On the techniques and standards of particulate matter sampling

Figures & data

Figure 1. Particulate matter sampling, criteria parameter and measurement techniques.

Table 1. Important parameters and terminology associated with PM Samplers.

S. No.	Prameters	Relevant equation	Explanation of terms used	Discussion	References
1	Effectiveness curve	$\mathrm{E}\left(\mathrm{\%}\right)=\left\{\frac{Mas{s}_{afterimpactor}\left(D\right)}{Mas{s}_{beforeimpactor}\left(D\right)}\right\}\times 100$	Percentage of total airborne particles (plot between particle concentration and aerodynamic diameter).	Curve defined based on sampling convention for various particle size fractions used for assessing human health and its adoption to monitor the PM in ambient air.	ISO 7708 1995; EN 12341 2014
2	Cutoff size	$D_{50}={\left(\frac{{\displaystyle 9n\pi \mu w^{3}St{k}_{50}}}{{\displaystyle 4{\delta }_p{C}_{c}Q}}\right)}^{1/2}$	Aerodynamic diameter (D) size at a given percent (%) sampler effectiveness curve. Example: for PM2.5 WINS impactor, 2.5 µm sized aerodynamic diameter at 50% sampler effectiveness curve.	Theoretically calculated while designing the size-selective inlets based on stokes number and also experimentally validated by measuring particle size and mass (or number count), upstream and downstream to the size segregator.	Hinds 1999; Marple and Willeke 1976
3	GSD	$GSD=\sqrt{\frac{D_{15.9}}{D_{84.1}}}$	Dispersion or variability of particle size distribution data from the median (D50) of sampler effectiveness curve.	It is unitless, which measures the cutoff sharpness of the size segregating device. Usually, GSD < 1.2 is considered sharp.	Kulkarni, Baron, and Willeke 2011; Peters, Vanderpool, and Wiener 2001a
4	Field co-comparisons		To perform equivalency test of candidate PM sampler to reference sampler.	Statistical analysis for linearity (correlation coefficient, slope and intercept)	EPA, 1998; Noble et al. 2001

Figure 2. ISO 7708 and U.S. EPA PM₁₀ ideal effectiveness curve.

Figure 3. U.S. EPA Louvered TSPM inlet.

Figure 4. PM₁₀ or PM_2.5 low-volume sampler (European Union).

Figure 5. PM₁₀ high-volume sampler (U.S. EPA and European Union).

Table 2. Field co-comparisons of various PM samplers.

S. No.	Instrument (X)	Classification method	Flow rate (m^3 h^−1)	Instrument(Y)	Classification method	Flow rate (m^3 h^−1)	No. of Samples (N)	R2	Slope	Intercept	Concentration (min-max) µg m^−3	RH (%)	T (°C)	References
1	BGI PQ 200 (EPA- FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	TSI-3320 Aerodynamic Particle Sizer	Time of Flight (TOF)	0.3	16	0.592	0.83	−2.21	5–20.4			Yanosky, Williams, and MacIntosh 2002
2	BGI PQ 200 (EPA- FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	TSI-8520 Dusttrack	Optical Scattering	0.1	17	0.859	2.57	−1.73				Yanosky, Williams, and MacIntosh 2002
3	Thermo Partisol 2000 (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	Thermofischer SHARP 5030	PM2.5 VSCC + Light Scattering	1	207	0.88	0.92	1.2	3–41			Su et al. 2018
4	Thermo Partisol 2025 (EPA-FEM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	Thermofischer SHARP 5030	PM2.5 VSCC + Light Scattering	1	1171	0.84	0.94	1.4	3–48			Su et al. 2018
5	Metone SASS or Partisol 2300 (EPA-FEM)		1	Thermofischer SHARP 5030	PM2.5 VSCC + Light Scattering	1	1298	0.82	0.88	0.92	3–38			Su et al. 2018
6	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	Reference annular denuder system	PM2.5 Cyclone (URG 2000–30EH)	1	153	0.9	1.23	−3.25	1.3–260.2	29–96	8.1–35	Young et al. 2016
7	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)		1	Reference annular denuder system	PM10 Inlet (URG 2000–30DBQ)	1	144	0.91	1.11	0.2	5.2–284.9	29–96	8.1–35	Young et al. 2016
8	PM2.5 Sampler	WINS-PM2.5	1	PM2.5 Sampler	PM2.5 Cyclone (URG-2000-30EH)	1	151	0.92	1.22	5.64	2–100			Ghim et al. 2017
9	PM2.5 Sampler	WINS-PM2.5	1	OPC Grimm 1.109	Optical Scattering	0.07	219	0.88	0.95	6.79	2–100			Ghim et al. 2017
10	RAAS 2.5–300 Sequential Sampler (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	RAAS 2.5–300 Sequential Sampler (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1		0.98	1	0.83	5–130	21–99	−0.7–22	Chung et al. 2001
11	Sierra Anderson 1200 -HI-VOL SSI (EPA-FRM)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8	Sierra Anderson 1200 -HI-VOL SSI (EPA-FRM)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8		1	1	0.01	10–150	21–99	−0.7–22	Chung et al. 2001
12	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	PM2.5-SCC (Sharp Cut Cyclone)	1		1.06	0.99	2.92	5–130	21–99	−0.7–22	Chung et al. 2001
13	RAAS 2.5–300 Sequential Sampler (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	WINS or VSCC -PM2.5	1		0.99	0.95	1.36	5–130	21–99	−0.7–22	Chung et al. 2001
14	Sierra Anderson 1200 -HI-VOL SSI (EPA-FRM)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8	Rupprecht and Patashnick -TEOM-1400(EPA-FEM)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	1		0.95	0.37	6.63	10–150	21–99	−0.7–22	Chung et al. 2001
15	Sierra Anderson 1200 -HI-VOL SSI (EPA-FRM)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	1		0.99	1.01	1.55	10–150	21–99	−0.7–22	Chung et al. 2001
16	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	M-WINS(Oil wetted)	1	76	0.99	1	0.12	0.65–42.2	77.5 ± 4.9	24.8 ± 2.8	Le et al. 2020a
17	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	M-WINS(Oil wetted)	1	30	0.99	0.99	0.02	6.9–29.5	72.2 ± 8.6	20.1 ± 2.1	Le et al. 2020a
18	Reference samplers	WINS-PM2.5	1	Reference samplers	VSCC-PM2.5	1	33	0.999	1.01	0.1	2.5–41		−16.5–12.5	Vanderpool et al. 2007
19	Thermo Partisol 2000, BGI PQ-200 (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	FEM	1	265	0.984	1.06	0.6	3.6–69.1	54.9–96.1	11.5–31.4	Le et al. 2020b
20	Thermo Partisol 2000, BGI PQ-200 (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	TEOM-FDMS (Model 1405-DF) (EPA-FDMS)	FEM	1	265	0.982	1.03	1.62	3.6–69.2	54.9–96.1	11.5–31.5	Le et al. 2020b
21	Graseby Andersen SA −241 (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	Graseby Andersen SA −241 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1		0.997	1.03	−0.97	7.9–34.8			Le at al. 2017
22	Graseby Andersen SA −241 (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	TEOM-FDMS (Model 1405-DF) (EPA-FDMS)		1		0.991	1.05	0.04	7.9–34.8			Le and Tsai 2017
23	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	11	0.9993	1.013	0.17				Kenny et al. 2004
24	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	13	0.9991	1.005	0.23				Kenny et al. 2004
25	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	15	0.97	1.04	0.859				Kenny et al. 2004
26	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	30	0.9943	0.9404	−0.9552	~4-45			Gobeli, Schloesser, and Pottberg 2008
27	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	42	0.9801	0.9598	−0.8627	~3-46			Gobeli, Schloesser, and Pottberg 2008
28	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	50	0.9916	0.962	−0.761	~5-100			Gobeli, Schloesser, and Pottberg 2008
29	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	VSCC-PM2.5	1	29	0.9977	1.02	0.585	~3-52			Gobeli, Schloesser, and Pottberg 2008
30	Sven/Leckel LVS3	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Turnkey OSIRIS Particle Monitor (Model 2315)	Optical scattering	0.036	60	0.87	0.875	−0.968	~8.8–75			Tasić et al. 2012
31	Sven/Leckel LVS4	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Turnkey OSIRIS Particle Monitor (Model 2315)	Optical scattering	0.036	60	0.71	0.367	2.72	~8.2–65			Tasić et al. 2012
