This article was downloaded by: [National Chiao Tung University]

On: 22 July 2011, At: 17:03

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Aerosol Science and Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uast20

A Novel Multifilter PM10–PM2.5 Sampler (MFPPS)

a a a
Chun-Nan Liu , Sheng-Chieh Chen & Chuen-Jinn Tsai
a
Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Chiao Tung University, Hsin Chu, Taiwan

Available online: 05 Jul 2011

To cite this article: Chun-Nan Liu, Sheng-Chieh Chen & Chuen-Jinn Tsai (2011): A Novel Multifilter PM10–PM2.5 Sampler
(MFPPS), Aerosol Science and Technology, 45:12, 1480-1487

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2011.602135

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Aerosol Science and Technology, 45:1480–1487, 2011
Copyright
C American Association for Aerosol Research
ISSN: 0278-6826 print / 1521-7388 online
DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2011.602135
A Novel Multifilter PM10 –PM2.5 Sampler (MFPPS)
Chun-Nan Liu, Sheng-Chieh Chen, and Chuen-Jinn Tsai
Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Chiao Tung University, Hsin Chu, Taiwan
A novel multifilter PM10 –PM2.5 sampler (MFPPS) that enables
the collection of four PM10 and four PM2.5 samples simultaneously
has been developed and tested. The MFPPS uses a PM10 impactor
Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University] at 17:03 22 July 2011
as the inlet and operates at 33.4 L/min. After the inlet, the aerosol
flow is divided half by a Y-type fitting. Half of the flow is directed
into four PM10 filter cassettes, while the other half is directed into
four PM2.5 filter cassettes after the aerosols are further classified
by a PM2.5 impactor. An active flow control system consisting of
two mass flow controllers (MFCs), one for PM10 and the other
for PM2.5 , is used to fix the total flow rate of 16.7 L/min for four
PM10 or four PM2.5 channels based on the ambient pressure and
temperature. To ensure flow rate uniformity through each of the
four PM10 or four PM2.5 filter cassettes, an orifice is assembled
behind each of the filter cassettes to increase the pressure drop,
such that the flow rates of eight sampling lines are nearly equal
using just two MFCs. The MFPPS was calibrated in the laboratory
for particle collection efficiency curves first. Then, the ambient PM
concentrations were compared with those of other two collocated
FRM samplers, the dichotomous PM10 and the EPA WINS PM2.5
sampler in the field study. Calibration results showed the cutoff
aerodynamic diameters of the PM10 and PM2.5 impactors were
9.8 ± 0.1 and 2.5 ± 0.05 µm, respectively. Field comparison results
indicated PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations agreed well with the other
two PM samplers.
INTRODUCTION
Many epidemiological studies pointed out that there were
positive correlations between PM concentrations and increased
human morbidity (Dockery et al. 1994; Anderson 2000; Kan
et al. 2007). For better protection of public health, the U.S.
Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) renewed the national am-
bient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM)
in 2006, in which the 24-h PM2.5 standard was tightened from
the 1997 level of 65 to 35 µg/m3, and the annual PM2.5 standard
was retained at 15 µg/m3. The 24-h PM10 standard was also
Received 24 March 2011; accepted 26 June 2011.
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Taiwan
National Science Council for financial support under contract number
NSC 95-2221-E-009-MY3 and NSC 99-2221-E-009-038-MY3.
Address correspondence to Chuen-Jinn Tsai, Institute of Environ-
mental Engineering, National Chiao Tung University, No. 1001 Uni-
versity Road, Hsin Chu, 300 Taiwan. E-mail: cjtsai@mail.nctu.edu.tw
1480
retained at 150 µg/m3, while the annual PM10 standard was re-
voked due to a lack of evidence showing the association between
the longterm exposure of coarse particle and health problems
(U.S. EPA 2011).
For the determination of compliance with the NAAQS, the
U.S. EPA has designed many FRMs for PM10 and PM2.5 . A
typical sampling system consists of a size-selective inlet, a
denuder, a filter holder, a flow control system and a pump,
in which an impactor or a cyclone is commonly used as the
size-selective inlet. For impactors, solid particles may bounce
from dry impaction surfaces readily. Lots of efforts have been
made to resolve this problem, including oiled membrane sub-
strates (Turner and Herring 1987), specially designed impaction
surfaces (Tsai and Cheng 1995) and porous foam impaction
substrates (Huang et al. 2005). Beside compliance monitoring,
different components have been assembled to achieve specific
research objectives (Watson and Chow 2001), including simul-
taneous sampling on multiple filters for different analyses, and
multiple inlets in series or in parallel for sampling particles in
different size fractions, etc. Examples are the Interagency Mon-
itoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sampler,
the Reference Ambient Aerosol Sampler (RAAS) (Watson and
Chow 2001), and the Southern California Air Quality Study
(SCAQS) sampler (AeroVironment 1987), etc.
Collocated samplers have been used to obtain multiple
samples for different aerosol analyses. Monn and Becker
(1999) employed two collocated dichotomous samplers to
collect PM2.5–10 and PM2.5 samples for the comparison of the
ability of inhalable fine and coarse particle to cause cell injury
and cytokine production in monocytes. Oanh et al. (2009) used
two collocated dichotomous samplers to collect PM ambient
data for the receptor modeling of apportionment study. A
Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS, TSI, Model 3936),
three dichotomous samplers (Andersen, Model SA-241), and
three micro-orifice uniform deposit impactors (MOUDIs, MSP,
Model 110) were collocated at a road side or in a highway tunnel
