Wien, November 2009
EQUIVALENCE TEST FOR PM10 AND PM2.5
Equivalence test of optical PM monitors by order of the
company GRIMM at 4 measurement locations in Austria
Andreas Wolf
Marina Fröhlich
Lorenz Moosmann
Vienna, January 2010
Project management
Andreas Wolf
Authors
Marina Fröhlich
Lorenz Moosmann
Lectorate
Maria Deweis
Layout
…
Cover photo
Equivalence test in Graz (©Schrempf/Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung)
Translation into English
Achim Edfelder, company GRIMM Aerosol Technik GmbH & Co. KG
Further information to Umweltbundesamt publications at: http://www.umweltbundesamt.at/
Equivalence test for PM10 – Content
CONTENT
CONTENT.................................................................................................. 3
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................... 5
SUMMARY................................................................................................. 6
1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 7
2
GENERAL INFORMATION............................................................ 8
2.1
Measuring principle of the candidate method ........................................8
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
Requirements ...........................................................................................10
Measurement locations ..............................................................................10
Meteorological requirements......................................................................10
2.3
Description of the reference method .....................................................11
2.4
Name and competence of the laboratory involved...............................13
3
FIELD TEST................................................................................. 14
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
Description of the locations....................................................................14
Measurement location Graz South ............................................................15
Measurement location Steyregg ................................................................17
Measurement location Wieselsfeld ............................................................19
Measurement location Klagenfurt ..............................................................21
4
RESULTS OF THE FIELD TEST ................................................. 23
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
Results for PM10 ......................................................................................24
Measurement location Graz South ............................................................25
Measurement location Steyregg ................................................................25
Measurement location Wieselsfeld ............................................................25
Measurement location Klagenfurt ..............................................................26
Data set above 50% of the upper assessment treshold ............................26
4.2
Results for PM2.5 .....................................................................................26
4.2.1 Measurement location Graz South ............................................................27
4.2.2 Measurement location Steyregg ................................................................27
4.2.3 Measurement location Wieselsfeld ............................................................27
4.2.4 Measurement location Klagenfurt ..............................................................28
4.2.5. Data set above 50 % of the upper assessment treshold...............................28
5
CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 29
6
REFERENCES ............................................................................. 30
7
ANNEX A: RESULTS IN TABULAR FORM................................. 31
8
ANNEX B: CALIBRATION GRIMM EDM 180.............................. 39
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
3
Equivalence test for PM10 – Content
4
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
The continuous dust monitor GRIMM model EDM 180 has been tested according to the standards of the guideline „Demonstration of Equivalence of Ambient
Air Monitoring Methods“ (EC WORKING GROUP 2009) at four measurement locations in Austria against the reference methods for PM10 and PM2.5. The hereby
gained measurement data have been evaluated corresponding to the regulations of the guideline.
The equivalence of the GRIMM model EDM 180 has been verified both for
PM10 and for PM2.5.
The measurements have been executed at following four measurement locations:
•
Measurement location 1:
Graz South (urban, traffic charged, high
concentration level)
December 2007 until March 2008
•
Measurement location 2:
Steyregg (residential area influenced by
industry)
June 2008 until August 2008
•
Measurement location 3:
Wieselsfeld near Hollabrunn (rural)
December 2008 until March 2009
•
Measurement location 4:
Klagenfurt (urban background, low concentration level)
June 2009 until August 2009
Both for PM10 and PM2.5 the application of a calibration function is necessary
4 Measurement
locations
Calibration function
For PM10 the calibration function is
cEquivalence = cKan corr = (cKan – 0.37)/1.155
The maximum enhanced combined measurement inaccuracy (k = 2) was noticed at the measurement location Wieselsfeld and accounted for 19.2 %.
For PM2.5 the calibration function is
cEquivalence = cKan corr = (cKan – 3.3)/1.085
The maximum enhanced combined measurement inaccuracy (k = 2) was noticed at the measurement location Wieselsfeld and accounted for 24.4 %.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
5
Equivalence test for PM10 – Summary
SUMMARY
6
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – INTRODUCTION
1
INTRODUCTION
Since 2010 either the gravimetric reference method or a continuous PM measurement method has to be applied for fine dust measurements according to IGL. The equivalence of these methods has to be verified according to the European guideline for equivalence of measurement methods (EC WORKING GROUP
2009).
Thus the Austrian measuring network operators executed an equivalence test
for continuous PM10 and PM2.5 monitors using also devices of the company
GRIMM between December 2007 and August 2008. This equivalence test has
only been executed at two locations, because there are further data available in
Austria from parallel operation of PM measuring devices.
Austrian
equivalence test
Because there are only a few Austrian reference data existent for measuring
devices from the company GRIMM, but an equivalence test according to the
guidelines has to incorporate four measurement locations, the company GRIMM
mandated the Umweltbundesamt (federal department for environment; translators note) to execute equivalence measurements at two further measurement
locations. These measurements have been executed between December 2008
and August 2009.
Two further
measurement
locations
Thus the equivalence data of these measuring devices for the following four
measurement locations are available: an urban, traffic charged measurement
location (Graz), a rural measurement location influenced by industry (Steyregg),
a rural measurement location (Wieselsfeld) and a measurement location in the
urban background (Klagenfurt).
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
7
Equivalence test for PM10 – General Information
2
2.1
GENERAL INFORMATION
Measuring principle of the candidate method
The following description of the measurement method was taken out of the
manufacturers manual EDM 180.
The GRIMM EDM 180 dust monitor intended as a 19“-rack unit and for the installation inside an air-conditioned measurement shelter.
Measuring method
The sample air is being lead via an stainless steel pipe (di=3mm) into the
measuring chamber. The particles in the sample air are being classified into
size and counts inside the measuring chamber through scattering light measurement. At a downstream optics the laser illuminates a small measurement
volume. The particle flow is being lead through this measurement volume. Making environmental measurements the total solid concentration is so low that statistically seen only one particle is within the measurement volume. Every particle emits a scattering light which is being detected by a second optics under an
opening angle and a scattering angle. This light intensity is sent via a mirror to a
detector and there being measured. The particle size is proportional to the intensity of the reflected light beam. The count rate results out of the particle
count and volume flow rate. Having known particle diameters and densities the
particle mass can be deduced from the particle count assuming a spherical
shape of the particles. The light intensity is moreover influenced by the particle
shape and its refractive index. This influence however is very small at environmental measurement.
Figure 1: Measuring principle of the GRIMM EDM 180 dust monitor. Source: GRIMM
(2009).
The measuring principle is illustrated in figure 1. The scattering light intensities
are being determined with test aerosols of known particle size and density and
then provided with an empirically determined correction factor for the determination of the mass concentration of poly-disperse mixtures.