32	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Metone 1020 BAM	EPA Reference Inlet (PM10)	1	211	0.993	0.942	0.437	~0-290			Waldén et al. 2017
33	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Thermo Fisher FH −62	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	1	195	0.99	1.3	−0.904	~0-290			Waldén et al. 2017
34	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Grimm EDM-180	Light Scattering	0.07	179	0.946	0.855	2.139	~2-100			Waldén et al. 2017
35	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Environnement s.a MP101		1	201	0.995	0.811	2.311	~0-290			Waldén et al. 2017
36	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	OSIRIS PM10	Nephlometer	0.036	284	0.988	1.401	−0.153	~0-290			Waldén et al. 2017
37	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Thermofischer SHARP 5030	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	1	203	0.993	1.415	−2.233	~0-290			Waldén et al. 2017
38	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Thermofischer TEOM 1405	Reference design-PM10 EN-12341(2014)	1	194	0.992	0.868	−2.068	~0-290			Waldén et al. 2017
39	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Metone 1020 BAM	VSCC-PM2.5	1	195	0.832	1.1	0.733	~2-15			Waldén et al. 2017
40	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Thermo Fisher FH −62	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	1	195	0.912	0.85	1.709	~2-15			Waldén et al. 2017
41	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Grimm EDM-180	Light Scattering	0.07	173	0.907	0.747	0.532	0–45			Waldén et al. 2017
42	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Environnement s.a MP101	Beta guage +optical	1	196	0.831	0.812	−0.306	~2-15			Waldén et al. 2017
43	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Turnkey OSIRIS Particle Monitor	Optical (Nephlometer)	0.036	195	0.383	3.324	−1.073	~2-15			Waldén et al. 2017
44	Leckel SEQ47/50	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Thermofischer SHARP 5030	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	1	196	0.929	0.971	−0.003	~2-15			Waldén et al. 2017
45	BGI PQ 200 (EPA- FRM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Thermofischer TEOM 1405	VSCC-PM2.5	1	196	0.794	1.009	−1.681	~2-15			Waldén et al. 2017
46	BGI PQ 200 (EPA- FRM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Digitel DHA-80 HVS sampler	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	30	525	0.946	0.962	0.47	1–115		−11-31	CEN 2006
47	Thermo Partisol 2000 (EPA-FRM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Opsis SM 200 ß-ray attenuation monitor	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	1	426	0.795	0.942	1.83	1–115		−11-31	CEN 2006
48	Thermo Partisol 2025 (EPA-FEM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Thermo Fisher FH −62	PM2.5- SCC	1	585	0.66	0.858	2	1–115		−11-31	CEN 2006
49	Metone SASS or Partisol 2300 (EPA-FEM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	1	460	0.909	0.967	1.01	1–115		−11-31	CEN 2006
50	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	2.3	Rupprecht and Patashnick -TEOM	EPA Reference Inlet (PM10)	1	538	0.813	0.742	3.56	1–115		−11-31	CEN 2006
51	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	30	Thermo fisher 1400a EPA-FEM	SCC PM2.5 Inlet (R&P)	1	311	0.85	0.78	1.57	7.9–29.3			Hauck et al. 2004
52	PM2.5 Sampler	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	30	Thermo Fisher FH −62	WINS-PM2.5	1	303	0.85	0.7	−0.12	6–22.6			Hauck et al. 2004
53	PM2.5 Sampler	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	30	Rupprecht and Patashnick -TEOM-1400ab (EPA-FEM)	SCC PM2.5 Inlet (R&P)	1	330	0.85	0.78	2.69	8.6–35.4			Hauck et al. 2004
54	RAAS 2.5–300 Sequential Sampler (EPA-FRM)	Reference design-PM2.5 EN-12341(2014)	30	Thermo Fisher FH −62	WINS-PM2.5	1	307	0.91	0.83	−0.21	8.6–35.4			Hauck et al. 2004
55	Rupprecht and Patashnick -TEOM 1400ab (EPA-FEM)	WINS-PM2.5	1	Greasby-Anderson RAAS 2.5–100	WINS-PM2.5	1	28	0.9489	0.93	1.6	6.8–49.6			Williams et al. 2000
56	Metone 1020 BAM (EPA-FEM)	Cyclone-PM2.5	0.6	Greasby-Anderson RAAS 2.5–100	WINS-PM2.5	1	28	0.9626	1.03	0.1	6.8–49.6			Williams et al. 2000
57	RAAS 2.5–300 Sequential Sampler (EPA-FRM)	PM10 (Dichotomous)	67.8	Sierra anderson −246 B	FRM-PM10	1	18	0.92	0.96	1.36				Rodes et al. 1985
58	Sierra Anderson 1200 -HI-VOL SSI (EPA-FRM)		67.8	Sierra Anderson- 321A	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8		0.997	1.15	−1.79	30–140			Purdue et al. 1986
59	Sierra Anderson 1200 -HI-VOL SSI (EPA-FRM)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8	Thermofisher HV PM10 sampler (1130 lpm)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8	60	0.97	0.98		7.4–355			Guo et al. 2009
60	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	EPA Reference Inlet (PM10)	1	Thermo fisher 1400a (16.67 LPM)	EPA Reference Inlet (PM10)	1	28	0.97	1		3.9–181			Guo et al. 2009
61	BGI PQ −200 (EPA-FRM)	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8	Thermo fisher 1400a (16.67 LPM)	EPA Reference Inlet (PM10)	1	208	0.94	1.15		10–505			Guo et al. 2009
62	Reference samplers	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8	Energetica HV PM10 sampler	Size selective inlet (PM10)	67.8	15	0.998	0.997	0.133	10.73–54.04			Rajoy et al. 2015

