PARTICLE TOTAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY (PTEAM) 1990 STUDY - METHOD PERFORMANCE AND DATA QUALITY FOR PERSONAL, INDOOR, AND OUTDOOR MONITORING

Citation
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
Citations number
NO
Categorie Soggetti
Environmental Sciences","Public, Environmental & Occupation Heath",Toxicology
ISSN journal
10534245
Volume
3
Issue
2
Year of publication
1993
Pages
203 - 226
Database
ISI
SICI code
1053-4245(1993)3:2<203:PTEAM(>2.0.ZU;2-C
Abstract
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.