Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018;52(1):98-113.
doi: 10.1080/02786826.2017.1386766.

Size-Selective Sampling Performance of Six Low-Volume "Total" Suspended Particulate (TSP) Inlets

Robert W Vanderpool  1 , Jonathan D Krug  1 , Surender Kaushik  1 , Jerome Gilberry  2   3 , Andrew Dart  2 , Carlton L Witherspoon  3
Affiliations

Size-Selective Sampling Performance of Six Low-Volume "Total" Suspended Particulate (TSP) Inlets

Robert W Vanderpool et al. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2018.

Abstract

Several low-volume inlets (flow rates ≤16.7 liters per minute (Lpm)) are commercially available as components of low-cost, portable ambient particulate matter samplers. Because the inlets themselves do not contain internal fractionators, they are often assumed to representatively sample "total" mass concentrations from the ambient air, independent of aerodynamic particle size and wind speed. To date, none of these so-called "TSP" inlets have been rigorously tested under controlled conditions. To determine their actual size-selective performance under conditions of expected use, wind tunnel tests of six commonly used omnidirectional, low-volume inlets were conducted using solid, polydisperse aerosols at wind speeds of 2, 8, and 24 km/hr. With the exception of axially-oriented, isokinetic sharp-edge nozzles operating at 5 and 10 Lpm, all low-volume inlets showed some degree of non-ideal sampling performance as a function of aerodynamic particle size and wind speed. Depending upon wind speed and assumed ambient particle size distribution, total mass concentration measurements were estimated to be negatively biased by as much as 66%. As expected from particle inertial considerations, inlet efficiency tended to degrade with increasing wind speed and particle size, although some exceptions were noted. The implications of each inlet's non-ideal behavior are discussed with regards to expected total mass concentration measurement during ambient sampling and the ability to obtain representative sampling for size ranges of interest, such as PM2.5 and PM10. Overall test results will aid in low-volume inlet selection and with proper interpretation of results obtained with their ambient field use.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Measured sampling effectiveness of the 16.7 Lpm isokinetic sampler at 24 km/hr. Whiskers represent ±1 standard deviation of the 13 replicate tests.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Measured sampling effectiveness of the 16.7 Lpm isokinetic sampler as a function of ambient wind speed and aerodynamic particle diameter.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Wind tunnel results of the 5 Lpm isokinetic sampler at wind speeds of 2, 8, and 24 km/hr.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Measured sampling effectiveness of the 16.7 Lpm PQTSP sampler.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Measured sampling effectiveness of the 16.7 Lpm URG inlet.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Measured sampling effectiveness of the Mesa Laboratories miniPM sampler’s inlet.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Results from wind tunnel evaluation of the 16.7 Texas A&M LVTSP inlet.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Results from evaluation of the 5 Lpm miniVol sampler equipped with the PVC inlet.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Results from evaluation of the 5 Lpm miniVol louvered inlet equipped with the integral insect screen.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Results from evaluation of the 5 Lpm miniVol louvered inlet with the insect screen removed.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Wind tunnel test results of the MS&T inlet operated at 10 Lpm.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Wind tunnel test results of the MS&T inlet operated at 4 Lpm.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Babich P, Davey M, Allen G, Koutrakis P. Method Comparisons of Particulate Nitrate, Elemental Carbon, and PM2.5 Mass in Seven U.S. Cities. J Air & Waste Manage Assoc. 2000;50:1095–1105. - PubMed
    1. Baldauf RW, Lane DD, Marotz GA, Wiener RW. Performance Evaluation of the Portable MiniVol Particulate Matter Sampler. Atmos Environ. 2001;35:6087–6091.
    1. Chow JC. Measurement Methods to Determine Compliance with Ambient Air Quality Standards for Suspended Particles. J Air & Waste Manage Assoc. 1995;45(5):320–382. - PubMed
    1. Chow JD, Watson JG, Edgerton SA, Vega E, Ortiz E. Spatial Differences in Outdoor PM10 Mass and Aerosol Composition in Mexico City. J Air & Waste Manage Assoc. 2002;52:423–434. - PubMed
    1. Chung A, Chang DPY, Kleeman MJ, Perry KD, Cahill TA, Dutcher D, McDougall EM, Stroud K. Comparison of Real-time Instruments Used to Monitor Airborne Particulate Matter. J Air & Waste Manage Assoc. 2001;51:109–120. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources