Abstract In order to validate specific personal selectors for the collection of fine particles, 65 double measurements of PM10 and PM2.5 were carried out at the same collection site; thus allowing a comparison between two different methods of sampling. The first method was that normally used by ARPAV in order to sample the above-mentioned granulometric fractions in outdoor environment. The second method was chosen by us for personal sampling (PEM working at 2 l/min and at 4 l/min). In both cases the filters gravimetric analysis conformed to the expectations of D.M. 60 of 2/4/2002. The comparison between the two methods showed a good correlation in both the granulometric fractions: correlation coefficients r for the PM2.5 are equal to 0.96 and 0.99 for the PEM working at 2 l/min and at 4 l/min respectively; r for the PM10 are equal to 0.98 and 0.99 for the PEM working at 2 l/min and at 4 l/min respectively. The analysis of results in terms of fine particles concentration and difference between methods against their mean, shows a slight overestimate of the particles concentration with PEM working at 2 l/min, compared to those working at 4 l/min. Nevertheless, considering the good results obtained even with a flow of 2 l/min, we believe that using PEM working at 2 l/min to monitoring 24 hours-personal exposure assures an improved capacity in the battery-operated pumps.

Studio di validazione dei selettori per il campionamento personale di PM10 e PM2.5: confronto fra selettori PEM e teste di prelievo CEN-ARPAV

SCAPELLATO, MARIA LUISA;BONFIGLIO, ENRICO;SERRAINO, SERGIO;CARRIERI, MARIELLA;MACCA', ISABELLA;GORI, GIAMPAOLO;BARTOLUCCI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA
2005

Abstract

Abstract In order to validate specific personal selectors for the collection of fine particles, 65 double measurements of PM10 and PM2.5 were carried out at the same collection site; thus allowing a comparison between two different methods of sampling. The first method was that normally used by ARPAV in order to sample the above-mentioned granulometric fractions in outdoor environment. The second method was chosen by us for personal sampling (PEM working at 2 l/min and at 4 l/min). In both cases the filters gravimetric analysis conformed to the expectations of D.M. 60 of 2/4/2002. The comparison between the two methods showed a good correlation in both the granulometric fractions: correlation coefficients r for the PM2.5 are equal to 0.96 and 0.99 for the PEM working at 2 l/min and at 4 l/min respectively; r for the PM10 are equal to 0.98 and 0.99 for the PEM working at 2 l/min and at 4 l/min respectively. The analysis of results in terms of fine particles concentration and difference between methods against their mean, shows a slight overestimate of the particles concentration with PEM working at 2 l/min, compared to those working at 4 l/min. Nevertheless, considering the good results obtained even with a flow of 2 l/min, we believe that using PEM working at 2 l/min to monitoring 24 hours-personal exposure assures an improved capacity in the battery-operated pumps.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/2458777
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact