94 1.87 2.22 2.48 3.12 2.52 2.28 3.38 4.28 3.30 3.25 3.05 3.32 2.40 3.63 4.67 2.74 3.87 5.08 4.83 4.44 5.60 3.33 3.84 4.43 3.64 5.31 5.54 7.54 4.46 2.20 2.85 2.49 3.47
www.vmm.be
Annex2 8
wind direction 12/07/07 13/07/07 14/07/07 15/07/07 16/07/07 17/07/07 18/07/07 19/07/07 20/07/07 21/07/07 22/07/07 23/07/07 24/07/07 25/07/07 26/07/07 27/07/07 28/07/07 29/07/07 30/07/07 31/07/07 01/08/07 02/08/07 03/08/07 04/08/07 05/08/07 06/08/07 07/08/07 08/08/07 09/08/07 10/08/07 11/08/07 12/08/07 13/08/07 14/08/07 15/08/07 16/08/07 17/08/07 18/08/07 19/08/07 20/08/07 21/08/07 22/08/07 23/08/07 24/08/07 25/08/07 26/08/07 27/08/07 28/08/07 29/08/07 30/08/07 231.4 200.8 230.1 124.8 203.4 213.4 242.1 51.2 211.6 218.3 219.9 144.2 277.2 238.1 211.6 235.0 255.3 292.9 292.3 19.2 104.1 323.5 277.4 204.5 137.1 224.7 297.3 2.3 338.8 351.7 21.5 204.8 231.5 180.1 212.6 245.5 230.7 181.2 185.4 225.1 1.3 21.4 47.4 13.4 268.8 320.3 332.3 29.8 29.9 263.5
wind speed m/s 3.92 3.58 3.90 2.63 2.36 4.03 3.12 1.59 3.85 3.68 3.53 3.90 5.83 4.02 4.71 5.47 4.10 4.39 3.41 1.75 2.18 2.59 1.31 2.24 3.68 2.90 3.07 3.66 3.96 4.23 1.51 2.28 3.69 5.21 5.36 5.13 3.43 3.63 3.14 3.63 3.32 6.31 1.90 1.73 1.53 2.61 1.71 2.76 3.41 2.57
www.vmm.be
Annex2 9
wind direction 31/08/07 01/09/07 02/09/07 03/09/07 04/09/07 05/09/07 06/09/07 07/09/07 08/09/07 09/09/07 10/09/07 11/09/07 12/09/07 13/09/07 14/09/07 15/09/07 16/09/07 17/09/07 18/09/07 19/09/07 20/09/07 21/09/07 22/09/07 23/09/07 24/09/07 25/09/07 26/09/07 27/09/07 28/09/07 29/09/07 30/09/07 01/10/07 02/10/07 03/10/07 04/10/07 05/10/07 06/10/07 07/10/07 08/10/07 09/10/07 10/10/07 11/10/07 12/10/07 13/10/07 14/10/07 15/10/07 16/10/07 17/10/07 18/10/07 19/10/07 257.9 279.0 244.8 323.3 338.2 229.2 350.1 0.6 306.0 337.2 290.8 328.4 13.9 92.1 264.2 153.4 219.3 230.7 305.6 215.9 210.8 212.9 222.7 189.7
wind speed m/s 3.92 3.04 3.87 4.07 3.20 1.84 2.99 3.01 2.48 3.05 4.30 3.04 1.37 1.74 2.68 1.22 3.39 2.51 3.15 4.20 4.36 3.68 1.97 2.93 5.23 3.87 2.72 5.77 3.80 2.44 2.17 3.43 2.53 1.61 2.11 2.42 3.34 1.57 0.98 2.58 2.03 1.25 2.33 2.50 2.30 3.58 3.96 4.18 3.02 2.09
air pressure mbar 1019.8 1020.0 1016.9 1016.0 1025.4 1029.0 1029.2 1029.7 1025.8 1023.1 1017.5 1023.9 1027.5 1024.9 1019.8 1024.1 1014.3 1009.7 1019.4 1022.3 1019.8 1019.7 1022.2 1020.7
337.7 24.6 30.8 270.9 284.4 70.8 74.1 51.0 256.4 55.7 64.6 25.3 353.0 199.6 34.2 289.9 277.3 89.1 132.5 206.0 204.1 264.0 326.2 4.2
1015.0 1013.0 1006.5 1011.4 1021.8 1022.2 1019.9 1017.7 1020.9 1024.0 1022.3 1021.3 1024.1 1022.6 1023.4 1027.0 1024.7 1025.7 1020.8 1015.9 1015.9 1016.7 1030.3 1033.9
www.vmm.be
Annex2 10
wind direction 09/12/07 10/12/07 11/12/07 12/12/07 13/12/07 14/12/07 15/12/07 16/12/07 17/12/07 18/12/07 19/12/07 20/12/07 21/12/07 22/12/07 23/12/07 24/12/07 25/12/07 26/12/07 27/12/07 28/12/07 29/12/07 30/12/07 31/12/07 01/01/08 02/01/08 03/01/08 211.6 323.5 343.8 27.7 78.5 70.3 82.0 69.2 71.1 62.7 81.2 84.6 113.7 197.4 206.6 200.4 196.9 213.0 200.3 203.1 213.6 283.0 234.6 107.0 86.7 92.6
wind speed m/s 5.96 5.38 3.93 1.36 2.69 3.17 4.12 3.29 5.05 3.36 2.06 2.24 1.67 2.46 1.99 3.78 5.08 3.98 5.13 6.51 6.33 3.53 1.73 2.22 4.32 4.64
temperature temperature at 3m at 30m C C 8.3 8.2 6.2 4.8 3.2 2.6 1.9 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.2 2.8 3.4 0.6 3.0 4.0 4.8 4.5 5.3 6.8 7.3 7.0 6.5 5.2 0.2 0.5 8.2 8.1 6.3 5.1 3.0 2.3 1.7 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.2 3.3 3.8 1.2 2.8 3.9 4.7 4.2 5.1 6.7 7.2 6.9 6.5 4.9 0.1 0.2
relative humidity % 87 89 84 90 91 84 77 82 85 88 87 95 96 82 90 86 74 95 95 89 87 85 90 93 86 85
precipitation mm 7.8 5.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2
air pressure mbar 985.8 1002.3 1026.9 1037.1 1041.2 1039.2 1036.1 1037.1 1034.9 1036.2 1038.4 1035.2 1028.6 1025.8 1028.5 1026.2 1018.0 1025.5 1029.9 1024.0 1013.8 1024.2 1028.7 1024.2 1017.5 1004.6
www.vmm.be
Annex2 12
ANNEX 3
PM10: Results of demonstration of equivalence for each station individually
www.vmm.be
Annex3 1
1. ESM
PM10 Aarschot a) Uncorrected data
PM10, N035: ESM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
PM10, N035: ESM vs T
Equivalence field test
Number of data points:
43
UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.65 significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.94 not significant uncertainty of a 0.93 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.70 bias at LV 16.62 combined uncertainty 16.84 relative uncertainty at the LV 33.68 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.02 not significant uncertainty of b 0.04 intercept a 0.96 not significant uncertainty of a 1.43 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.46 bias at LV 1.79 combined uncertainty 4.81 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 9.61 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.65 uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.93 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 2.86 0 bias at LV 17.56 0 combined uncertainty 17.79 relative uncertainty at the LV 35.58 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.02 not significant uncertainty of b 0.04 intercept a 0.48 not significant uncertainty of a 1.43 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.56 bias at LV 0.35 combined uncertainty 4.57 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 9.14 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
www.vmm.be
Annex3 3
b) Values corrected with orthogonal regression through origin factor