in Taiwan to determine the PM mass and number concentrations
simultaneously (Chen et al. 2010). Researchers have also used
collocated samplers to study the differences in the performance
of samplers. For example, Tsai and Perng (1998) employed
two collocated annular denuder systems to study the artifacts
of ionic species in the FRM samplers. The effect of RH on the
 A NOVEL MULTIFILTER SAMPLER
PM10 concentrations of the beta-gauge monitor was evaluated
by two collocated high-volume PM10 FRM samplers in the
ambient air (Chang et al. 2001). However, the use of collocated
samplers increases the cost to purchase more samplers. More-
over, the measured concentrations among different samplers
may not be comparable due to the differences in the shapes of
collection efficiency curves and the cut-points of the sampling
inlets.
The standard configuration of the IMPROVE sampler con-
sists of one PM10 and one PM2.5 channel which contain Teflon
filters for gravimetric or proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE)
elemental analysis, and two PM2.5 channels for ion and car-
bon analyses. The SCAQS sampler has up to a dozen sampling
lines that allow two total particulate, seven PM2.5 , and three
PM10 collections simultaneously. The RAAS utilizes two AIHL
PM2.5 cyclones (John and Reischl 1980) followed by a man-
Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University] at 17:03 22 July 2011
ifold to collect six PM2.5 samples through the attached filter
holders. For these three samplers, a critical orifice is used to
control the volumetric flow rate of each of the sampling lines.
The critical orifice provides essentially constant volumetric flow
rate independent of ambient pressure changes and only varies
slightly with the square root of ambient temperature. However,
the pressure downstream of the critical orifice must be less
than 0.528 times the upstream pressure to achieve the criti-
cal state, which leads to the requirement of a large vacuum
pump.
The active volumetric flow control system, which fixes the
actual sampling flow rate based on the ambient pressure and
temperature, has been introduced in many recent commercial
samplers for accurate ambient sampling. Examples are the Par-
tisol Model 2300 speciation sampler from Thermo, Inc. and
the Spiral Aerosol Speciation Sampler (SASS) from Met One,
Inc, which allow four and five simultaneous sample collections,
respectively. Both of these samplers have an independent mass
flow controller (MFC) to control the flow rate of each of the sam-
pling lines. Totally, these systems require four and five MFCs,
respectively. More MFCs will be needed if there are more sam-
pling lines.
In this study, a multifilter PM10 –PM2.5 sampler was devel-
oped for the simultaneous collection of four PM10 and four
PM2.5 samples using only two MFCs, one for PM10 and the other
for PM2.5 sampling lines, in the active flow control system. The
reason of choosing four samples for each PM was due to the
need of various analyses, such as gravimetric, organic carbon
(OC), elemental carbon (EC), water-soluble ions, and trace ele-
ments analyses of collected samples, such as in the recent study
of Chen et al. (2010) who used collocated samplers to obtain
different PM samples. In the laboratory, both monodispersed
liquid and polydispersed solid particles were used to calibrate
the PM10 and PM2.5 impactors. After the laboratory calibration,
field validation was conducted by sampling ambient aerosol
particles with the two other collocated manual FRM samplers,
the dichotomous PM10 sampler (Andersen Model SA-241) and
EPA WINS PM2.5 sampler (Thermo Model 2000-FRM).
1481
PM10 impactor
(aerosol inlet )
Flow splitter
PM2.5 impactor
Four PM10
filter holders
Four PM2.5
Filter
filter holders
cassette
3.175 mm MFC MFC
Orifice Labview program
Temperature
and pressure +PC
1.1 mm sensors
Vacuum pump
FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the MFPPS.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Description of the Multifilter PM10 –PM2.5 Sampler
(MFPPS)
Figure 1 shows the schematic of the present MFPPS. The
sampler consists of: (1) an annular inlet with a PM10 impactor;
(2) a smooth home-made Y-type fitting with four PM10 filter
holders, one PM2.5 impactor and four PM2.5 filter holders; (3)
an orifice assembled behind each of the filter holders to main-
tain the flow rate uniformity through all four PM10 and PM2.5
filter holders; (4) ambient temperature and pressure sensors; and
(5) an active flow control system with two MFCs, a LabView
program (National Instrument) and a PC. Efforts were made
to reduce particle wall loss in the sampler by iterating the de-
signs to ensure smooth flow streamline in it. For example, the
half-angle of the PM10 impactor nozzle was changed from the
original 30o to current 15o, the downstream impactor chambers
were changed from the original cylindrical to the current cone
shape, a common hole at the bottom of the impactor chambers
was used for the Y-type fitting (branching tube inside diameter:
2.3 cm, angle: 60o), and a common inlet was used for the 4
branching holes in each of the flow dividers.
Aerosols are sampled into the MFPPS at 33.4 L/min via an
annular slot inlet designed to have good inlet efficiency, which is
the product of the transmission and aspiration efficiencies calcu-
lated based on the equations in Tsai et al. (2008) and Witschger
et al. (1997), respectively. The inlet efficiency is greater than
98.4 % for particles smaller than 10 µm in aerodynamic di-
ameter (dpa ) at the wind speed of 3 m/s. The inlet efficiency
is reduced to 90.6 and 82.3% when dpa = 15 and 20 µm, re-
spectively. After the inlet, a PM10 impactor is used to remove
particles greater than 10 µm in dpa . Aerosol flow is then divided
into two streams of equal flow rate of 16.7 L/min by a smooth
home-made Y-type fitting, one stream is led to four PM10 filter
cassettes behind a flow splitter, and the other is introduced into
 1482 C.-N. LIU ET AL.