Figure 6. TSP high-volume louvered inlet and its dimension in commercially available models.

Figure 7. U.S. EPA low-volume PM₁₀ impactor (reference design).

Figure 8. U.S. EPA low-volume PM_2.5 WINS impactor (reference design).

Figure 9. U.S. EPA low-volume PM_2.5 VSCC cyclone.

Figure 10. Sampler effectiveness curve of various reference PM sampler.

Figure 11. PM₁₀ cyclonic high-volume sampler (India).

Table 3. Airborne chemical parameter sampled in various PM classes.

Countries	Chemical Parameter	PM class	Sampler type (Flow rate,m^3 h^-1)	Filter type	References
US	Pb	TSPM and PM10	HVS/LVS	Glass or PTFE	EPA 2008
EU	Pb	PM10	HVS/LVS	Glass or Quartz fiber filter, PTFE, Cellulose acetate etc	EN 14902 2005
	As	PM10	HVS/LVS	Glass or Quartz fiber filter, PTFE, Cellulose acetate etc	EN 14902 2005
	Cd	PM10	HVS/LVS	Glass or Quartz fiber filter, PTFE, Cellulose acetate etc	EN 14902 2005
	Ni	PM10	HVS/LVS	Glass or Quartz fiber filter, PTFE, Cellulose acetate etc	EN 14902 2005
	BaP	PM10	HVS/LVS	Glass or Quartz fiber filter	EN 15549 2008
China	Pb	TSP	MVS (3–9)	Glass fiber	GB/T 15264 1994
	BaP	PM10	HVS (63)	Glass or Quartz	HJ956 2018
India	Pb	PM10	HVS (60)	Glass fiber (EPM- 2000)	CPCB 2012b
	As	PM10	HVS (60)	Glass fiber (EPM- 2000)	CPCB 2012b
	Ni	PM10	HVS (60)	Glass fiber (EPM- 2000)	CPCB 2012b
	BaP	PM10	HVS (60)	Glass fiber (EPM- 2000)	IS 2004

ISO 7708. 1995. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 7708: Particle size definitions for health-related sampling.