N035, PM10: ESM*1.44 vs Q (# 45) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.98 4.22 5.8 11.6 pass 0.46 0.91 significant 0.04 0.21 not significant 1.31 N035, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 43) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.75 4.05 5.52 11.04 pass 0.46 0.9 significant 0.04 0.98 not significant 1.27
c) Values corrected with current (old) factors

N035, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs Q (# 45) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.78 6.48 7.5 15 fail 0.46 0.87 significant 0.04 0.25 not significant 1.25 N035, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 43) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.75 4.05 5.52 11.04 pass 0.46 0.9 significant 0.04 0.98 not significant 1.27
PM10 Hasselt a) Uncorrected data

126 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.76 significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 1.28 significant uncertainty of a 0.55 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.95 bias at LV 13.08 combined uncertainty 13.40 relative uncertainty at the LV 26.81 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.01 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 1.89 significant uncertainty of a 0.71 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.96 bias at LV 1.55 combined uncertainty 4.25 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 8.51 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.76 uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.55 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 3.00 0 bias at LV 11.79 0 combined uncertainty 12.17 relative uncertainty at the LV 24.33 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.01 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.21 not significant uncertainty of a 0.71 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.00 bias at LV 0.13 combined uncertainty 4.00 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 8.00 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
www.vmm.be
Annex3 4
52
fail

