Panich Intra, Artit Yawootti and Thanesvorn Siri-achawawath

DOI: 10.14456/sjst-psu.2018.44

pp. 339 - 346

Abstract

This study evaluates and simultaneously compares two monitors, an electrostatic PM mass and a light scattering,
DustTrak 8533 mass monitor, TSI Incorporated, for PM1. 0, PM2. 5 and PM10 measurements at ambient conditions at the
Research Unit of Applied Electric Field in Engineering (RUEE), Rajamangala University of Technology Lanna (Doi Saket), Pa
Pong, Doi Saket, Chiang Mai, Thailand during May 6–9, 2015. The two different instruments showed good results that were
highly correlated. It was found that the comparison between the EPMM and the DustTrak 8533 values were R² of 0.8144, 0.9364,
and 0.7657, and a slope of 0.7965, 1.0260, and 0.9556 for PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10, respectively. Relative humidity and
temperature played an important role in PM mass concentration and its electrical properties. Particularly, EPMM proved its
advantages in measuring and detecting PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 particulate air pollution for mass concentrations in the range
from 0.01 to 500 µg/m³ because it was not affected by hygroscopic growth of the PM.

Keywords

• particulate matter
• PM
• mass monitor
• electrostatic charge
• light scattering laser