Upload
brinda
View
34
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Utilizing Nephelometers for Near Roadside John Carney Mark Phelps Andrew Tolley American Ecotech. Roadside Monitoring. Nephelometers 101. LED module. Temp RH sensor. Sample inlet. Sample outlet. Reference shutter motor. Pressure sensor. PMT,HV supply, pre amp. Light trap. PMT signal. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
A M E R I C A N
Utilizing Nephelometers for Near Roadside
John Carney
Mark Phelps
Andrew Tolley
American Ecotech
A M E R I C A N
Roadside Monitoring
A M E R I C A N
Nephelometers 101
Light trap
Sample outlet
Sample inlet
Temp RH sensor
Measurement bench
Reference shutter motor
PMT,HV supply, pre amp
PMT signal
LED module
Pressure sensor
A M E R I C A N
Nephelometer Readings
A M E R I C A N
The first generation in LED Light Source introduced in 2002
Evolution of LED Light Source
Three Wavelength
A M E R I C A N
Next Generation of LED Lightsource
Evolution of LED Light Source
A M E R I C A N
Advantages Stable light intensity
Stable light wavelength generation
Bandpass filters not required
Negligible thermal interference during measurement
Minimal mthly maint. (<10 minutes per month!)
Evolution of LED Light Source
A M E R I C A N
Opal Diffuser in front of LED array
Evolution of LED Light Source
Result – Light intensity approaching Lambertian distribution resulting in negligible error.
6770-01 BACKSCATTER LIGHT SOURCE
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
ANGLE
INTE
NSI
TY
SineSine backRED FULLRED BACKGREEN FULLGREEN BACKBLUE FULLBLUE BACK
26o Rise Angle
A M E R I C A N
New Generation of LED Lightsource
Fewer LEDs – Three lamps per wavelength Compact Light Source Further reduction in measurement bench heating (between
sample and ambient temperature) User adjustable intensity pots (extend lifetime of light source) Fully field serviceable Backwards compatible with older units.
Evolution of LED Light Source
A M E R I C A N
Near Roadside Monitoring
Dust Monitoring
Forest Fire/Smoke Monitoring
PM Correlation Monitoring
Solar Energy Site Assessment and Operation
Field Applications
A M E R I C A N
Near Roadside
I-40 Station – Raleigh
• Gas Analyzers (NOx, Ozone)
• Particulate Monitors (BAM, Aethalometer, Ultrafine)
• Samplers (passive, TSP)
A M E R I C A N
Installation
A M E R I C A N
Installation
A M E R I C A N
Preliminary Data
A M E R I C A N
Preliminary Data
A M E R I C A N
Preliminary Data
A M E R I C A N
Preliminary Data
A M E R I C A N
Dust Monitoring
Sydney Dust Storm – September 2009
A M E R I C A N
New South Wales EPA Air Monitoring Network
A M E R I C A N
Field Applications
A M E R I C A N
Field Applications
A M E R I C A N
Field Applications
Bushfire Smoke Alert Level
Categories 24hr PM10 ug/m3
1hr PM10 ug/m3
Visibility
Visibility <50 ug/m3 <80 ug/m3 >20 km
Low
Unhealthy -Sensitive
51 - 65 ug/m3 81-175 ug/m3 Less than 20 km but more than 10 km
High
Unhealthy - All
66-155 ug/m3 176-300 ug/m3 Less than 10 km but more than 5 km
High
Very Unhealthy
156-310 ug/m3 301-500 ug/m3 Less than 5 km but more than
1 km
High
Hazardous
Greater than 310 ug/m3
Greater than 500 ug/m3
Less than 1 km
Victoria EPA Forest Fire alert categories based on PM10 and visibility
A M E R I C A N
Smoke MonitoringPollutants
OzoneO3
OzoneO3
Nitrogendioxide
NO2
VisibilityNEPH
Carbonmonoxide
CO
Sulfurdioxide
SO2
ParticlesPM10
ParticlesPM2.5
Averaging Periods1-hour
average
4-hourrolling
average