N045, PM10: ESM*1.44 vs Q (# 126) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.29 3.37 5.45 10.9 pass 0.46 1.11 significant 0.02 2.17 significant 0.79 N045, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 52) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.3 3.3 5.42 10.84 pass 0.46 1.08 not significant 0.05 0.56 not significant 1.37

N045, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs Q (# 126) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.07 0.75 4.14 8.28 pass 0.46 1.06 significant 0.02 2.02 significant 0.75 N045, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 52) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.3 3.3 5.42 10.84 pass 0.46 1.08 not significant 0.05 0.56 not significant 1.37
www.vmm.be
Annex3 5
PM10 Borgerhout a) Uncorrected data

PM10, R801: ESM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
PM10, R801: ESM vs T
58
fail

R801, PM10: ESM*1.44 vs Q (# 133) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.48 0.9 5.56 11.11 pass 0.46 1.03 not significant 0.03 0.73 not significant 1.06 R801, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 58) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.47 2.66 5.21 10.41 pass 0.46 1.04 not significant 0.04 0.79 not significant 1.36
www.vmm.be
Annex3 6

R801, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs Q (# 133) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.21 1.6 5.45 10.9 pass 0.46 0.98 not significant 0.02 0.62 not significant 1.01 R801, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 58) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.47 2.66 5.21 10.41 pass 0.46 1.04 not significant 0.04 0.79 not significant 1.36
PM10 Houtem a) Uncorrected data

fail
www.vmm.be
Annex3 7
54
fail

N029, PM10: ESM*1.44 vs Q (# 57) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.54 4.42 6.34 12.68 fail 0.46 0.93 significant 0.04 0.75 not significant 1.22 N029, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 54) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.92 3.83 5.48 10.96 pass 0.46 0.95 not significant 0.03 1.52 not significant 1.11

N029, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs Q (# 57) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.31 6.67 7.95 15.89 fail 0.46 0.88 significant 0.03 0.66 not significant 1.16 N029, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 54) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.92 3.83 5.48 10.96 pass 0.46 0.95 not significant 0.03 1.52 not significant 1.11
www.vmm.be
Annex3 8
PM10 Zelzate a) Uncorrected data

PM10, R750: ESM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
61 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.62 significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 3.23 significant uncertainty of a 1.38 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.71 bias at LV 15.89 combined uncertainty 16.57 relative uncertainty at the LV 33.14 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.04 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 3.65 not significant uncertainty of a 2.24 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 7.96 bias at LV 5.77 combined uncertainty 9.83 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 19.67 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.62 uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 1.38 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 4.91 0 bias at LV 19.11 0 combined uncertainty 19.73 relative uncertainty at the LV 39.47 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.04 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 1.57 not significant uncertainty of a 2.24 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 8.08 bias at LV 0.55 combined uncertainty 8.10 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 16.20 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
PM10, R750: ESM vs T
56
UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.70 significant uncertainty of b 0.04 intercept a 1.40 not significant uncertainty of a 1.46 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.55 bias at LV 13.45 combined uncertainty 14.20 relative uncertainty at the LV 28.40 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.03 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 0.96 not significant uncertainty of a 2.08 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.84 bias at LV 2.44 combined uncertainty 7.26 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 14.53 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.03 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 1.03 not significant uncertainty of a 2.08 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 7.00 bias at LV 0.45 combined uncertainty 7.01 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 14.02 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46

R750, PM10: ESM*1.44 vs Q (# 61) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 6.88 0.52 6.9 13.8 fail 0.46 0.92 not significant 0.05 3.61 not significant 1.99 R750, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 56) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 6.32 0.45 6.33 12.66 fail 0.46 0.99 not significant 0.05 1.04 not significant 2
www.vmm.be
Annex3 9