8
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – General Information
At the spectrometer 180 a semi-conductive laser serves as light source. In order
to minimize the influence of the refractive indices, the 90° scattering light is being lead with an opening angle of 30° via a mirror onto a receiver diode. The
electric signal of the diode will be classified after an according amplification dependent on the power into 31 different size channels. Thus the determination of
the particle size distribution is possible.
The channel tresholds are listed in chart 1. Out of the measured particle size
distribution the fractions will be calculated and summed up. The calculation factors are based on the sum frequency distribution of EN 12341 (PM10), EN
14907 (PM2.5), which are adjusted under consideration of the segregation behaviour of the sample inlet of the test device and the particle density through
correlation to the gravimetrical measurement. For calibration of the channel
tresholds a mother device with defined latex particles is being used which calibrates all devices previous to shipment and also at the annual calibration. For
the annual calibration the spectrometer 180 shall be sent in to the manufacturer.
Calculation of the
fractions
Chart 1 Channel tresholds of the internal dust collection of the GRIMM EDM
180 test device in µm.
0.25
0.28
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.58
0.65
0.70
0.80
1.0
1.3
1.6
2.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
5.0
6.5
7.5
8.0
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
25.0
30.0
32.0
The ambient parameters air pressure, air temperature, and air humidity are being measured by sensors which are mounted on the inlet pipe close to the TSP
head. The sample pipe has an internal Nafion dryer which removes excessive
air humidity, which adulterates the dust mass determination, via the counter
flow principle.
2.5
Ambient parameter
During the equivalence test the measured data have been read out via the serial interface and based upon half hour averages stored onto the immission data
base of the Umweltbundesamt.
The measuring device is operable maintenance-free over a long period of time.
The manufacturer recommends to let the laser aerosol spectrometer inspect
and recalibrate at the factory every 12 months.
A detailed description of the calibration procedure is to be taken out of the annex B.
The running quality control while operation is limited to visual inspection of the
inlet pipe (pollution respectively icing) and inspection of the flow.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
9
Equivalence test for PM10 – General Information
2.2
Requirements
2.2.1
Measurement locations
Equivalence tests have to cover those requirements under which the devices
will be operated later on. Thus four measurement locations have been chosen,
which cover different, for air quality measurement typical requirements regarding PM concentration and composition in Austria and Central Europe, and especially volatile components and meteorological requirements:
•
Graz South (urban, traffic charged)
•
Steyregg (rural, influenced by industry)
•
Wieselsfeld (rural)
•
Klagenfurt (urban background)
2.2.2
Meteorological requirements
The two following charts show the ambient requirements and PM concentrations which have been observed during the four measurement campaigns.
Only 44 daily values were available for the candidate device K2 (for PM10) at
the measurement location Graz, because there has been a leakage at the sample pipe which could only be repaired after a time span of some weeks. This
explains the difference of the altogether highest measured concentrations between both candidate devices at the measurement location Graz (see Chart 5).
The given nitrate values (nitrate in PM2.5) were continuously being raised via
R&P 8400. As additional information also the nitrate share of PM2.5 (daily average) is cited.
Chart 2: Environmental conditions during the four measurement campaigns.
10
Air temperature
Air humidity
Air pressure
Wind speed
Nitrate
(° C)
(%)
(hPa)
(m/s)
(µg/m³)
DMV
min
–7.24
14.38
953.0
0.0
0.0
DMV
max
26.41
100.0
1,004.0
9.7
9.05
HMV
min
–10.42
4.83
950.0
0.0
0.0
HMV
max
34.34
100.0
1,006.9
16.0
64.48
DMV:
Daily mean value (here 23 hours mean value)
HMV:
Half hour mean value
AITE:
Air temperature
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – General Information
AIHU:
Relative air humidity
AIPR:
Barometric air pressure
WISP:
Wind speed
Chart 3: Minimum and maximum PM concentrations of the four measurement campaigns
C1
PM10
C2
PM10
Ref1
PM10
Ref2
PM10
C1
PM2.5
C2
PM2.5
Ref1
PM2.5
Ref2
PM2.5
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
DMV
min
3.01
2.91
3.2
3.3
1.91
1.89
0
1.4
DMV
max
136.04
121.91
117.19
116.38
85.73
84.19
77.80
76.23
HMV
min
0.0
0.5
--
--
0.0
0.5
--
--
HMV
max
618.81
373.57
--
--
122.18
122.05
--
--
DMV:
Daily mean value (here 23 hours mean value)
HMV:
Half hour mean value
C1, C2:
Candidate device
Ref1, Ref2:
Reference device
2.3
Description of the reference method
As reference method both for PM10 and PM2.5 in most cases both High-Voland Low-Vol-Sampler have been used. A very good conformity of both methods
was existent. Furthermore it was observable that the Between-SamplerUncertainty (ubs) of the High-Vol-Sampler was mostly smaller than the Low-VolSampler ones. Thus for analysis and diagnosis of the equivalence of the candidate devices as reference values, the results of the High-Vol-Sampler have
been used.
The provided sampling heads ( i.e. small filter device PM10 heads for small filter
devices and Digitel sampling heads for the High-Vol-Sampler) were applied.
The sampling time was in each case 23 hours in order to enable the daily filter
change and visual inspection of the deployed measuring devices. These operations were done from 7 a.m. until 8 a.m. respectively from 8 a.m. until 9 a.m. So
the daily mean values for the candidate devices were calculated for the same
period of time over 23 hours.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Sampling
11
Equivalence test for PM10 – General Information
The filters were conditioned, weighed and separately packed into plastic Petri
dishes respectively filter holders inside a temperature and humidity controlled
room for micro balance. The clear classification to its respective sampler and
sampling date happened via stamp marking; for instance the stamp mark „KF1
09 001“ classifies “Kleinfiltergerät” (small filter device; translator´s note) 1, year
st
2009, day 001, means January 1 2009. The transport from and to the measurement location took place inside a cooling box with cooling elements during
summertime in order to guarantee keeping the temperature limits for filter storing and transport according to the Austrian guideline EN 14907. Previous to the
usage of the filter at the measurement location they have been stored inside an
air-conditioned container.
The temperature and humidity controlled room for micro balance of the Umweltbundesamt (federal department for environment; translator ´s note) is climatical
equipped in such a way that the in the Austrian guidelines EN 12341 and 14907
given requirements for temperature and humidity controlled rooms for micro balance and filter conditioning (20° C ± 1° C und 50 % rH ± 5 %) can be adhered
to. The requirements for temperature and humidity controlled rooms for micro
balance are being captured via certified sensors and subsequently being saved
in the environmental monitoring network data base of the Umweltbundesamt as
half hour averages. The data are being controlled by a technician in measurement technology on weekdays. At noncompliance of the demanded requirements for temperature and humidity controlled rooms for micro balance no
weighing will be executed until the standard compliant condition has been reestablished.
