Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 121, Issue 1–3, pp 479–489 | Cite as

The Composition of PM10 as collected by a Conventional TEOM, a Modified TEOM and a Partisol Gravimetric Monitor at a Kerbside Site in the North East of England

  • Susan Bulpitt
  • Monica Price


The composition of airborne particulate matter sampled by a conventional TEOM®, an experimental modified TEOM, operated at a lower temperature but fitted with a drier to remove moisture and a Partisol®, installed at a kerbside site in the North East of England, has been investigated. The results indicate that there is a seasonal variation in the composition of PM10 as sampled by the three monitors, with chloride concentration being significantly higher in the winter. The Partisol was found to sample a higher mass of chloride and nitrate, however the differences between the monitors was only significant for chloride. Both TEOM's were found to sample a greater mass of sulphate, although the variability in the data collected meant that significance of the results was not proven statistically. The range of artifacts associated with PM10 monitors is reviewed. Difficulties in the interpretation of results due to the variable nature of airborne particulate matter and the ability of filter based systems to accurately represent the composition of atmospheric particles are considered.


airborne particles monitoring composition TEOM Partisol 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, G., Sioutas, C., Koutrakis, P., Reiss, R., Lurmann, F.W. and Roberts, P. T.:1997, ‘Evaluation of the TEOM method for measurement of ambient particulate mass in urbanareas’, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 47, 682–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APEG: 1999, Source Apportionment of Airborne Particulate Matter in the UnitedKingdom, Airborne Particulates Expert Group.Google Scholar
  3. Ayers, G. P., Keywood, M. D. and Gras, J. L.: 1999, ‘TEOM vs. manual gravimetric methodsfor determination of PM2.5 aerosol mass concentrations’, AtmosphericEnvironment 33, 3717–3721.Google Scholar
  4. Chow, J. C.: 1995, ‘Measurement methods to determine compliance with ambient airquality standards for suspended particles’, Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 45, 320–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chuen-Jinn, T. and Hsin-Ying, H.: 1995, ‘Atmospheric aerosol sampling by an annulardenuder system and a high volume PM10 sampler’, Environment International 21(3), 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eatough, D. J., Long, R. W., Modey, W. K. and Eatough, N. L.: 2003, ‘Semi-volatilesecondary organic aerosol in urban atmospheres: Meeting a measurement challenge’, Atmospheric Environment 37, 1277–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hering, S., Fine, P. M., Constantinos, S., Jacques, P.A., Ambs, J. L., Hogrefe, O. andDenerjian, K. L.: 2004, ‘Field assessment of the dynamics of particulate nitrate vaporizationusing differential TEOM and automated nitrate monitors’, Atmospheric Environment 38, 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hueglin, C., Gehrig, R., Baltensperger, U., Gysel, M., Monn, C. and Vonmont, H.: 2005,‘Chemical characterisation of PM10, PM2.5, and coarse particles at urban, near cityand rural sites in Switzerland’, Atmospheric Environment 39, 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McMurry, P. H.: 2000, ‘A Review of Atmospheric Aerosol Measurements’, AtmosphericEnvironment 34, 1959–1999.Google Scholar
  10. Meyer, M., Lijek, J. and Ono, D.: 1992, ‘Continuous PM10 measurements in awoodsmoke environment, PM10 standards and non-traditional particulate controls’, in:J. C. Chow and D. M. Ono (Eds), J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 21(1), 24–38.Google Scholar
  11. Meyer, M. B., Patashnick, H., Ambs, J. L. and Rupprecht, E.: 2000, ‘Development of aSample Equilibration System for the TEOM continuous PM monitor’, J. Air & WasteManage. Assoc. 50, 1345–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Muller, K., Spindler, G., Maenhut, W., Hitzenberger, R., Wieprecht, W., Baltensperger, U. and ten Brink, H.: 2004, ‘INTERCOMP 2000, a campaign to assess the comparabilityof methods in use in Europe for measuring and composition’, Atmospheric Environment 38, 6459–6466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Price, M., Bulpitt, S. and Meyer, M.: 2003, ‘A comparison of PM10 Monitors at aKerbside Site in the North East of England’, Atmospheric Environment (in press).Google Scholar
  14. Quin, Y. and Oduyemi, K.: 2003, ‘Chemical composition of atmospheric aerosol inDundee, UK’, Atmospheric Environment 37, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: 1997, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. tenBrink, H., Maenhaut, W., Hitzenberger, R., Gnauk, T., Spindler, G., Even, A., Xugang, C., Bauer, H., Puxbaum, H. and Putaud, J.: 2004, INTERCOMP 2000: The comparability of methods in usein Europe for measuring the carbon content of aerosol’, Atmospheric Environment 38(38).Google Scholar
  17. Turnball, A. B. and Harrison, R. M.: 2000, ‘Major component contributions toPM10 composition in the UK atmosphere’, Atmospheric Environment 34, 3129–3137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson, W. E., Chow, J. C., Claiborn, C., Fusheng, W., Engelbrecht, J. and Watson, J. G.: 2002, ‘Monitoring of particulate matter outdoors’, Chemosphere 49, 1009–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wittmaack, K. and Klek, L.: 2004, ‘Thermodesorption of aerosol matter on multiplefilters of different materia‘ls for a more detailed evaluation of sampling artefacts’, Atmospheric Environment 38, 5205–5215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Bulpitt
    • 1
  • Monica Price
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Health, Natural and Social SciencesUniversity of SunderlandSunderlandUK

Personalised recommendations