R750, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs Q (# 61) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 6.53 2.97 7.18 14.36 fail 0.46 0.87 significant 0.05 3.58 not significant 1.89 R750, PM10: ESM*1.37 vs T (# 56) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 6.32 0.45 6.33 12.66 fail 0.46 0.99 not significant 0.05 1.04 not significant 2
2. FDMS
PM10 Hasselt a) Uncorrected data
PM10, N045: FDMS vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
41 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.87 not significant uncertainty of b 0.07 intercept a 1.33 not significant uncertainty of a 1.90 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.33 bias at LV 5.32 combined uncertainty 6.86 relative uncertainty at the LV 13.72 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.02 not significant uncertainty of b 0.08 intercept a 1.01 not significant uncertainty of a 2.20 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.07 bias at LV 2.00 combined uncertainty 6.39 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 12.78 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.87 uncertainty of b 0.07 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 1.90 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 4.73 0 bias at LV 6.65 0 combined uncertainty 8.16 relative uncertainty at the LV 16.32 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.02 not significant uncertainty of b 0.08 intercept a 0.52 not significant uncertainty of a 2.20 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.36 bias at LV 0.46 combined uncertainty 6.38 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 12.75 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
www.vmm.be
Annex3 10
PM10, N045: FDMS vs T
UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.84 not significant uncertainty of b 0.12 intercept a 2.75 not significant uncertainty of a 2.93 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.43 bias at LV 5.10 combined uncertainty 5.64 relative uncertainty at the LV 11.29 pass RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.01 not significant uncertainty of b 0.14 intercept a 3.00 not significant uncertainty of a 3.47 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.71 bias at LV 3.57 combined uncertainty 7.61 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 15.21 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail

N045, PM10: FDMS*1.12 vs Q (# 41) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.89 0.39 4.91 9.81 pass 0.46 0.99 not significant 0.08 1.09 not significant 2.13 N045, PM10: FDMS*1.01 vs T (# 8) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 2.45 4.63 5.24 10.48 pass 0.46 0.85 not significant 0.12 2.77 not significant 2.96
c) Values corrected with current (old) factors No old factor
www.vmm.be
Annex3 11

PM10, R801: FDMS vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
34 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.96 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 4.64 significant uncertainty of a 1.20 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.82 bias at LV 6.79 combined uncertainty 7.35 relative uncertainty at the LV 14.71 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 4.88 significant uncertainty of a 1.25 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.33 bias at LV 4.84 combined uncertainty 5.88 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 11.75 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.96 uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 1.20 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 3.06 0 bias at LV 2.15 0 combined uncertainty 3.74 relative uncertainty at the LV 7.48 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.03 not significant uncertainty of a 1.25 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.54 bias at LV 0.01 combined uncertainty 3.54 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 7.08 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
pass
PM10, R801: FDMS vs T
27
UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.04 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 5.21 significant uncertainty of a 1.11 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.32 bias at LV 3.31 combined uncertainty 4.04 relative uncertainty at the LV 8.07 pass RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 5.01 significant uncertainty of a 1.07 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.67 bias at LV 5.02 combined uncertainty 5.69 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 11.38 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
pass

R801, PM10: FDMS*1.12 vs Q (# 34) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.17 1.58 3.54 7.08 pass 0.46 1.07 significant 0.03 5.27 significant 1.34 R801, PM10: FDMS*1.01 vs T (# 27) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 2.34 2.84 3.68 7.36 pass 0.46 1.05 not significant 0.03 5.27 significant 1.13
www.vmm.be
Annex3 12
wind direction 20/10/07 21/10/07 22/10/07 23/10/07 24/10/07 25/10/07 26/10/07 27/10/07 28/10/07 29/10/07 30/10/07 31/10/07 01/11/07 02/11/07 03/11/07 04/11/07 05/11/07 06/11/07 07/11/07 08/11/07 09/11/07 10/11/07 11/11/07 12/11/07 13/11/07 14/11/07 15/11/07 16/11/07 17/11/07 18/11/07 19/11/07 20/11/07 21/11/07 22/11/07 23/11/07 24/11/07 25/11/07 26/11/07 27/11/07 28/11/07 29/11/07 30/11/07 01/12/07 02/12/07 03/12/07 04/12/07 05/12/07 06/12/07 07/12/07 08/12/07 81.9 318.9 105.8 65.4 55.1 64.2 68.8 203.2 195.4 224.0 285.6 229.5 245.0 259.2 299.7 0.7 245.3 296.7 260.1 255.7 310.7 283.0 298.8 280.4 260.9 25.0 41.5 240.5 217.0 134.7 145.8 127.0 179.8 196.0 347.9 241.9 295.5 303.0 234.9 202.0 217.3 211.0 221.3 223.0 282.9 228.6 215.5 226.4 262.2 212.1
wind speed m/s 1.89 1.89 2.95 3.96 4.51 3.35 2.31 3.31 5.30 3.19 2.95 2.65 2.66 1.93 2.21 1.44 3.40 4.17 4.98 4.89 6.24 5.97 5.81 3.05 4.31 3.34 2.11 2.46 3.06 4.14 4.08 4.07 4.12 4.00 3.99 3.60 4.84 3.21 2.41 4.70 4.61 5.32 6.81 7.88 6.22 4.25 7.15 6.71 7.78 6.31
www.vmm.be
Annex2 11
PM10 Mechelen a) Uncorrected data