Weighing
the filters
For weighing the filters a microbalance type Mettler Toledo MT5 with a resolution of 1 µg (LVS filter), as well as a microbalance type SARTORIUS MC210P
with a resolution of 10 µg (HVS filter) were used. These scales are being maintained and calibrated annually by a therefor certified institute. Within routine operation previous to every weighing series the proper functionality of the microbalances are being controlled using a reference weight. During the measurement for this equivalence test no noteworthy aberrations were detected.
The determination of the filter mass was executed according to the Austrian
guideline EN 14907 as double weighing also for the PM10 filters. Filters which
could not keep the set limits of mass difference for repeat determination were
discarded.
Flow
The flows of the sampler were calibrated previous to every measurement campaign by help of a transfer standard and during each of the four measurement
series inspected at least twice. The aberrations were in each case below the
measurement inaccuracy of the used calibration medium. Thus no correction of
the volumes was executed.
The pressure and temperature sensors have also been inspected regularly with
for this process appropriate transfer standards. The aberrations were in each
case below the measurement inaccuracy of the used calibration medium. Thus
no correction of the pressure and temperature values were executed.
The cleaning and recharging of the impact plate with silicone grease happened
weekly. The air tightness of the air intake system has also been controlled at
this opportunity.
The cleaning of the filter nozzles happened on demand.
12
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – General Information
2.4
Name and competence of the laboratory involved
The measurements in Graz South and Steyregg were executed in collaboration
between the Umweltbundesamt and the monitoring network operators of the
Austrian federal states. The measurements in Wieselsfeld and Klagenfurt were
executed by the Umweltbundesamt (department for air quality and energy) by
order of the company GRIMM.
The Umweltbundesamt operates the national EU reference laboratory for air
pollutants which has long-time experience at measuring PM´s. A temperature
and humidity controlled room for micro balance according to EN ISO 12341 is
being oerated since 1999. The personnel of the department for air quality & energy are also Austrian representatives in international scientific committees (e.g.
CEN/TC264/WG15) and direct Austrian standardization groups for immission
measurements respectively research groups for quality management of immission measurements in Austria.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
13
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
3
FIELD TEST
According to the guideline for evidence of equivalence of measuring methods
(EC WORKING GROUP 2009) there is a field test necessary for the equivalence of
continuous PM monitors. No testings in laboratories are designated.
3.1
Description of the locations
The following map shows the geographical position for the four measurement
locations.
Chart 2: Map of the measurement locations where equivalence tests have been executed.
Details to the four locations are listed below.
14
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
3.1.1
Measurement location Graz South
•
Address: Herrgottwiesgasse 157, 8055 Graz
•
Longitude: 15° 25' 59.8"
•
Latitude: 47° 02' 39.3"
•
Sea level: 345 m
•
Topography:
Half open basin on the edge of the Alps
•
Settlement structure:
City population 100,000 to 500,000, periphery
•
Local surrounding area:
Minor charged industrial area
Residential area
Moderate intense traffic
Forest, meadow
•
Direct surrounding area:
Moderate intense traffic, meadow
Figure 3: Equivalence measurement location Graz South. (© Amt der Steiermärkischen
Landesregierung, Andreas Murg)
The measurements on the location Graz South took place from December 2007
until March 2008. The measuring period was affected by high PM concentrations.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
15
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
The basic conditions and the determined concentration ranges, which were observed within this measurement campaign, are to be taken out from the following charts.
Chart 4: Environmental conditions, equivalence test measurement location Graz South.
Air temperature
Air humidity
Air pressure
Wind
speed
Nitrate
Nitrate
share of
PM2.5
(° C)
(%)
(hPa)
(m/s)
(µg/m³)
(%)
DMV
min
–7.24
33.90
964
0.04
0.70
16.4
DMV
max
13.29
100.0
1,000
2.38
9.05
8.5
HMV
min
–10.42
4.83
958
0.00
0.27
--
HMV
max
19.19
100.0
1,003
8.13
64.48
--
HMV:
Half hour mean value
DMV:
Daily mean value
Chart 5: Minimum and maximum PM concentrations, equivalence test measurement location Graz South.
C1
PM10
C2*
PM10
Ref1
PM10
Ref2
PM10
C1
PM2.5
C2
PM2.5
Ref1
PM2.5
Ref2
PM2.5
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
DMV
min
6.97
7.49
8.75
7.97
1,91
1,89
4.85
4.30
DMV
max
136.04
121.91
117.19
116.38
85.73
84.19
77.80
76.23
HMV
min
1.03
1.01
--
--
0.59
0.60
--
--
HMV
max
618.81
373.53
--
--
122.18
122.05
--
--
* from the candidate device 2 (PM10) only 44 DMV´s could have been taken, because the first values had to be discarded due to a leakage in the air intake system.
16
HMV
Half hour mean value
DMV
Daily mean value
C1, C2
Candidate device
Ref1, Ref2
Reference device
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
3.1.2
Measurement location Steyregg
•
Address: Parking lot, leisure facility, Am See 2, 4221 Steyregg
•
Longitude: 14° 21' 57.0"
•
Latitude 48° 16' 44.0"
•
Sea level: 250 m
•
Topography: Plain on the edge of hill country
•
Settlement structure: City population 5,000 to 10,000, periphery
•
Local surrounding area:
Residential area
Moderately charged industrial area
Forest, meadow
•
Direct surrounding area: Parking lot, leisure facility
Figure 4: Equivalence test measurement location Steyregg. (© Umweltbundesamt, Andreas Wolf)
The measurements at the location Steyregg were executed from June 2008 until August 2008.
The basic conditions and the determined concentration ranges, which were observed within this measurement campaign, are to be taken out from the following charts.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
17
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
Chart 6: Environmental conditions, equivalence test measurement location Steyregg.
Air temperature
Air humidity
Air pressure
Wind speed
Nitrate
Nitrate
share of
PM2.5
(° C)
(%)
(hPa)
(m/s)
(µg/m³)
(%)
DMV
min
10.9
58.7
981.4
--
0.5
11.0
DMV
max
26.2
95.5
995.0
--
3.4
*
HMV
min
6.3
30.5
978.5
0.0
0.0
HMV
max
33.7
100.0
996.9
6.1
8.7
* for the day of the highest DMV at PM2.5 no valid NO3-values are available
HMV:
Half hour mean value
DMV:
Daily mean value
Chart 7: Minimum and maximum PM concentrations, equivalence test measurement location Steyregg.
