An interlaboratory comparison study on the measurement of elements in PM10

被引:22
|
作者
Yatkin, Sinan [1 ]
Belis, Claudio A. [2 ]
Gerboles, Michel [2 ]
Calzolai, Giulia [3 ,4 ]
Lucarelli, Franco [3 ,4 ]
Cavalli, Fabrizia [2 ]
Trzepla, Krystyna [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Davis, Crocker Nucl Lab, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[2] Commiss European Communities, Joint Res Ctr, Inst Environm & Sustainabil, I-21027 Ispra, VA, Italy
[3] Univ Florence, Dept Phys & Astron, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, FI, Italy
[4] Natl Inst Nucl Phys INFN Florence, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, FI, Italy
关键词
Inter-laboratory comparison; XRF; ICP-MS; Standardless; PM10; PARTICULATE MATTER; EDXRF ANALYSIS; AEROSOL; PIXE; URBAN;
D O I
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.084
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
An inter-laboratory comparison study was conducted to measure elemental loadings on PM10 samples, collected in Ispra, a regional background/rural site in Italy, using three different XRF (X-ray Fluorescence) methods, namely Epsilon 5 by linear calibration, Quant'X by the standardless analysis, and PIXE (Particle Induced X-ray Emission) with linear calibration. A subset of samples was also analyzed by ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry). Several metrics including method detection limits (MDLs), precision, bias from a NIST standard reference material (SRM 2783) quoted values, relative absolute difference, orthogonal regression and the ratio of the absolute difference between the methods to claimed uncertainty were used to compare the laboratories. The MDLs were found to be comparable for many elements. Precision estimates were less than 10% for the majority of the elements. Absolute biases from SRM 2783 remained less than 20% for the majority of certified elements. The regression results of PM10 samples showed that the three XRF laboratories measured very similar mass loadings for S, K, Ti, Mn, Fe, Cu, Br, Sr and Pb with slopes within 20% of unity. The ICP-MS results confirmed the agreement and discrepancies between XRF laboratories for Al, K, Ca, Ti, V, Cu, Sr and Pb. The ICP-MS results are inconsistent with the XRF laboratories for Fe and Zn. The absolute differences between the XRF laboratories generally remained within their claimed uncertainties, showing a pattern generally consistent with the orthogonal regression results. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:61 / 68
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Interlaboratory comparison of PM10 and black smoke measurements in the PEACE study
    Hoek, G
    Welinder, H
    Vaskovi, E
    Ciacchini, G
    Manalis, N
    Royset, O
    Reponen, A
    Cyrys, J
    Brunekreef, A
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 1997, 31 (20) : 3341 - 3349
  • [2] European interlaboratory comparison exercise for the analysis of PAHs on PM10 quartz filters
    Ballesta, Pascual Perez
    Grandesso, Emanuela
    Kowalewski, Konrad
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-ATMOSPHERES, 2014, 119 (06) : 3486 - 3499
  • [3] Interlaboratory comparison exercise for the determination of As, Cd, Ni and Pb in PM10 in Europe
    Gerboles, M.
    Buzica, D.
    Brown, R. J. C.
    Yardley, R. E.
    Hanus-Illnar, A.
    Salfinger, M.
    Vallant, B.
    Adriaenssens, E.
    Claeys, N.
    Roekens, E.
    Sega, K.
    Jurasovic, J.
    Rychlik, S.
    Rabinak, E.
    Tanet, G.
    Passarella, R.
    Pedroni, V.
    Karlsson, V.
    Alleman, L.
    Pfeffer, U.
    Gladtke, D.
    Olschewski, A.
    O'Leary, B.
    O'Dwyer, M.
    Pockeviciute, D.
    Biel-Cwikowska, J.
    Tursic, J.
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2011, 45 (20) : 3488 - 3499
  • [4] Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors
    Williams, R
    Suggs, J
    Rodes, C
    Lawless, P
    Zweidinger, R
    Kwok, R
    Creason, J
    Sheldon, L
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EXPOSURE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 10 (05): : 497 - 505
  • [5] FIELD COMPARISON OF PM10 SAMPLERS
    Guo, L.
    Maghirang, R. G.
    Razote, E. B.
    Tallada, J. G.
    Harner, J. P., III
    Hargrove, W. L.
    [J]. APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE, 2009, 25 (05) : 737 - 744
  • [6] Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors
    RON WILLIAMS
    JACK SUGGS
    CHARLES RODES
    PHIL LAWLESS
    ROY ZWEIDINGER
    RICHARD KWOK
    JOHN CREASON
    LINDA SHELDON
    [J]. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 2000, 10 : 497 - 505
  • [7] PM10 and PM2.5 -: legislation, measurement and control
    Sloss, LL
    Smith, IM
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENT AND POLLUTION, 2002, 17 (1-2) : 157 - 169
  • [8] Speciation of elements in PM10 of tunnel studied by XAFS
    Jin, C
    Zou, Y
    Zhang, GL
    Tan, MG
    Peng, L
    Li, YL
    Lu, WZ
    Li, Y
    Xie, YN
    Liu, T
    [J]. HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS AND NUCLEAR PHYSICS-CHINESE EDITION, 2005, 29 : 89 - 92
  • [9] STUDY OF THE DISPERSION OF PM10 IN CANADA
    Abdu-Wahab, Sabah A.
    Ahmadi, Lena
    Elkamel, Ali
    Chan, Keziah
    Yazdanpanah, Pedram
    Yetilmezsoy, Kaan
    [J]. FRESENIUS ENVIRONMENTAL BULLETIN, 2015, 24 (10A): : 3320 - 3328
  • [10] Cyclones as PM10 and PM2.5 emission measurement classifiers
    Hemerka, J.
    Branis, M.
    Vybiral, P.
    [J]. AIR POLLUTION XVIII, 2010, 136 : 395 - 406