環保專案成果報告查詢系統

專案計畫編號	EPA-100-02-03
經費年度	100
計畫經費	1,960 千元
專案開始日期	2011/03/16
專案結束日期	2011/12/31
專案主持人	陳志傑
主辦單位	環檢所
承辦人	程惠生
執行單位	國立台灣大學
專案分類	大氣空氣
中文關鍵字	煙道檢測、分徑採樣、PM2.5
英文關鍵字	Stack sampling, Determination of size distribution, PM2.5
協同主持人	張章堂、黃盛修;張章堂、黃盛修
共同主持人
計畫聯絡人	林暐舜
計畫聯絡電話	02-33668086#
計畫聯絡信箱	dnaface@yahoo.com.tw

中文摘要	在周遭大氣中懸浮著許多「粒狀物」，就其形成狀態及來源而言，可概略分為原生性(primary)微粒與二次(secondary) 微粒兩類。原生性污染物主要源自於污染源的直接產生，二次污染物主要由大氣中氣態污染物 (如Cl-、NO3-、SO32-、NH4+等)經物理或化學反應而形成，這些粒狀物總稱為「總懸浮性粒狀物（TSP）」；懸浮性微粒就其粒徑分佈範圍，可區分為粒徑2.5至10 μm的「粗」微粒；與粒徑2.5μm以下的「細」微粒。其中粒徑分佈是對人體產生健康效應的主要因子，當粒徑大於10 μm時，容易沉積於上呼吸道區，粒徑小於0.1μm則易隨呼吸的氣流進入肺部。因此以人體健康角度來評估時，微粒的粒徑分佈是需要加以特別重視的項目。本研究中分別對USEPA Method 201A 與 JIS K0302兩種排放管道粒狀物分徑檢測法進行驗證。實驗室中，主要對分徑採樣器於模擬系統進行測試，分別以不同粒徑分佈的固態標準微粒對其截取效率與負載效應進行實測。實地現場採樣，以陶瓷業、電力業、鋼鐵業、煉鋼業電爐四個行業別為對象，進行兩種分徑檢測法的現場採樣，在相同的排放源評估檢測法的適用性與差異。實驗室測試的結果顯示U.S.EPA Method 201A 所建議的Cyclone kit分徑採樣器有較佳的分徑效率且負載效應較不顯著；JIS K0302所建議的Cascade impactor分徑採樣器有良好的分徑效率但負載效應較顯著，部分大粒徑微粒會因彈跳(Bounce)現象而未被收集。實地現場採樣的結果顯示USEPA Method 201A 所建議的Cyclone kit在實用上會有全部組合後無法進入採樣口(直徑4英吋)的問題，只能以單獨的PM2.5 Cyclone進行採樣；JIS K0302所建議的Cascade impactor 在組裝上較為繁複易有粒狀物未完全收集的問題。同時兩種採樣法皆需要較多的採樣體積(2m3以上)方能獲得有效秤重樣本，且亦皆有等速採樣誤差的問題。 PM2.5 Cyclone的採樣結果(PM2.5/TSP)分別為66.1%±7.9(鋼鐵業)、54.0%±7.13(煉鋼業電爐)、91.8%±1.8(陶瓷業)、74.7%±8.5(電力業)；Cascade impactor的採樣結果(PM2.5/TSP)約為59.8%±25.3(鋼鐵業)、54.3%±1.28(煉鋼業電爐)、72.6%±2.9(陶瓷業)、72.6%±7.0(電力業)。由平均數據可看出，USEPA Method 201A的PM2.5採樣結果皆稍微高於JIS K0302，造成這樣的原因推測可能為內部壁面沉積損失(internal wall loss)。就本研究中所得結果顯示，PM2.5 Cyclone 的截取效率曲線相對於Cascade impactor要來的好，同時亦無彈跳與衝擊板面沉積損失的問題，如只針對PM2.5作分徑採樣時USEPA Method 201A會有較佳的效率與便利性。
中文關鍵字	煙道檢測、分徑採樣、PM2.5

中文摘要

在周遭大氣中懸浮著許多「粒狀物」，就其形成狀態及來源而言，可概略分為原生性(primary)微粒與二次(secondary) 微粒兩類。原生性污染物主要源自於污染源的直接產生，二次污染物主要由大氣中氣態污染物 (如Cl-、NO3-、SO32-、NH4+等)經物理或化學反應而形成，這些粒狀物總稱為「總懸浮性粒狀物（TSP）」；懸浮性微粒就其粒徑分佈範圍，可區分為粒徑2.5至10 μm的「粗」微粒；與粒徑2.5μm以下的「細」微粒。其中粒徑分佈是對人體產生健康效應的主要因子，當粒徑大於10 μm時，容易沉積於上呼吸道區，粒徑小於0.1μm則易隨呼吸的氣流進入肺部。因此以人體健康角度來評估時，微粒的粒徑分佈是需要加以特別重視的項目。本研究中分別對USEPA Method 201A 與 JIS K0302兩種排放管道粒狀物分徑檢測法進行驗證。實驗室中，主要對分徑採樣器於模擬系統進行測試，分別以不同粒徑分佈的固態標準微粒對其截取效率與負載效應進行實測。實地現場採樣，以陶瓷業、電力業、鋼鐵業、煉鋼業電爐四個行業別為對象，進行兩種分徑檢測法的現場採樣，在相同的排放源評估檢測法的適用性與差異。實驗室測試的結果顯示U.S.EPA Method 201A 所建議的Cyclone kit分徑採樣器有較佳的分徑效率且負載效應較不顯著；JIS K0302所建議的Cascade impactor分徑採樣器有良好的分徑效率但負載效應較顯著，部分大粒徑微粒會因彈跳(Bounce)現象而未被收集。實地現場採樣的結果顯示USEPA Method 201A 所建議的Cyclone kit在實用上會有全部組合後無法進入採樣口(直徑4英吋)的問題，只能以單獨的PM2.5 Cyclone進行採樣；JIS K0302所建議的Cascade impactor 在組裝上較為繁複易有粒狀物未完全收集的問題。同時兩種採樣法皆需要較多的採樣體積(2m3以上)方能獲得有效秤重樣本，且亦皆有等速採樣誤差的問題。 PM2.5 Cyclone的採樣結果(PM2.5/TSP)分別為66.1%±7.9(鋼鐵業)、54.0%±7.13(煉鋼業電爐)、91.8%±1.8(陶瓷業)、74.7%±8.5(電力業)；Cascade impactor的採樣結果(PM2.5/TSP)約為59.8%±25.3(鋼鐵業)、54.3%±1.28(煉鋼業電爐)、72.6%±2.9(陶瓷業)、72.6%±7.0(電力業)。由平均數據可看出，USEPA Method 201A的PM2.5採樣結果皆稍微高於JIS K0302，造成這樣的原因推測可能為內部壁面沉積損失(internal wall loss)。就本研究中所得結果顯示，PM2.5 Cyclone 的截取效率曲線相對於Cascade impactor要來的好，同時亦無彈跳與衝擊板面沉積損失的問題，如只針對PM2.5作分徑採樣時USEPA Method 201A會有較佳的效率與便利性。