18
C1
PM10
C2
PM10
Ref1
PM10
Ref2
PM10
C1
PM2.5
C2
PM2.5
Ref1
PM2.5
Ref2
PM2.5
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
DMV
min
12.0
12.1
11.98
12.46
8.5
8.6
8.16
7.78
DMV
max
39.4
41.5
36.20
36.56
24.4
25.4
23.33
23.30
HMV
min
5.0
5.2
--
--
4.1
3.9
--
--
HMV
max
147.1
145.1
--
--
79.8
83.7
--
--
HMV
Half hour mean value
DMV
Daily mean value
C1, C2
Candidate device
Ref1, Ref2
Reference device
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
3.1.3
Measurement location Wieselsfeld
•
Address: Falkenbergerweg 62, 2020 Wieselsfeld
•
Longitude: 16°07’16.1“
•
Latitude: 48°34’30.8“
•
Sea level: 290 m
•
Topography: slightly hilly
•
Settlement structure: Small town, population ca. 100
•
Local surrounding area: Agriculturally used green area, residential area
highway (B40)
•
Direct surrounding area: Garden
Figure 5: Equivalence test measurement location Wieselsfeld. (© Umweltbundesamt,
Andreas Wolf)
The measurements at the location Wieselsfeld were executed from December
2008 until March 2009. The basic conditions and the determined concentration
ranges, which were observed within this measurement campaign, are to be
taken out from the following charts.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
19
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
Chart 8: Environmental conditions, equivalence test measurement location Wieselsfeld.
Air temperature
Air humidity
Air pressure
Wind
speed
Nitrate
Nitrate
share of
PM2.5
(° C)
(%)
(hPa)
(m/s)
(µg/m³)
(%)
DMV
min
–5.17
14.38
957.0
0.1
0.1
58.3
DMV
max
7.57
87.34
1,004.0
9.7
7.70
15.8
HMV
min
–8.59
8.98
954.9
0.1
0.0
--
HMV
max
9.96
89.13
1,006.9
16.0
9.94
--
HMV
Half hour mean value
DMV
Daily mean value
Chart 9: Minimum and maximum PM concentrations, equivalence test measurement location Wieselsfeld.
20
C1
PM10
CK2
PM10
Ref1
PM10
Ref2
PM10
CK1
PM2,5
C2
PM2,5
Ref1
PM2,5
Ref2
PM2,5
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
µg/m³
DMV
min
4.21
4.13
3.2
3.3
4.06
3.94
1.9
1.4
DMV
max
52.37
54.39
48.2
50.0
51.12
53.04
42.4
45.7
HMV
min
1.00
1.00
--
--
0.90
0.90
--
--
HMV
max
184.50
183.10
--
--
95.50
100.6
--
--
HMV
Half hour mean value
DMV
Daily mean value
C1, C2
Candidate device
Ref1, Ref2
Reference device
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
3.1.4
Measurement location Klagenfurt
•
Address: Siriusstraße 3, 9020 Klagenfurt
•
Longitude: 14°19’10.2“
•
Latidtude: 46°37’11.0“
•
Sea level: 440 m
•
Topography: Basin surrounded by low or high mountain
range, flat terrain
•
Settlement structure: City population 50,000 to 100,000,
downtown area
•
Local surrounding area: Residential area, parking lot
•
Direct surrounding area: Parking lot office building
Figure 6: Equivalence test measurement location Klagenfurt. (© Umweltbundesamt, Andreas Wolf)
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
21
Equivalence test for PM10 – Field test
The measurements at the location Klagenfurt were executed from June 2008
until August 2009. The basic conditions and the determined concentration
ranges, which were observed within this measurement campaign, are to be
taken out from the following charts.
Chart 10: Environmental conditions, equivalence test measurement location Klagenfurt.
Air temperature
Air humidity
Air pressure
Wind speed
Nitrate
Nitrate
share of
PM2.5
(° C)
(%)
(hPa)
(m/s)
(µg/m³)
(%)
DMV
min
12.47
42.2
953.0
0.1
0.39
63.9
DMV
max
26.41
83.8
972.0
0.5
1.17
7.6
HMV
min
10.25
19.4
950.0
0.08
0.08
--
HMV
max
34.34
88.8
974.9
1.6
3.40
--
* Due to a device failure for NO3 only 38 DMV are available
HMV
Half hour mean value
DMV
Daily mean value
Chart 11: Minimum and maximum PM concentrations, equivalence test measurement location Klagenfurt.
22
C1
PM10
C2
PM10
C1
PM2.5
C2
PM2.5
Ref
PM10
Ref
PM2.5
(µg/m³)
(µg/m³)
(µg/m³)
(µg/m³)
(µg/m³)
(µg/m³)
DMV
min
3.01
2.91
2.40
2.35
4.34
0.6
DMV
max
31.02
30.36
19.78
19.76
25.38
15.0
HMV
min
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
--
--
HMV
max
63.3
55.10
31.8
31.9
--
--
HMV
Half hour mean value
DMV
Daily mean value
C1, C2
Candidate device
Ref1, Ref2
Reference device
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Results of the field test
4
RESULTS OF THE FIELD TEST
According to the European guideline for evidence of equivalence (EC W ORKING
GROUP 2009) the analysis is necessary of the data sets regarding on the one
hand the inaccuracy between the parallel operated samplers respectively monitors and on the other hand regarding the comparability to the reference method.
In detail following conditions are to be met:
•
Qualification of the data sets (chapter 9.5.1 of the guideline).
20 % of the measured data have to be bigger than half the limit value
concentration. Because there does not exist a limit value relating to 24
hours for PM2.5, a value of 25 µg/m³ has been used for the calculations.
•
Inaccuracy between the parallel operated samplers respectively monitors (chapter 9.5.2.1 of the guideline).
This has to be < 3 µg/m³ for the candidate method, and for the reference method < 2 µg/m³; at every single measurement location, for all
measurement results together and for the data sets greater equal respectively less than 50% of the upper assessment treshold.
•
Comparison to the reference method by orthogonal regression (chapter
9.5.2.2 of the guideline).
This calculation is to be done for every data set at every single measurement location, for all measurement results together and for the data
set with a concentration greater equal respectively less than 50% of the
upper assessment treshold. Following criteria are valid for the results:
The gradient deviates only insignificantly from 1 and the axis intercept
only insignificantly from 0. Is that not the case, then according to the results of the orthogonal regression of the total data set the gradient
and/or the axis intercept may be corrected. The calculations of the regression are to be repeated with the corrected data sets.
For the candidate method also the orthogonal regression was calculated through the zero-point.
For the candidate method a correction has to be made. The corrected
data sets meet the demands (see chapter 4.1).
•
The enhanced combined measurement inaccuracy of all data sets of
the candidate method is to be calculated and to be compared to data
quality targets (chapter 9.5.3 and 9.5.4 of the guideline).
These calculations were executed for all data sets.
•
Comparison of the enhanced combined measurement inaccuracy to the
ones admitted within the data quality targets.
The maximum value of the enhanced combined measurement inaccuracy is to be taken for the comparison.
For the candidate method the maximum enhanced combined measurement inaccuracy is less than 25%.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Requirements of the
guideline
23
Equivalence test for PM10 – Results of the field test
The analysis has to follow the regulations of the guideline for the demonstration
of equivalence. The calculation happened via a pre-assembled Excel sheet,
which has been developed by the Joint Research Centre in Ispra for the guideline.