PM10, ML01: FDMS vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
76 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 4.28 significant uncertainty of a 0.60 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.46 bias at LV 4.24 combined uncertainty 4.90 relative uncertainty at the LV 9.80 pass RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 4.27 significant uncertainty of a 0.60 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.57 bias at LV 4.27 combined uncertainty 4.98 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 9.97 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.60 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 2.53 0 bias at LV 0.03 0 combined uncertainty 2.53 relative uncertainty at the LV 5.05 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.00 not significant uncertainty of a 0.60 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.64 bias at LV 0.00 combined uncertainty 2.64 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 5.27 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
pass
PM10, ML01: FDMS vs T
57
UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.15 significant uncertainty of b 0.04 intercept a 3.75 significant uncertainty of a 1.17 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.73 bias at LV 3.61 combined uncertainty 5.19 relative uncertainty at the LV 10.38 pass RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 3.15 significant uncertainty of a 1.02 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.74 bias at LV 3.36 combined uncertainty 5.03 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 10.06 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
www.vmm.be
Annex3 13

ML01, PM10: FDMS*1.12 vs Q (# 76) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 2.76 1.27 3.04 6.08 pass 0.46 1.12 significant 0.02 4.83 significant 0.67 ML01, PM10: FDMS*1.01 vs T (# 57) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.77 4.15 5.61 11.22 pass 0.46 1.16 significant 0.04 3.8 significant 1.18
3. TEOM
PM10, R801: TEOM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
www.vmm.be
Annex3 14
PM10, R801: TEOM vs T
33
UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.67 significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 4.02 significant uncertainty of a 1.87 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.91 bias at LV 12.40 combined uncertainty 13.34 relative uncertainty at the LV 26.68 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.03 not significant uncertainty of b 0.07 intercept a 4.83 not significant uncertainty of a 2.79 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 7.82 bias at LV 6.51 combined uncertainty 10.17 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 20.34 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail

R801, PM10: TEOM*1.51 vs Q (# 102) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.69 0.27 5.69 11.39 pass 0.46 0.92 significant 0.03 4.13 significant 1.21 R801, PM10: TEOM*1.30 vs T (# 33) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 6.44 0.83 6.5 12.99 fail 0.46 0.89 not significant 0.06 4.58 not significant 2.44

R801, PM10: TEOM*1.47 vs Q (# 102) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.53 1.08 5.64 11.27 pass 0.46 0.9 significant 0.03 4.07 significant 1.18 R801, PM10: TEOM*1.47 vs T (# 33) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 7.33 5.77 9.33 18.65 fail 0.46 1.02 not significant 0.07 4.8 not significant 2.75
www.vmm.be
Annex3 15
PM10 Mechelen a) Uncorrected data

PM10, ML01: TEOM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
74 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.61 significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 2.27 significant uncertainty of a 0.92 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.80 bias at LV 17.32 combined uncertainty 17.73 relative uncertainty at the LV 35.45 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.02 not significant uncertainty of b 0.04 intercept a 2.85 not significant uncertainty of a 1.52 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.44 bias at LV 4.10 combined uncertainty 7.63 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 15.26 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.61 uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.92 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 3.91 0 bias at LV 19.58 0 combined uncertainty 19.97 relative uncertainty at the LV 39.94 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.02 not significant uncertainty of b 0.04 intercept a 0.88 not significant uncertainty of a 1.52 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.50 bias at LV 0.37 combined uncertainty 6.51 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 13.03 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail
PM10, ML01: TEOM vs T
56
UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.66 significant uncertainty of b 0.04 intercept a 3.87 significant uncertainty of a 1.35 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.34 bias at LV 13.08 combined uncertainty 13.79 relative uncertainty at the LV 27.57 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.05 not significant uncertainty of b 0.06 intercept a 4.46 significant uncertainty of a 2.04 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 7.05 bias at LV 6.88 combined uncertainty 9.85 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 19.70 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail

ML01, PM10: TEOM*1.51 vs Q (# 74) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.8 0.37 5.81 11.63 pass 0.46 0.94 not significant 0.03 2.77 not significant 1.39 ML01, PM10: TEOM*1.30 vs T (# 56) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.72 1.47 5.91 11.82 pass 0.46 0.88 significant 0.05 4.3 significant 1.75
www.vmm.be
Annex3 16

ML01, PM10: TEOM*1.47 vs Q (# 74) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.64 1.71 5.9 11.79 pass 0.46 0.91 significant 0.03 2.74 significant 1.36 ML01, PM10: TEOM*1.47 vs T (# 56) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 6.52 5.19 8.34 16.67 fail 0.46 1.02 not significant 0.06 4.44 significant 1.98
4. Grimm
PM10, R801: Grimm vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail
www.vmm.be
Annex3 17
PM10, R801: Grimm vs T
50
UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.93 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 8.16 significant uncertainty of a 1.76 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 5.33 bias at LV 11.81 combined uncertainty 12.96 relative uncertainty at the LV 25.92 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.05 intercept a 8.97 significant uncertainty of a 1.90 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 6.21 bias at LV 8.73 combined uncertainty 10.71 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 21.43 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail

R801, PM10: Grimm*1.50 vs Q (# 112) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 7.59 1 7.65 15.3 fail 0.46 1.25 significant 0.04 11.7 significant 1.56 R801, PM10: Grimm*1.36 vs T (# 50) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCETEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 7.34 2.31 7.69 15.39 fail 0.46 1.29 significant 0.06 12 significant 2.4
www.vmm.be
Annex3 18
ANNEX 4
PM2.5: Results of demonstration of equivalence for each station individually
www.vmm.be
Annex4 1
1. ESM
PM2.5 Hasselt a) Uncorrected data
PM2.5, N045: ESM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail

N045, PM2.5: ESM*1.46 vs Q (# 148) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.47 0.23 4.47 17.89 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.14 significant 0.02 3.39 significant 0.67
www.vmm.be
Annex4 3
PM2.5 Borgerhout a) Uncorrected data

PM2.5, R801: ESM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail

R801, PM2.5: ESM*1.46 vs Q (# 100) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.59 0.4 4.61 18.42 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.11 significant 0.03 2.45 significant 0.88
www.vmm.be
Annex4 4
PM2.5 Houtem a) Uncorrected data

PM2.5, N029: ESM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
108 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.67 significant uncertainty of b 0.01 intercept a 1.70 significant uncertainty of a 0.34 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 2.01 bias at LV 9.83 combined uncertainty 10.03 relative uncertainty at the LV 40.12 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.01 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 2.68 significant uncertainty of a 0.50 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.04 bias at LV 2.49 combined uncertainty 3.93 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 15.72 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.67 uncertainty of b 0.01 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.34 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 2.03 0 bias at LV 8.13 0 combined uncertainty 8.38 relative uncertainty at the LV 33.52 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.01 not significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.16 not significant uncertainty of a 0.50 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.06 bias at LV 0.03 combined uncertainty 3.06 pass relative uncertainty at the LV 12.24 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail

N029, PM2.5: ESM*1.46 vs Q (# 108) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 2.98 2.82 4.1 16.4 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 0.99 not significant 0.02 2.63 significant 0.5
www.vmm.be
Annex4 5
2. FDMS
PM2.5 Hasselt a) Uncorrected data
PM2.5, N045: FDMS vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail

N045, PM2.5: FDMS*1.08 vs Q (# 88) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 3.7 1.25 3.91 15.63 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.14 significant 0.02 2.17 significant 0.7
www.vmm.be
Annex4 6

PM2.5, R801: FDMS vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail

R801, PM2.5: FDMS*1.08 vs Q (# 90) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.43 0.03 4.43 17.74 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.07 significant 0.03 1.74 significant 0.81
www.vmm.be
Annex4 7
PM2.5 Mechelen a) Uncorrected data

PM2.5, ML01: FDMS vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail

ML01, PM2.5: FDMS*1.08 vs Q (# 94) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.35 3.48 5.57 22.29 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.02 not significant 0.03 4.07 significant 0.78
www.vmm.be
Annex4 8
3. TEOM
PM2.5 Mechelen a) Uncorrected data
PM2.5, ML01: TEOM vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
fail