 Google Scholar

EN 12341. 2014. Ambient air. Standard gravimetric measurement method for the determination of the PM10 or PM2.5.

 Google Scholar

Hinds, W. C. 1999. Aerosol technology: Properties, behavior, and measurement of airborne particles. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 Google Scholar

Marple, V. A., and K. Willeke. 1976. Impactor design. Atmos. Environ. (1967). 10 (10):891–96. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(76)90144-X.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kulkarni, P., P. A. Baron, and K. Willeke, Eds. 2011. Aerosol measurement: Principles, techniques, and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 Google Scholar

Peters, T. M., R. W. Vanderpool, and R. W. Wiener. 2001a. Design and calibration of the EPA PM2.5 well impactor ninety-six (WINS). Aerosol Sci. Technol. 34 (5):389–97. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820120352.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

EPA. 1998. 40 CFR part 50, National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

 Google Scholar

Noble, C. A., R. W. Vanderpool, T. M. Peters, F. F. McElroy, D. B. Gemmill, and R. W. Wiener. 2001. Federal reference and equivalent methods for measuring fine particulate matter. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 34 (5):457–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820121582.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yanosky, J. D., P. L. Williams, and D. L. MacIntosh. 2002. A comparison of two direct-reading aerosol monitors with the federal reference method for PM2.5 in indoor air. Atmos. Environ. 36 (1):107–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00422-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Su, Y., U. Sofowote, J. Debosz, L. White, and A. Munoz. 2018. Multi-year continuous PM2.5 measurements with the Federal Equivalent Method SHARP 5030 and comparisons to filter-based and TEOM measurements in Ontario, Canada. Atmosphere 9 (5):191. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9050191.

 Google Scholar

Young, L.-H., Chiao-Hsin, L., Lin, M.-Y., Hwang, B.-F., Hsu, H.-T., Chen, Y.-C., Jung, C.-R., Chen, K.-C., Cheng, D.-H., Wang, V.-S., Chiang, H.-C., Tsai, P.-J. 2016. Field performance of a semi-continuous monitor for ambient PM2.5 water-soluble inorganic ions and gases at a suburban site. Atmos. Environ. 144:376–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.08.062.

 Google Scholar

Ghim, Y. S., Y. Choi, J. Park, P. Kim, and Y. Kyung Han. 2017. Comparison of PM2.5 Concentrations by Measurement Method. J Korean Soc Atmos. Environ. 33 (5):515–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.5572/KOSAE.2017.33.5.515.

 Google Scholar

Chung, A., D. P. Y. Chang, M. J. Kleeman, K. D. Perry, T. A. Cahill, D. Dutcher, E. M. McDougall, and K. Stroud. 2001. Comparison of real-time instruments used to monitor airborne particulate matter. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 51 (1):109–20.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Le, T.-C., F. Chang-Xing, J.-C. Sung, L. Zi-Yi, D. Y. H. Pui, and C.-J. Tsai. 2020a. The performance of the PM2.5 VSCC and oil-wetted M-WINS in long-term field sampling studies. Atmos. Environ. 239:117804. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117804.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vanderpool, R. W., Byrd, L. A., Wiener, R. W., Hunike, E. T., Labickas, M., Leston, A. R., McElroy, F. F., Murdoch, R. W.,Natarajan, S., Noble, C. A., Peters, T. M. 2007. Laboratory and field evaluation of crystallized DOW 704 oil on the performance of the well impactor ninety-six fine particulate matter fractionator. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 57 (1):14–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2007.10465299.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Le, T.-C., K. Kumar Shukla, Y.-T. Chen, S.-C. Chang, T.-Y. Lin, L. Ziyi, D. Y. H. Pui, and C.-J. Tsai. 2020b. On the concentration differences between PM2.5 FEM monitors and FRM samplers. Atmos. Environ. 222:117138. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117138.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Le, T.-C., and C.-J. Tsai. 2017. Novel non-bouncing PM2.5 impactor modified from well impactor ninety-six. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 51 (11):1287–95. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2017.1341621.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kenny, L. C., T. Merrifield, D. Mark, R. Gussman, and A. Thorpe. 2004. The Development and Designation Testing of a New USEPA-Approved Fine Particle Inlet: A Study of the USEPA Designation Process. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 38 (S2):15–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290502290.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gobeli, D., H. Schloesser, and T. Pottberg. 2008. Met one instruments BAM-1020 beta attenuation mass monitor U.S. EPA PM2.5 federal equivalent method field test results. In The Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) Conference, Kansas City, MO. Vol. 2, No. 3.