Approach
In principle the proceedings are as follows:
Inspection of the total data set for technical aberrations:
•
Filter, which do not meet the criteria for double weighing have been removed.
•
Days, which showed anomalies at the daily supervision (e. g. icing of
the sample inlet) were also not considered for the analysis.
Subsequent the Between-Sampler-Uncertainty of the remaining valid data is being calculated in order to verify if the data set can be subject to an equivalence
inspection.
After that via the valid data set the comparison to the reference method is being
done. The calculations happen by help of the pre-assembled Excel sheet from
the guideline.
If the analysis of the total data set shows a significant aberration in gradient
and/or axis intercept for the candidate method, it has to be ensured that the application of this calibration function also shows a valid result for every single
measurement location.
In addition the total data set is being separated into these values which are
above 50% of the upper assessment treshold respectively below. The above
described steps are being applied to the former data set once again.
In the following the results of this approach are being recapitulated. The detailed results are to be taken out of the annex A.
4.1
Results for PM10
For each of the checked data sets the demands of the orthogonal regression
could not be met at first, thus following calibration function was calculated out of
the total data set:
CEquivalence = CKan corr = (cKan – 0.37)/1.155
After application of the calibration function an enhanced measurement inaccuracy (at the limit value) of 16.3% results for the total data set.
24
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Results of the field test
4.1.1
Measurement location Graz South
Within the measurement period 82 valid pairs of values for PM10 could be
gained. The concentration range was between 8 µg/m³ and 117 µg/m³.
The application of the calibration function to the data set of the measurement
location Graz results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 1.022 – 1.86
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 19.1 %.
Between – RM Uncertainty:
0.56 µg/m³
Between – CM Uncertainty:
1.34 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
4.1.2
Measurement location Steyregg
Within the measurement period 51 valid pairs of values for PM10 could be
gained. The concentration range was between 12 µg/m³ and 37 µg/m³.
The application of the calibration function to the data set of the measurement
location Steyregg results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 1.000 + 2.40
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 14.3 %.
Between – RM Uncertainty:
0.44 µg/m³
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.42 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
4.1.3
Measurement location Wieselsfeld
Within the measurement period 42 valid pairs of values for PM10 could be
gained. The concentration range was between 3 µg/m³ and 50 µg/m³.
The application of the calibration function to the data set of the measurement
location Wieselsfeld results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 1.038 – 2.89
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 19.2 %.
Between – RM Uncertainty:
1.24 µg/m³
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.70 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
25
Equivalence test for PM10 – Results of the field test
4.1.4
Measurement location Klagenfurt
Within the measurement period 56 valid pairs of values for PM10 could be
gained. The concentration range was between 4 µg/m³ and 25 µg/m³.
The application of the calibration function to the data set of the measurement
location Klagenfurt results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 1.027 – 0.20
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 6.7 %.
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.54 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
4.1.5
Data set above 50% of the upper assessment treshold
For PM10 the value of the upper assessment treshold is defined with 35 µg/m³i
according to the air quality regulation of the European Union. For this criteria
(DMV > 17,5 µg/m³) 142 valid pairs of values for PM10 were gained within the
measurement period. The application of the calibration function to this data set
results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 0.998 + 0.27
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 18.1 %.
Between – RM Uncertainty:
0.76 µg/m³
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.82 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
4.2
Results for PM2.5
For each of the checked data sets the demands of the orthogonal regression
could not be met at first, thus following calibration function was calculated out of
the total data set:
CEquivalence = CKan korr = (cKan – 3,3)/1.085
Thus an enhanced measurement inaccuracy of 19.3% results for the total data
set N = 189.
26
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Results of the field test
4.2.1
Measurement location Graz South
Within the measurement period 46 valid pairs of values for PM2.5 could be
gained. The concentration range was between 4 µg/m³ and 78 µg/m³.
The application of the calibration function to the data set of the measurement
location Graz results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 1.010 + 0.39
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 23.5 %.
Between – RM Uncertainty:
0.99 µg/m³
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.38 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
4.2.2
Measurement location Steyregg
Within the measurement period 47 valid pairs of values for PM2.5 could be
gained. The concentration range was between 8 µg/m³ and 23 µg/m³.
The application of the calibration function to the data set of the measurement
location Steyregg results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 0.885 + 1.23
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 24.4 %.
Between – RM Uncertainty:
0.59 µg/m³
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.27 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
4.2.3
Measurement location Wieselsfeld
Within the measurement period 40 valid pairs of values for PM2.5 could be
gained. The concentration range was between 1 µg/m³ and 46 µg/m³.
The application of the calibration function to the data set of the measurement
location Wieselsfeld results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 0.943 –0.41
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 24.4 %.
Between – RM Uncertainty:
1.02 µg/m³
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.54 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
27
Equivalence test for PM10 – Results of the field test
4.2.4
Measurement location Klagenfurt
Within the measurement period 56 valid pairs of values for PM2.5 could be
gained. The concentration range was between 1 µg/m³ and 15 µg/m³.
The application of the calibration function to the data set of the measurement
location Klagenfurt results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 1.052 + 0.37
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) von 17.1 %.
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.29 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
4.2.5. Data set above 50 % of the upper assessment treshold
For PM2.5 there are no assessment tresholds for daily mean values defined in
the air quality regulation of the European Union. Thus half the value of the upper assessment treshold for PM10 (DMV 8.75 µg/m³) has been entered for this
criteria. Within the measurement period 133 valid pairs of values for PM2.5
could be gained. The application of the calibration function to this data set results in an equation for the orthogonal regression of:
CEquivalence = CKan * 1.010 – 0.31
With an enhanced inaccuracy (k = 2) of 21.1 %.
Between – RM Uncertainty:
0.93 µg/m³
Between – CM Uncertainty:
0.40 µg/m³
This result confirms the equivalence according to the demands of the guideline.
28
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Conclusion
5
CONCLUSION
The continuous PM monitor GRIMM EDM 180 met the criteria demanded in the
guideline for evidence of equivalence of measurement methods at all four
measurement locations. The demands regarding axis interception, gradient, and
measurement inaccuracy haven been fulfilled for the total data set. Also at the
application to the data of every single measurement location the demands were
fulfilled.
Demanded criteria
have been met
During the whole operating time a high availability was present without any
technical failures. The function inspection in the factory did neither show any
significant aberrations compared to the reference detector, nor was any maintenance due to abrasion necessary.
The Between-Sampler-Uncertainty, for which a maximum admitted value of
3.0 µg/m³ is determined in the guideline for equivalence, was kept at all four
measurement locations at any time. The maximum observed Between-SamplerUncertainty added up for PM10 1.34 µg/m³ and for PM2.5 0.54 µg/m³.