中文關鍵字

煙道檢測、分徑採樣、PM2.5

類型	檔名	檔案大小	說明	最新版公開日期
期末報告	EPA-100-02-03.zip	2MB		2012/2/1 上午 12:00:00

摘要	In ambient air had suspended the particulate matter, that can be divided into two production mechanism. First one is primary particulate matter, that from the direct emission of air pollution sources. Second one is secondary particulate matter, that from the chemical or physical changes of gas organic pollutants. All of those particulate matter are referred as 「total suspension particulate matter (TSP)」, that on size distribution can defined two category of coarse or fine. The coarse particle are size distribution in greater than 2.5 to 10μm, and the fine particle are size distribution in equal 2.5μm or smaller. The major health effect of particulate matter in human body are depends on particle size distribution. When the particle diameter is greater than 10μm, it is easy deposition in the respiratory area, particle size less than 0.1μm are trading with the breathing air flow into the lungs. Therefore, the particle size distribution is a important factor on the human health . In this study, the USEPA Method 201A and JIS K0302 are compared in laboratory experimental test and field sampling. Laboratories, using different size distribution standard particle to testing the cut-size efficiency and loading effect of particle size distribution samplers. Field sampling to assess the applicability and different for those two method on four emission sources (ceramics, steel maker, electrical steel maker, power plant). Laboratory experimental test results show that the proposed USEPA Method 201A Cyclone kit sampler has better cut-size efficiency and less loading effect than JIS K0302 proposed Cascade impactor sampler. Field sampling results show the proposed USEPA Method 201A Cyclone kit will be on the practical combination can't enter all the sampling ports (diameter less than 4 inches), only to separate use PM2.5 Cyclone sampler. JIS K0302 proposed Cascade impactor is more complicated in the assembly and has the particles deposited in the impact plate which can't be fully collected. Two methods all require more sampling volume (2m3 or more) to get the effective weighing samples, and have isokinetic error. The PM2.5 Cyclone are better cut-size efficiency than Cascade impactor, , if only for the PM2.5/TSP sampling USEPA Method 201A will have better efficiency and convenience.
英文關鍵字	Stack sampling, Determination of size distribution, PM2.5

摘要

In ambient air had suspended the particulate matter, that can be divided into two production mechanism. First one is primary particulate matter, that from the direct emission of air pollution sources. Second one is secondary particulate matter, that from the chemical or physical changes of gas organic pollutants. All of those particulate matter are referred as 「total suspension particulate matter (TSP)」, that on size distribution can defined two category of coarse or fine. The coarse particle are size distribution in greater than 2.5 to 10μm, and the fine particle are size distribution in equal 2.5μm or smaller. The major health effect of particulate matter in human body are depends on particle size distribution. When the particle diameter is greater than 10μm, it is easy deposition in the respiratory area, particle size less than 0.1μm are trading with the breathing air flow into the lungs. Therefore, the particle size distribution is a important factor on the human health . In this study, the USEPA Method 201A and JIS K0302 are compared in laboratory experimental test and field sampling. Laboratories, using different size distribution standard particle to testing the cut-size efficiency and loading effect of particle size distribution samplers. Field sampling to assess the applicability and different for those two method on four emission sources (ceramics, steel maker, electrical steel maker, power plant). Laboratory experimental test results show that the proposed USEPA Method 201A Cyclone kit sampler has better cut-size efficiency and less loading effect than JIS K0302 proposed Cascade impactor sampler. Field sampling results show the proposed USEPA Method 201A Cyclone kit will be on the practical combination can't enter all the sampling ports (diameter less than 4 inches), only to separate use PM2.5 Cyclone sampler. JIS K0302 proposed Cascade impactor is more complicated in the assembly and has the particles deposited in the impact plate which can't be fully collected. Two methods all require more sampling volume (2m3 or more) to get the effective weighing samples, and have isokinetic error. The PM2.5 Cyclone are better cut-size efficiency than Cascade impactor, , if only for the PM2.5/TSP sampling USEPA Method 201A will have better efficiency and convenience.

英文關鍵字

Stack sampling, Determination of size distribution, PM2.5