a PM2.5 impactor. After the PM2.5 impactor, the aerosol stream
is divided by another flow splitter into four PM2.5 filter holders.
An active flow control system consists of two MFCs, one for
four PM10 channels and the other for four PM2.5 channels, was
used to control the total actual sampling flow rate of both PM10
and PM2.5 channels at 16.7 L/min using the feedback signals
of ambient pressure and temperature. The standard (or mass)
flow rate of the MFC is adjusted automatically by the LabView
program based on the following equation:
Pa T0 + 273
Qs = Qa [1]
P0 Ta + 273
where, Qa , T a , Pa , T 0 , and P0 are the desirable actual volumetric
flow rate of 16.7 L/min, the ambient temperature (◦ C) and pres-
sure (atm), and the standard temperature (25◦ C) and pressure
Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University] at 17:03 22 July 2011
Laboratory Calibration
In this study, monodisperse oleic acid (OA) tagged with ura-
nine dye wase used to determine the liquid particle collection
efficiency of the PM10 and PM2.5 impactors and particle wall
losses. The test procedure was described in Tsai and Cheng
(1995) and Tsai et al. (2008). The liquid OA particles were
generated by the vibrating orifice monodisperse aerosol gener-
ator (VOMAG, TSI Model 3450). As shown in Figure 2(a), the
aerosols were introduced into the sampler by a specially de-
signed duct, which was based on the design of John and Wang
(1991) where the transition between the duct and the sampler
inlet was smooth and had a constant cross-sectional area so that
the average flow velocity was maintained at 3 m/s. The gener-
ated aerosols were neutralized by the TSI 3054 Kr-85 charge
neutralizer before entering the mixing chamber. The monodis-
persity and steadiness of these aerosols were checked by the

(1 atm), respectively. In addition to the feedback control pur-
pose, the temperature and pressure signals were also recorded
at an adjustable interval with the minimum of 1 s through the
sampling period.
Since only one MFC was used to control the total flow rate
through all four PM10 or PM2.5 filter cassettes, the flow rate
through each of the filter cassettes could be different from other
sampling lines due to the differences in the pressure drop of
the filters. To overcome this nonuniform flow rate problem, an
orifice with the diameter of 1.1 mm was installed after each of
the filter holders to increase the pressure drop to a high enough
value such that the flow rate differences in the sampling lines
were less than 2%. In this study, the pressure drop increased by
the orifice was about 40 cm H2 O (or 3.92 kpa), which was about
three times that of the Teflon filters but much lower than that of
the critical orifices.
The inertial impactors were designed based on the impaction
theory (Huang and Tsai 2001). When the flow Reynolds number
based on√the nozzle diameter is greater√than 1500, the dimen-
sionless Stk50 is equal to 0.49, which Stk50 is defined as:
 paction plate and collection filter, respectively, and Cwall and

2
ρP CC dpa50 U
Stk50 =
9µW
where, ρ P is the particle density (kg/m3), CC is the slip correction
factor, dpa50 is the cutoff aerodynamic diameter (m), U is the
gas velocity at nozzles (m/s), µ is the dynamic viscosity of air
(kg/m-s), and W is the nozzle diameter (m). The ratio of the
jet-to-plate distance (S) to the nozzle diameter (W), S/W, was
designed to be 1.0. On the basis of Equation (2), the nozzle
diameter was calculated to be 12.2 and 3.9 mm for the PM10
(33.4 L/min) and PM2.5 (16.7 L/min) impactors, respectively.
In order to avoid solid particle bounce, the glass fiber filters
(Whatman, GF/B, pore size: 1 µm) coated with Dow Corning
704 diffusion pump oil (Peters et al. 2001) and with 25 and 8
mm in diameter were used as the impaction substrates for PM10
and PM2.5 impactors, respectively.
Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS, TSI Model 3321). Glass fiber
filters were used to collect particles impacted on the impaction
plate and the downstream of the impactor. At the end of each ex-
periment period of 5–30 min, cotton swabs were used to recover
the deposited particles at the inner wall of the sampling system.
The glass fiber filters and cotton swabs were soaked in separate
0.001 N NaOH solution and ultrasonicated for 30 min, allowing
the fluorescent material to dissolve in the solutions. The flu-
orescent concentrations of fluorescent in the glass fiber filters
and cotton swabs were measured by the fluorometer (Turner
Designs Model 10-AU-005, Cincinnati, OH, USA) separately.
The particle wall loss, Lwall , and the collection efficiency of the
impactors, Eimp , were determined as:
Cwall
Lwall (%) = × 100% [3]
Cimp + Cf + Cwall
Cimp
Eimp (%) = × 100%, [4]
Cimp + Cf + Cwall, down
where, Cimp and Cf are fluorescent concentration on the im-
Cwall.down are the fluorescent concentration of particles deposited
[2]
on the inner wall of the whole sampling system and the inner
wall downstream of the PM10 or PM2.5 impactor. The total con-
centration of the fluorescent on all parts of the MFPPS ranged
from 205 to 924 µg/L for particles from 1.4 to 15.7 µm in dpa
(maximum concentration was found at dpa = 1.7 µm). The col-
lection efficiency including particle loss, Eimp,loss , was calculated
as:
 