The continuous PM monitor GRIMM EDM 180 thus is under the tested conditions of the gravimetric reference method equivalent for PM10 and PM2.5.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
29
Equivalence test for PM10 – References
6
REFERENCES
EC WORKING GROUP (2005): Guide to the Demonstration of Equivalence of Ambient Air
Monitoring Methods. Report by an EC Working group on Guidance for the Demonstration
of Equivalence.
EC WORKING GROUP (2009): Guide to the Demonstration of Equivalence of Ambient Air
Monitoring Methods (Version 2009). Report by an EC Working group on Guidance for
the Demonstration of Equivalence.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/pdf/equivalence.pdf
GRIMM (2009): User manual Mobile Dust Monitor ENVIRON CHECK 180. GRIMM Aerosol Technik GmbH & Co. KG, Ainring, Germany.
Air quality regulation (RL 2008/50/EG): Regulation 2008/50/EG of the European parliast
ment and the council from May 21 2008 about air quality and clean air for Europe. ABl. L 152/1.
ÖNORM (Austrian standard) EN 12341: Air quality – Determination of the PM10 fractions
of airborne dust – Reference method and field test operation for evidence of
equality of measurement method and reference method.
ÖNORM (Austrian standard) EN 14907: Air quality – Gravimetric standard measurement
method for determination of the PM2.5 mass fraction of airborne dust.
30
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex A: Results in tabular form
7
ANNEX A: RESULTS IN TABULAR FORM
Total data set PM10
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,155
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,37
uncertainty of a
0,47
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,67
bias at LV
8,12
combined uncertainty
9,37
relative uncertainty at the LV
18,73
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,77
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,37
uncertainty of a
0,40
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,06
bias at LV
0,30
combined uncertainty
4,07
relative uncertainty at the LV
8,14
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,77
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,15
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,47
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,70
bias at LV
7,75
combined uncertainty
9,06
relative uncertainty at the LV
18,12
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,77
significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,05
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,40
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,08
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,02
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
4,08
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
8,17
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,77
ug/m3
Data set PM10 Graz South without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,132
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
2,37
uncertainty of a
1,27
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
5,48
bias at LV
8,95
combined uncertainty
10,50
relative uncertainty at the LV
20,99
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
2,17
uncertainty of a
1,12
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,91
bias at LV
2,11
combined uncertainty
5,34
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,68
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,13
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,27
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
5,62
bias at LV
6,58
combined uncertainty
8,66
relative uncertainty at the LV
17,32
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
0,76
significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
0,08
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,12
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
5,07
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,02
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
5,07
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,14
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,76
ug/m3
31
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex A: Results in tabular form
Data set PM10 Graz South with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,978
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
1,82
uncertainty of a
1,10
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,72
bias at LV
0,74
combined uncertainty
4,78
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,56
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,98
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,10
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,85
bias at LV
-1,08
combined uncertainty
4,97
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,94
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
1,85
uncertainty of a
1,13
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,89
bias at LV
1,86
combined uncertainty
5,23
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,47
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,76
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
-0,01
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,13
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
5,02
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,00
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
5,02
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,03
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,76
ug/m3
Data set PM10 Steyregg without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,180
uncertainty of b
0,08
intercept a
-2,92
uncertainty of a
1,79
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,17
bias at LV
6,06
combined uncertainty
6,84
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,68
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,18
uncertainty of b
0,08
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,79
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,64
bias at LV
8,98
combined uncertainty
9,70
relative uncertainty at the LV
19,39
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,98
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
-1,97
uncertainty of a
1,52
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,80
bias at LV
-3,15
combined uncertainty
5,74
relative uncertainty at the LV
11,48
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,76
significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,98
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
0,51
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,52
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
5,12
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,67
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
5,17
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,34
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,76
ug/m3
Data set PM10 Steyregg with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,000
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
-2,40
uncertainty of a
1,55
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,69
bias at LV
-2,38
combined uncertainty
3,59
relative uncertainty at the LV
7,17
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
-2,40
uncertainty of a
1,55
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,40
bias at LV
-2,40
combined uncertainty
5,01
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,02
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
32
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,55
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,10
bias at LV
0,02
combined uncertainty
3,10
relative uncertainty at the LV
6,21
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,76
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
0,00
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,55
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,66
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,00
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
4,66
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,33
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,76
ug/m3
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex A: Results in tabular form
Data set PM10 Wieselsfeld without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,133
uncertainty of b
0,08
intercept a
3,16
uncertainty of a
1,91
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
5,52
bias at LV
9,79
combined uncertainty
11,25
relative uncertainty at the LV
22,49
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,24
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,98
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
3,11
uncertainty of a
1,69
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
6,27
bias at LV
2,35
combined uncertainty
6,70
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,39
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,24
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,13
uncertainty of b
0,08
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,91
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
5,85
bias at LV
6,63
combined uncertainty
8,84
relative uncertainty at the LV
17,68
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
1,24
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,98
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
0,32
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,69
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
6,55
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,44
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
6,57
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,14
fail
RM between-sampler uncertainty 1,24
ug/m3
Data set PM10 Wieselsfeld with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,963
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
2,78
uncertainty of a
1,65
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,70
bias at LV
0,95
combined uncertainty
4,79
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,58
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,24
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
2,79
uncertainty of a
1,72
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
6,01
bias at LV
3,02
combined uncertainty
6,73
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,46
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,24
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,96
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,65
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,98
bias at LV
-1,83
combined uncertainty
5,30
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,61
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
1,24
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,07
intercept a
-0,10
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,72
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
6,24
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,13
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
6,24
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
12,48
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 1,24
ug/m3
Data set PM10 Klagenfurt without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,130
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
0,53
uncertainty of a
0,50
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,49
bias at LV
7,02
combined uncertainty
7,17
relative uncertainty at the LV
14,34
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
0,51
uncertainty of a
0,44
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,29
bias at LV
0,32
combined uncertainty
2,31
relative uncertainty at the LV
4,62
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,13
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,50
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,57
bias at LV
6,49
combined uncertainty
6,68
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,35
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
0,76
significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
0,05
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,44
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,34
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,15
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,35
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
4,70
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,76
ug/m3
33
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex A: Results in tabular form
Data set PM10 Klagenfurt with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,974
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
0,19
uncertainty of a
0,43
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,23
bias at LV
-1,13
combined uncertainty
1,67
relative uncertainty at the LV
3,34
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
0,18
uncertainty of a
0,45
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,09
bias at LV
0,23
combined uncertainty
2,10
relative uncertainty at the LV
4,20
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,97
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,43