ML01, PM2.5: TEOM*1.75 vs Q (# 103) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 5.04 0.83 5.11 20.44 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 0.93 significant 0.03 2.5 significant 0.86
www.vmm.be
Annex4 9
4. Grimm
PM2.5, R801: Grimm vs Q Equivalence field test Number of data points:
89 UNCORRECTED DATA REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.92 significant uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 1.34 not significant uncertainty of a 0.71 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 3.79 bias at LV 3.26 combined uncertainty 5.00 relative uncertainty at the LV 20.01 fail RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 1.51 not significant uncertainty of a 0.77 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.16 bias at LV 1.44 combined uncertainty 4.41 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 17.63 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 0.92 uncertainty of b 0.02 intercept a 0.00 uncertainty of a 0.71 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS 0 random term 3.86 0 bias at LV 1.93 0 combined uncertainty 4.31 relative uncertainty at the LV 17.25 0 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46 INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b 1.00 not significant uncertainty of b 0.03 intercept a 0.06 not significant uncertainty of a 0.77 EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term 4.22 bias at LV 0.00 combined uncertainty 4.22 fail relative uncertainty at the LV 16.90 RM betweensampler uncertainty 0.46
fail

R801, PM2.5: Grimm*1.13 vs Q (# 89) REGRESSION OUTPUT slope b uncertainty of b intercept a uncertainty of a EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS random term bias at LV combined uncertainty relative uncertainty at the LV RM betweensampler uncertainty 4.3 0.43 4.32 17.28 fail 0.46 0 0 0 0 1.05 not significant 0.03 1.61 not significant 0.81
www.vmm.be
Annex4 10
ANNEX 5
Calibration factors/equations based on common data for PM10 and PM2.5
www.vmm.be
Annex5 1
1. ESM
ESMPM10
Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Hasselt 102 Ref= 1.29*ESM +2.04 Ref= 1.36*ESM Ref= 1.41*ESM ( 0.04) Borgerhout 100 Ref = 1.43*ESM 0.01 Ref= 1.43*ESM Ref= 1.44*ESM ( 0.04) Houtem 34 Ref= 1.62*ESM +0.63 Ref= 1.64*ESM Ref= 1.66*ESM ( 0.09) All 236 Ref= 1.38*ESM +1.25 Ref= 1.43*ESM Ref= 1.46*ESM ( 0.03) Ref= 1.38*ESM Ref= 1.43*ESM Ref= 1.65*ESM Ref= 1.44*ESM
ESMPM2.5
Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Hasselt 102 Ref= 1.33*ESM +2.57 Ref= 1.44*ESM Ref= 1.55*ESM ( 0.05) Borgerhout 100 Ref= 1.33*ESM +1.85 Ref= 1.41*ESM Ref= 1.51*ESM ( 0.06) Houtem 34 Ref= 1.46*ESM +3.05 Ref= 1.61*ESM Ref= 1.78*ESM ( 0.10) All 236 Ref= 1.34*ESM +2.38 Ref= 1.45*ESM Ref= 1.57*ESM ( 0.04)
Ref= 1.50*ESM Ref= 1.45*ESM Ref= 1.69*ESM Ref= 1.50*ESM
2. TEOM FDMS
FDMSPM10
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Hasselt Mechelen All 38 Ref= 1.22*FDMS 3.27 Ref= 1.00*FDMS Ref= 1.10*FDMS ( 0.05) Ref= 1.26*FDMS 43 Ref= 0.99*FDMS +5.07 Ref= 1.11*FDMS Ref= 1.21*FDMS ( 0.05) Ref= 1.15*FDSM 81 Ref= 1.04*FDMS +2.55 Ref= 1.10*FDMS Ref= 1.16*FDMS ( 0.04) Ref= 1.13*FDMS Ratio of averages
FDMSPM2.5
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference Hasselt Mechelen All 38 Ref= 1.08*FDMS 0.23 Ref= 1.07*FDMS Ref= 1.09*FDMS ( 0.05) Ref= 1.20*FDMS 43 Ref= 1.06*FDMS +4.20 Ref= 1.18*FDSM Ref= 1.40*FDMS ( 0.08) Ref= 1.26*FDMS 81 Ref= 1.08 FDMS +1.89 Ref= 1.14*FDMS Ref= 1.25*FDMS ( 0.06) Ref= 1.18*FDMS Ratio of averages
www.vmm.be
Annex5 3
3. TEOM
TEOMPM10
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference ML01 All 49 49 Ref= 1.66*TEOM 3.54 Ref= 1.55*TEOM Ref= 1.50*TEOM ( 0.07) Ref= 1.51*TEOM Ref= 1.66*TEOM 3.54 Ref= 1.55*TEOM Ref= 1.50*TEOM ( 0.07) Ref= 1.51*TEOM Ratio of averages
TEOMPM2.5
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference ML01 All 49 49 Ref= 1.81*TEOM 1.89 Ref= 1.73*TEOM Ref= 1.66*TEOM ( 0.10) Ref= 1.71*TEOM Ref= 1.81*TEOM 1.89 Ref= 1.73*TEOM Ref= 1.66*TEOM ( 0.10) Ref= 1.71*TEOM Ratio of averages
4. Grimm
GrimmPM10
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference R801 All 88 Ref= 1.23*Grimm +8.32 Ref= 1.48*Grimm Ref= 1.78*Grimm ( 0.11) Ref= 1.53*Grimm Ref= 1.23*Grimm Ref= 1.78*Grimm ( 88 Ref= 1.48*Grimm Ref= 1.53*Grimm +8.32 0.11) Ratio of averages
GrimmPM2.5
# Orthogonal Average of daily ratios Location data Orthogonal regression regression through ( c.i.o.t.m.)* origin pairs Whatman QMA (Q) as reference R801 All 88 88 Ref=1.09*Grimm+1.39 Ref= 1.13 *Grimm Ref= 1.25*Grimm ( 0.06) Ref= 1.25*Grimm ( 0.06) Ref= 1.12*Grimm Ref= 1.12*Grimm Ratio of averages
Ref=1.09*Grimm+1.39 Ref= 1.13 *Grimm
www.vmm.be
Annex5 4