1-houraverage
1-houraverage
8-hourrolling
average
1-houraverage
24-hourrolling
average
24-hourrolling
averageSydney East Randwick 2.5 1.4 0.4 0.37 0.4 24
Rozelle 2.4 1.3 0.5 0.46 0.3 24.9 Lindfield 2.2 1.2 0.5 0.35 0.1 19.8 Chullora 2.5 1.1 0.9 0.39 0.4 0.1 23.4 12.2Earlwood 2.8 1 0.8 0.43 25 11.6
Sydney North-west
Richmond 2.9 1.4 0.4 1 0 28 17.4St Marys 4.1 1.8 0.7 5.43 34.7 Vineyard 2.7 1.3 0.3 0.52 0 24.6 Prospect 2.9 1.4 0.6 0.74 0.2 0.1 27.5
Sydney South-west
Bargo 3.7 1.7 0.7 13.12 0.2 Bringelly 3.1 1.5 0.3 2.16 0.1 31.9 Camden 3.1 1.5 0.4 3.17 0.3 37.4 24.7Campbelltown West
3.2 1.5 0.6 2.2 0.6 0.1 26.4
Liverpool 2.9 1.3 0.6 0.68 0.5 29.1 19.4Oakdale 4.6 2.9 0.6 11.16 72.3
Illawarra Wollongong 3.4 2.6 0.3 1.36 0.5 0.1 31.6 28.7Kembla Grange 4 2 0.4 5.02 66.9
Albion Park Sth
4.4 2.4 0.6 6.23 0.1 62.6
Lower Hunter Wallsend 2.3 1.4 0.4 0.51 0.1 22.3 13.1Newcastle 2.3 1.8 0.5 0.39 0.1 0.9 27.1 Beresfield 1.7 0.9 0.7 0.78 0 35.5
Central CoastWyong 2.9 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 22.2 14.5
Central Tablelands Bathurst 63.7
North-west Slopes Tamworth 12.7
South-west Slopes Albury 27.9
Wagga Wagga Nth
72.6 45.1
Upper Hunter - Muswellbrook
Muswellbrook 0.5 0.1 32.3 13
Upper Hunter - Singleton Singleton 1.1 0.1 28.9 10.8
Air Quality Index
VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR HAZARDOUS
New South Wales Air Quality October 20, 2013 8:00 – 9:00 AEST
Brush Fire Event
Nephelometer – hourly average based on 1 or 5 minute (high
frequency) data, capturing smoke event as it occurs
A M E R I C A N
Smoke Monitoring
A M E R I C A N
Portable Functionality
A M E R I C A N
Correlation of Nephelometers
Correlation of PM2.5 measurements and scattering coefficients
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency Study – Residential Area◦ Collocated Instruments: American Ecotech Nephelometer Radiance Research (RR) Nephelometer Partisol (FRM) for PM2.5 TEOM with PM2.5 head TEOM (FDMS-TEOM) PM2.5 head BAM 1020 PM2.5
A M E R I C A N
FRM vs. Nephelometer
Particulate Monitors
FRM PM2.5 μg/m3 vs Ecotech Nephelometer scattering - Non-fit through zero24 hour means - 07/21/05-09/07/05 and 12/15/05-02/28/06
y = 23.94x + 0.0117R2 = 0.9882
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Light scattering
3 da
y sa
mpl
ing
cycl
e - P
artis
ol P
M2.
5 μg/
m3
n = 37/46Linear (n = 37/46)
A M E R I C A N
FDMS TEOM vs. Nephelometer
Particulate Monitors
FDMS-TEOM PM2.5 μg/m3 vs Ecotech Nephelometer scattering24 hour means - 07/21/05-09/08/05 and 12/07/05-03/13/06
y = 26.545x - 1.5865R2 = 0.9583
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Light scattering
FDM
S-TE
OM
PM
2.5 μ
g/m3
n = 142/147Linear (n = 142/147)
A M E R I C A N
BAM vs. Nephelometer
Particulate Monitors
Beta Attenuation Mass Monitor PM2.5 μg/m3 vs Ecotech Nephelometer scattering24 hour means - 07/21/05-09/07/05 and 12/07/05-03/13/06
y = 25.066x - 0.8637R2 = 0.9466
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Light scattering
BA
M P
M 2.5 μg
/m3
n =141/146Linear ( n =141/146)
A M E R I C A N
Results
Nephelometer correlates well(r2 > 0.94) with:
◦The US Federal Reference Method◦FDMS-TEOM
◦FEM Beta Attenuation Monitor
Particulate Monitors
A M E R I C A N
Continuous Correlation – Aurora Neph and BAM-1020
Particulate Monitors
A M E R I C A N
Renewable Energy Field
Courtesy of yesRenewables
A M E R I C A N
Sue Kimbrough and Richard Snow – USEPA Office of Research and Development
Acknowledgments