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,31
bias at LV
-1,32
combined uncertainty
1,86
relative uncertainty at the LV
3,71
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,76
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
-0,01
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,45
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,13
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,03
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,13
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
4,26
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,76
ug/m3
Data set PM10 upper assessment threshold without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,002
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
-0,28
uncertainty of a
1,79
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
12,45
bias at LV
-0,17
combined uncertainty
12,45
relative uncertainty at the LV
24,91
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
-0,27
uncertainty of a
1,79
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
12,53
bias at LV
-0,28
combined uncertainty
12,53
relative uncertainty at the LV
25,06
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,79
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
12,58
bias at LV
0,11
combined uncertainty
12,58
relative uncertainty at the LV
25,16
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
0,76
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,03
intercept a
0,01
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,79
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
12,66
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,00
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
12,66
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
25,31
fail
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,76
ug/m3
Data set PM10 upper assessment threshold with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,002
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
-0,27
uncertainty of a
0,67
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,52
bias at LV
-0,17
combined uncertainty
4,52
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,05
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
-0,27
uncertainty of a
0,67
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,55
bias at LV
-0,27
combined uncertainty
4,56
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,12
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,76
34
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,67
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,57
bias at LV
0,10
combined uncertainty
4,57
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,14
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,76
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,00
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,67
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
4,60
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,00
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
4,60
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,20
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,76
ug/m3
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex A: Results in tabular form
Total data set PM2.5
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,085
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
3,30
uncertainty of a
0,29
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,60
bias at LV
5,42
combined uncertainty
6,01
relative uncertainty at the LV
24,05
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,91
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
3,05
uncertainty of a
0,27
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,39
bias at LV
3,03
combined uncertainty
3,86
relative uncertainty at the LV
15,43
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,91
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,09
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,29
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,62
bias at LV
2,13
combined uncertainty
3,37
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,49
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
significant
significant
not significant
significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
0,91
significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,02
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,27
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,41
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,01
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,41
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,63
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,91
ug/m3
Total data set PM2.5 with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,01
uncertainty of a
0,27
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,37
bias at LV
-0,01
combined uncertainty
2,37
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,48
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,91
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,01
uncertainty of a
0,27
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,39
bias at LV
0,01
combined uncertainty
2,39
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,55
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,91
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,27
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,38
bias at LV
-0,02
combined uncertainty
2,38
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,54
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,91
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,00
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,27
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,40
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,00
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,40
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,61
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,91
ug/m3
Data set PM2.5 Graz South without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,08
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
2,84
uncertainty of a
1,02
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,14
bias at LV
4,73
combined uncertainty
5,67
relative uncertainty at the LV
22,69
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,03
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
2,67
uncertainty of a
0,94
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,95
bias at LV
2,65
combined uncertainty
3,97
relative uncertainty at the LV
15,88
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,03
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,08
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,02
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,30
bias at LV
1,88
combined uncertainty
3,80
relative uncertainty at the LV
15,19
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
significant
significant
not significant
significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
1,03
significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
0,03
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,94
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,12
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,01
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
3,12
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
12,49
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 1,03
ug/m3
35
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex A: Results in tabular form
Data set PM2.5 Graz South with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,99
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
-0,39
uncertainty of a
0,94
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,86
bias at LV
-0,63
combined uncertainty
2,93
relative uncertainty at the LV
11,73
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,03
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
-0,40
uncertainty of a
0,95
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,95
bias at LV
-0,39
combined uncertainty
2,97
relative uncertainty at the LV
11,89
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,03
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,99
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,94
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,01
bias at LV
-0,25
combined uncertainty
3,02
relative uncertainty at the LV
12,09
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
1,03
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
0,00
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,95
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,09
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,00
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
3,09
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
12,37
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 1,03
ug/m3
Data set PM2.5 Steyregg without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,26
uncertainty of b
0,12
intercept a
1,43
uncertainty of a
1,39
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,61
bias at LV
7,97
combined uncertainty
8,38
relative uncertainty at the LV
33,53
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,89
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,93
uncertainty of b
0,09
intercept a
1,95
uncertainty of a
1,10
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,47
bias at LV
0,18
combined uncertainty
3,48
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,91
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,89
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,26
uncertainty of b
0,12
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,39
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,95
bias at LV
6,54
combined uncertainty
7,17
relative uncertainty at the LV
28,70
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
0,89
significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,93
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,09
intercept a
0,82
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,10
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,74
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,96
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
3,86
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
15,44
fail
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,89
ug/m3
Data set PM2.5 Steyregg with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,13
uncertainty of b
0,11
intercept a
-1,39
uncertainty of a
1,28
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,34
bias at LV
1,95
combined uncertainty
3,04
relative uncertainty at the LV
12,18
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,89
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,96
uncertainty of b
0,09
intercept a
-0,77
uncertainty of a
1,13
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,32
bias at LV
-1,75
combined uncertainty
3,76
relative uncertainty at the LV
15,03
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,89
36
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,13
uncertainty of b
0,11
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
1,28
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,67
bias at LV
3,34
combined uncertainty
4,27
relative uncertainty at the LV
17,08
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
0,89
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,96
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,09
intercept a
0,45
not significant
uncertainty of a
1,13
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
3,56
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,53
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
3,60
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
14,41
fail
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,89
ug/m3
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex A: Results in tabular form
Data set PM2.5 Wieselsfeld without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,16
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
3,71
uncertainty of a
0,96
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,56
bias at LV
7,60
combined uncertainty
8,02
relative uncertainty at the LV
32,07
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,03
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
3,30
uncertainty of a
0,83
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,42
bias at LV
3,19
combined uncertainty
4,00
relative uncertainty at the LV
16,01
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,03
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,06
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
0,43
uncertainty of a
0,88
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,32
bias at LV
1,99
combined uncertainty
3,05
relative uncertainty at the LV
12,22
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,16
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,96
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,73
bias at LV
3,89
combined uncertainty
4,75
relative uncertainty at the LV
