EPA-101-FA11-03-A262

101

9,000 千元

2012/10/11

2013/10/10

李崇德

監資處

黃欣俊

國立中央大學

環境資訊系統

PM2.5監測儀器比對、PM2.5化學成分檢測、空品站PM2.5監測儀器比對

Intercomparisons of PM2.5 monitoring instruments, PM2.5 chemical species measurements, Intercomparisons of PM2.5 monitoring instruments at the air quality monitoring stations

周崇光;張士昱

黃秋華

03-4227151#34652

cilia0110@gmail.com

本計畫辦理細懸浮微粒(PM2.5)質量濃度手動儀器與自動儀器精密性及區域性比對，在精密性比對期間，手動儀器量測值彼此間在統計上沒有顯著差異(p<0.05)，自動儀器以美國環保署自動儀器第三類型等效方法準則(以下簡稱FEM準則)評估，無法取代手動儀器，惟經由線性廻歸模擬，自動儀器量測值可轉換為手動儀器量測值。 在精密性比對期間，Met One BAM 1020 (以下簡稱Met One)和Thermo R&P 1405-F FDMS (以下簡稱Thermo)兩部自動儀器與兩部手動儀器絕對差異百分比平均都是21%。Thermo因為線性廻歸方程式的截距不符合FEM準則，Met One則是斜率和截距都不符合FEM準則，因此，雖然其他項目符合FEM準則，但整體而言還是不符合FEM準則。在區域性比對期間，Met One與手動儀器絕對差異百分比，在新莊站為18%，崙背站為29%，前鎮站為11%，Thermo與手動儀器絕對差異百分比在新莊站則是18%，崙背站為19%，前鎮站為13%。以FEM準則評估，只有Met One在前鎮站全部都符合，Thermo在前鎮站則是很接近符合；其他兩站兩種自動儀器都不符合FEM準則。Thermo和BGI PQ 200手動儀器量測濃度差異和微粒成分揮發濃度有相關，但這個差異無法完全由Thermo量測的微粒成分揮發濃度來解釋。經由手動儀器量測發現，半揮發性NO3-是PM2.5揮發成分中最重要者，當環境溫度低於30℃時，微粒沉積在濾紙後因為Thermo設定的量測溫度30℃較環境高，將導致微粒NO3-的揮發。三站區域性比對期間，Thermo R&P 2300手動儀器量測的季節PM2.5質量濃度平均在新莊站最高為42±21 μg m-3，崙背站最高為42±17 μg m-3，前鎮站最高則為83±24 μg m-3，金門離島在五月份五天採樣PM2.5質量濃度平均為37±8 μg m-3。PM2.5化學成分在三站及金門最主要成分都是SO42- , 其次為修正NO3-或修正有機碳。 國際間歐洲和美國對於污染源排放黑碳的管制具有共識，美國環保署推出的模式達標測試軟體(Model Attainment Test Software, MATS)結合手動採樣的PM2.5質量濃度及成分和網格模式模擬結果，可預估挑選的排放源管制情境下未來PM2.5量測質量濃度。針對我國PM2.5成分監測網設計，本計畫建議分別在台灣北、中、南部都市、北海岸、花蓮太魯閣國家公園、金門共設置六個測站，以建立我國PM2.5成分初期監測網。30個空品站PM2.5質量濃度常規手動與自動監測儀器比對大部分有不錯的斜率和相關性，截至2013年8月29日為止，30個空品站手動/自動儀器比值平均為0.82±0.09，但要將自動轉換成手動儀器量測值，最好還是以建立線性廻歸模式進行。

PM2.5監測儀器比對、PM2.5化學成分檢測、空品站PM2.5監測儀器比對

EPA-101-FA11-03-A262-公開.pdf

27MB

2014/11/1 上午 12:00:00

This project aims to conduct intercomparisons between manual and automated instruments for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) during precision and regional periods. The performance of manual instruments showed no significant difference statistically (p<0.05) from each other during the precision intercomparison period. The automated instruments were found no equivalence to manual instruments based on the assessment made for the equivalence of class III candidate instruments to the U.S. Federal Equivalent Method (hereinafter refer to as “FEM criteria”). However, the measurements of automated instrument can be converted to that of the manual instrument through linear regression modeling. During the precision intercomparison period, the absolute deviation in percentages of PM2.5 mass concentration between the average of the two automated instruments Met One BAM 1020 (hereinafter refer to as “Met One”) and Thermo R&P 1405-F FDMS (hereinafter refer to as “Thermo”) and the average of the two manual instruments were both at 21%. Since the intercept for Thermo and the slope and intercept of the linear regression for Met One failed to comply with the FEM criteria, both automated instruments are considered a failure in complying with the FEM criteria although other items may pass. During the regional intercomparison period, the absolute deviation in percentages of PM2.5 mass concentration between the average of Met One and manual instruments were 18% at the Hsinchuang station, 29% at the Lunbei station, and 11% at the Cianjhen station, respectively. In contrast, those of Thermo and manual instruments were 18% at the Hsinchuang station, 19% at the Lunbei station, and 13% at the Cianjhen station, respectively. At the Cianjhen station, Met One met all the requirements of the FEM criteria while Thermo failed by a narrow margin. The performance of the two automated instruments did not comply with the FEM criteria for the other two stations. The difference of 24-hour averages between Thermo and BGI PQ 200 manual instrument is related to the volatilized species concentration measured by Thermo; however, the measured volatilized species concentration cannot account for this difference completely. Among the volatilized species measured by the manual instrument, the semi-volatile NO3- concentration was found to play the most important role. Deposited particulate NO3- on the Thermo PM2.5 measuring filter will evaporate when the environmental temperature is lower than 300C as the measuring temperature of Thermo is set at 300C. During the study period, the highest seasonal averages in PM2.5 mass concentration at the Hsinchuang, Lunbei, and Cianjhen stations were 42±21 μg m-3, 42±17 μg m-3, and 83±24 μg m-3, respectively. Mean PM2.5 mass concentration of 37±8 μg m-3 was found at the remote Kinmen Island for five days’ collection in May. The dominant PM2.5 chemical species in the three stations and Kinmen is SO42- followed by the modified NO3- or modified organic carbon. For the international aspect, Europe and the United States of America (USA) reached a consensus to control black carbon from emission sources. A Model Attainment Test Software (MATS) developed by the USA Environmental Protection Agency features the combination of PM2.5 mass and species concentrations from manual instrument with simulation results from a grid-cell model. MATS is capable of estimating future PM2.5 mass concentration upon selecting various source control scenarios. For the future PM2.5 speciation monitoring network in Taiwan, this project proposes to install six stations located in the urban area of the northern, middle, and southern part of Taiwan, and northern coastline, Hualien Taroko National Park, and Kinmen Island, respectively, to build up a preliminary PM2.5 speciation monitoring network. The intercomparisons between regular manual and automated instruments are with satisfactory slopes and correlations in the 30 air quality monitoring stations. The average measuring ratio is at 0.82±0.09 between manual and automated instruments in the 30 air quality monitoring stations ended on August 29, 2013. However, a better way to conduct the conversion of automated measurements to manual values is through the establishment of a linear regression model.

Intercomparisons of PM2.5 monitoring instruments, PM2.5 chemical species measurements, Intercomparisons of PM2.5 monitoring instruments at the air quality monitoring stations