Kw. Thomas et al., PARTICLE TOTAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (PTEAM) 1990 STUDY - METHOD PERFORMANCE AND DATA QUALITY FOR PERSONAL, INDOOR, AND OUTDOOR MONITORING, Journal of exposure analysis and environmental epidemiology, 3(2), 1993, pp. 203-226
The Particle Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (PTEAM) study provi
ded the opportunity to test methodologies for measuring personal and m
icroenvironmental PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations in a full-scale probab
ility-based sample of 1 78 persons and homes in Riverside, California
during the fall of 1990. The purpose of the study was lo estimate freq
uency distributions of exposure to PM10, PM2.5, and selected elements
in an urban population. Quality control samples and analyses were used
to evaluate method performance. These included collocated sample coll
ection, field and lab blank filters, sampler and balance field audits,
and intra- and interlaboratory replicate elemental analyses. A portio
n of the study was also designed to include side-by-side operation of
the personal and microenvironmental samplers with reference method (hi
gh-volume and dichotomous) samplers to provide an evaluation of method
comparability. Over 95% of the approximately 2,900 scheduled samples
were collected and analyzed, with very few losses due lo equipment fai
lure. The method limit of detection for the personal and microenvironm
ental monitor PM10 sampling was 8 mug/m3. Mean relative standard devia
tions (RSDs) of 2% to 8% were obtained for collocated personal and mic
roenvironmental samples. Sampler flow rates were within the +/- 10% ac
curacy criterion during two field audits. Balances operated in a speci
ally designed mobile laboratory were within specified tolerances for p
recision (+/- 4 mug) and accuracy (+/- 50 mug). Elemental analysis acc
uracy was measured with standard reference materials with biases rangi
ng from 2% to 7%. Measurement precision for most elements ranged from
2.5% to 25% mean RSD. Personal and microenvironmental samplers gave me
dian PM10 concentrations that were approximately 9% higher than the di
chotomous sampler and 16% higher than the high-volume sampler across 9
6 monitoring periods at a fixed outdoor location.