19,00
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
significant
significant
1,03
significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
0,08
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,83
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,60
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,03
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,60
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,42
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 1,03
ug/m3
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,06
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
0,00
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,88
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,48
ug/m3
bias at LV
1,56
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,93
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
11,72
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
not significant
significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
Datensatz PM2,5 Wieselsfeld mit Kalibrierfunktion
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,03
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
0,44
uncertainty of a
0,83
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,39
bias at LV
0,39
combined uncertainty
2,42
relative uncertainty at the LV
9,68
RM between-sampler uncertainty
1,03
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
1,03
ug/m3
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,04
intercept a
0,03
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,83
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,55
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,01
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,55
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,18
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 1,03
ug/m3
Data set PM2.5 Klagenfurt without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,03
uncertainty of b
0,06
intercept a
2,88
uncertainty of a
0,41
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,43
bias at LV
3,72
combined uncertainty
3,99
relative uncertainty at the LV
15,94
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,89
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,06
intercept a
2,81
uncertainty of a
0,40
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,99
bias at LV
2,72
combined uncertainty
3,37
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,50
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,89
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,03
uncertainty of b
0,06
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,41
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,49
bias at LV
0,84
combined uncertainty
1,71
relative uncertainty at the LV
6,85
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
significant
not significant
significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
0,89
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,06
intercept a
0,02
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,40
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,03
ug/m3
bias at LV
-0,06
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,03
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
8,14
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,89
ug/m3
37
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex A: Results in tabular form
Data set PM2.5 Klagenfurt with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,95
uncertainty of b
0,05
intercept a
-0,34
uncertainty of a
0,38
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,27
bias at LV
-1,72
combined uncertainty
2,14
relative uncertainty at the LV
8,54
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,89
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,01
uncertainty of b
0,06
intercept a
-0,40
uncertainty of a
0,40
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,92
bias at LV
-0,26
combined uncertainty
1,94
relative uncertainty at the LV
7,76
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,89
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,95
uncertainty of b
0,05
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,38
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,33
bias at LV
-1,37
combined uncertainty
1,91
relative uncertainty at the LV
7,64
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,89
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,01
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,06
intercept a
-0,03
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,40
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
1,96
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,11
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
1,96
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
7,85
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,89
ug/m3
Data set PM2.5 upper assessment threshold without calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,08
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
3,61
uncertainty of a
0,45
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,89
bias at LV
5,49
combined uncertainty
6,21
relative uncertainty at the LV
24,83
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,95
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
3,38
uncertainty of a
0,42
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,70
bias at LV
3,36
combined uncertainty
4,31
relative uncertainty at the LV
17,23
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,95
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,08
uncertainty of b
0,02
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,45
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,93
bias at LV
1,88
combined uncertainty
3,48
relative uncertainty at the LV
13,93
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
significant
significant
not significant
significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
fail
ug/m3
0,95
significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,02
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,42
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,74
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,00
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,74
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,94
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,95
ug/m3
Data set PM2.5 upper assessment threshold with calibration function
UNCORRECTED DATA
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,99
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,31
uncertainty of a
0,42
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,64
bias at LV
0,06
combined uncertainty
2,64
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,57
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,95
SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,31
uncertainty of a
0,42
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,70
bias at LV
0,32
combined uncertainty
2,72
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,86
RM between-sampler uncertainty
0,95
38
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
INTERCEPT CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
0,99
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,00
uncertainty of a
0,42
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,67
bias at LV
-0,26
combined uncertainty
2,69
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,74
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
RM between-sampler uncertainty
ug/m3
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
ug/m3
ug/m3
ug/m3
pass
ug/m3
0,95
not significant
not significant
INTERCEPT AND SLOPE CORRECTION
REGRESSION OUTPUT
slope b
1,00
not significant
uncertainty of b
0,01
intercept a
0,00
not significant
uncertainty of a
0,42
EQUIVALENCE TEST RESULTS
random term
2,73
ug/m3
bias at LV
0,00
ug/m3
combined uncertainty
2,73
ug/m3
relative uncertainty at the LV
10,92
pass
RM between-sampler uncertainty 0,95
ug/m3
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex B: Calibration grimm EDM 180
8
ANNEX B: CALIBRATION GRIMM EDM 180
The following description of the proceedings for calibration was taken out from
the manufacturer´s manual EDM 180.
How calibrates GRIMM?
The calibration of aerosol spectrometers is done in a different way by each
manufacturer. Such a method can be denominated as “house-standard“. There
is no worldwide standard for calibration of aerosol spectrometers, but every
manufacturer is supposed to use the standard aerosol particles for size calibration (poly-styrene latex, PSL). The Grimm “calibration-house-standard“ is based
upon a comparison between a “mother device” calibrated with PSL and a “candidate”. For this comparison a specially developed calibration tower as well as a
specific software is being used. The test aerosol is poly-disperse dolomite dust.
What is a GRIMM ”Mother device“?
For every model series a mother device exists. For the mother device there was
a certain calibration response curve calculated containing all relevant parameters of the aerosol spectrometer (laser wave length, position of the detector,
opening angle of the detector, PSL refractive index m = 1,60 +i0, etc..). Hereupon the mother device will be „feeded“ with different mono-disperse PSL samples and so validates the particle size measurement for this standard material.
The first Grimm mother device, sort of “grandmother”, moreover was being
compared to a reference device, viz. the laser aerosol spectrometer model LASX by PMS, Boulder, Colorado. By this procedure the correct particle size measurement is ensured within the designated channels, e.g. for the models 107,
180, or 365.
Kalibration, physikalischer Hintergrund
Calibration, physics background
Particle sizing is calibrated with NIST traceable Poly-Styrene Latex (PSL), Duke
Scientific. So we measure optical latex equivalent diameters. The size channels
are related to electronic thresholds. A single particle passing the laser beam will
scatter the incident laser light. This scattered light is collected by a mirror in a
given angle and focused to the detector. The photons collected by the detector
will give a "raw-signal" which will be amplified and classified by a pulse height
analyzer into a particle size channel. So number concentration and size of the
aerosol particles can be measured.
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010
39
Equivalence test for PM10 – Annex B: Calibration grimm EDM 180
GRIMM Aerosol Technik Kalibrationsroutine
The calibration between a candidate and the mother unit is done by use of a
"Grimm Calibration Tower" that is fully computer-controlled and -automated
and poly disperse dolomite dust as a standard aerosol. Dolomite dust is cheap,
anoxic, not hygroscopic, poly disperse and very stable during storage. The
dolomite dust covers the entire sizing range for all Grimm spectrometer from
app. 0.2µm up to >30µm. Due to the fact that both the mother unit and the candidate are manufactured identically, the dolomite dust must lead to identical results in both spectrometers. The dolomite dust is injected by a 40msec pulse of
particle-free compressed air at the top of the cylindrical calibration tower and
dispersed homogeneously over the whole round cross-section. At the bottom of
the calibration tower up to three candidates and one mother unit are attached to
identical aerosol inlets. A reverse flow of particle-free compressed air from the
bottom to the top of the cylindrical tower guaranties a well-defined and reproducible aerosol particle distribution during the whole calibration procedure.
During the calibration the counts in every single size channel, starting from the
biggest, are compared between the mother unit and the candidate simultaneously. The calibration software is able to compare six size channels at the same
time. The statistical comparison is based on a mean value calculated by a set of
15 single values. A single value is displayed every 6 seconds. Depending on
the measured particle concentration, the calibration software can adjust the
electronically thresholds of the candidate.
The mean value comparison is repeated approximately 10 times for each size
channel, until all readings of the candidate are repeatedly within a given range
with a accuracy of ± 2%, compared to the mother unit. The certified accuracy for
the mass mode is ± 5%, because of the fact that the particle diameter affects
the particle mass by the third power. The calibration software controls all relevant parameters plus the amount of calibration dust, in order to assure that the
measured concentrations are within the measurement range. All results are
stored electronically and are activated in a data bank for quality assurance. After the tower calibration, a further comparison at indoor conditions is done.
Devices of the model series 180 subsequently will be subject to a parallel operation to other measurement devices of the same type for about one week, in
order to capture and document the comparability.
40
Umweltbundesamt , Vienna, January 2010