ComparativePM 06 07

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ComparativePM 06 07

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Flemish Environment Agency

Air Quality Monitoring Networks

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 Measurements in

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Table i: Overview of 20062007 comparison campaigns

Gravimetric method comparisons

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Comparisons with automated monitors

Monitors ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm

PM10 # data pairs 422 151 176 112

# data pairs 263 92 89 50

Orthogonal regression through origin Ref= 1.37*ESM

Average of daily ratios Ref= 1.39*ESM ( 0.03)

Ratio of averages Ref= 1.37*ESM

* confidence interval on the mean

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Monitors ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm

PM2.5 # data pairs 356 272 103 89

* confidence interval on the mean

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Tabel i: Overzicht vergelijkende campagnes 20062007

* betrouwbaarheidsinterval op het gemiddelde

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Vergelijkingen met automatische monitoren vergelijkingen tussen de gravimetrische

Hoofdstuk 3 behandelt de resultaten van de referentiemethode en de automatische monitoren.

Monitoren ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm

PM10 # data paren 422 151 176 112

# data paren 263 92 89 50

Ratio van gemiddelden Ref= 1.37*ESM

* betrouwbaarheidsinterval op het gemiddelde

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Monitoren ESM FDMS TEOM Grimm

PM2,5 # data paren 356 272 103 89

* betrouwbaarheidsinterval op het gemiddelde

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

Flemish Environment Agency

Comparative PM10 and PM2.5 measurements in Flanders, 20062007

1.1. Sampling Sites ..................................................................................................23

1.1.1. 1.1.2. 1.1.3. 1.1.4. 1.1.5. 1.1.6. Houtem (N029)........................................................................................................ 23

1.2.1. 1.2.2. 1.2.3. 1.2.4. 1.2.5.

Weighing and handling of gravimetric samples .................................................31

1.4.1. 1.4.2. 1.4.3. Validation and Quality Control ................................................................................ 32

Gravimetric method comparisons.................................................................. 37

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. History of filter choice at VMM...........................................................................37

2.3.1. 2.3.2. Filter comparison: quartz vs teflon filter .................................................................. 38

Comparisons with automated monitors ........................................................ 41

3.1. Measured concentrations and ratios for PM10 ..................................................41

3.1.1. 3.1.2. 3.1.3. 3.1.4. 3.1.5. 3.1.6. 3.1.7. Aarschot PM10..................................................................................................... 41

Measured concentrations and ratios for PM2.5 .................................................51