 Google Scholar

Tasić, V., M. Jovašević-Stojanović, S. Vardoulakis, N. Milošević, R. Kovačević, and J. Petrović. 2012. Comparative assessment of a real-time particle monitor against the reference gravimetric method for PM10 and PM2.5 in indoor air. Atmos. Environ. 54:358–64. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.030.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Waldén, J., T. Waldén, S. Laurila, and H. Hakola. 2017. Demonstration of the equivalence of PM2.5 and PM10 measurement methods in Kuopio 2014-2015. Finnish Meteorological Institute Reports 2017(1): 1–134.

 Google Scholar

CEN. 2006. Field test experiments to validate the CEN standard measurement method for PM2.5. VDI – The Association of German Engineers. Accessed June 25, 2021. https://www.vdi.de/fileadmin/pages/vdi_de/redakteure/ueber_uns/fachgesellschaften/KRdL/dateien/WG_15_EUR22341.pdf

 Google Scholar

Hauck, H., A. Berner, B. Gomiscek, S. Stopper, H. Puxbaum, M. Kundi, and O. Preining. 2004. On the equivalence of gravimetric PM data with TEOM and beta-attenuation measurements. J. Aerosol. Sci. 35 (9):1135–49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2004.04.004.

 Google Scholar

Williams, R., J. Suggs, C. Rodes, P. Lawless, R. Zweidinger, R. Kwok, J. Creason, and L. Sheldon. 2000. Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 10 (5):497–505.

 Google Scholar

Rodes, C. E., D. M. Holland, L. J. Purdue, and K. A. Rehme. 1985. A field comparison of PM10 inlets at four locations. J Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 35 (4):345–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1985.10465915.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Purdue, L. J., C. E. Rodes, K. A. Rehme, D. M. Holland, and A. E. Bond. 1986. Intercomparison of high-volume PM10 samplers at a site with high particulate concentrations. J Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 36 (8):917–20. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1986.10466131.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guo, L., R. G. Maghirang, E. B. Razote, J. G. Tallada, J. P. Harner III, and W. L. Hargrove. 2009. Field comparison of PM10 samplers. Appl. Eng. Agric. 25 (5):737–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.28852.

 Google Scholar

Rajoy, R. R. S., J. W. C. Dias, E. C. P. Rego, and A. D. Pereira Netto. 2015. Evaluation of sampling inhalable PM10 particulate matter (≤ 10 μm) using co-located high volume samplers. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Ouro Preto, Brazil, Vol. 575, No. 1, 012034, IOP Publishing.

 Google Scholar

EPA. 2008. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead (Final rule). Fed. Regist. 66964 (73):219.

 Google Scholar

EN 14902. 2005. Ambient air quality—Standard method for the measurement of Pb, Cd, As and Ni in the PM10 fraction of suspended particulate matter.

 Google Scholar

EN 15549. 2008. Air quality. Standard method for the measurement of the concentration of benzo(a)pyrene in ambient air.

 Google Scholar

GB/T 15264. 1994. Ambient air. Determination of lead-Flame atomic absorption spectrophotometric method.

 Google Scholar

HJ 956. 2018. Ambient air. Determination of benzo[a]pyrene-High performance liquid chromatography. China: Ministry of Ecology and Environment.

 Google Scholar

CPCB. 2012b. Guidelines for the Measurement of Ambient Air Pollutants. Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi. Accessed June 25, 2021. http://mahenvis.nic.in/Pdf/Report/report_epm_NAAQMS%20.pdf

 Google Scholar

IS. 2004. IS 5182: Methods for measurement of air pollution: Part 12 Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in particulate matter. Bureau of Indian Standards. Accessed July 6, 2021.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.