Cf
Eimp,loss (%) = 1 − × 100% [5]
Cimp + Cf + Cwall
After the liquid particle tests, polydispersed solid KCl
particles generated by the ultrasonic atomizing nozzle system
(Model 8700, Sonotek Inc.) were used to test if particle bounce
occurred from the substrates with different amounts of coated
 A NOVEL MULTIFILTER SAMPLER 1483

(a) 18 mm
Mixing 88 mm
chamber

Filtered air Annular slot inlet

10 mm
Cone-shaped nozzle
Kr 85 PM10 impactor
PM10
Y- type fitting chamber
VOMAG TSI 3450
(liquid test, OA)
Flow splitter PM2.5
(PM10) chamber
MFC
Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University] at 17:03 22 July 2011

Flow splitter
(PM2.5)
MFC

Vacuum pump
(b)
Mixing
chamber PM10 or PM2.5
Kr 85 impactor

Sono-Tek, Model 8700

(solid test , KCl) Filtered air
APS TSI 3321
Vacuum pump

FIG. 2. Experimental setup for (a) liquid particle and (b) solid particle tests.

oil. The experimental setup is shown in Figure 2(b). All
generated particles were introduced into a mixing chamber to
remove the excess moisture and further neutralized by the TSI
3054 Kr-85 charge neutralizer. The APS was used to measure
the upstream and downstream aerosol distributions to determine
the solid particle collection efficiency for the PM10 and PM2.5
impactors. For each experiment, the size distributions were
measured for 3-min upstream, 3-min downstream, and then
3-min upstream again to ensure the steadiness of aerosol
concentration. The KCl concentrations at the inlet of the
impactors ranged from 37 to 568 #/cm3 for particles from 0.58
to 15 µm in dpa (maximum concentration was found at dpa
= 3.3 µm). Each test was repeated at least 3 times. The solid
particle collection efficiency ηs (%) was determined as:
 
Ndownstream
ηs = 1 −
Nupstream
where, N upstream and N downstream were the measured upstream
and downstream particle concentration, respectively.
Field Comparison Tests
In the field sampling study, the MFPPS and other two ref-
erence FRM samplers including dichotomous PM10 and EPA
WINS PM2.5 sampler were collocated in the campus of Na-
tional Chian Tung University to conduct the 24-h comparison
tests. Twelve tests were taken from August 2009 to January
2010, during which the daily average temperature ranged from
10 to 33◦ C and the wind speed ranged from 2 to 5 m/s. A bug
screen similar to that of dichotomous PM10 sampler was in-
stalled in the present sampler to protect any unwanted debris for
the field test. Sampling inlets of these samplers were all fixed
at the same height of 1.5 m. Teflon filters (Teflo R2PL037, Pall
Corp., New York, USA) were used for all samplers, which were
weighed before and after sampling after they were conditioned
[6]
for at least 24 h in an environment conditioning room where the
 1484 C.-N. LIU ET AL.
relative humidity and temperature were kept at 40 ± 2% and 21
± 1◦ C, respectively. The electrostatic charge of the filters was
eliminated by an ionizing air blower (Model CSD-0911, MEL-
SEI, Japan) before the filters were weighed by a microbalance
(Model CP2P-F, Sartorius, Germany). The precision of weigh-
ing was determined to be 2 µg by repeated weighing for at least
five times.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Flow Rate Uniformity
With the Teflon filters placed in the filter cassettes, the pres-
sure drop and flow rate through the sampling lines were mea-
sured separately with and without the orifices in the filter cas-
settes. First, the pressure drop through each sampling line was
Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University] at 17:03 22 July 2011
measured individually with a magnehelic pressure gage (Dwyer
Instrument, Michigan City, IN) at a fixed standard flow rate of
4.17 L/min controlled by the MFC. Then, the individual flow
rate through each channel was measured with a bubble flow cali-
brator (Gilibrator-2, Sensidyne Inc., USA) upstream of the filter
cassette at a total flow rate of 16.7 L/min through all four PM10
or PM2.5 sampling lines controlled by the downstream MFC. It
was noted that a small pressure drop about 2 cm H2 O was cre-
ated by the flow calibrator which caused a lower measured flow
rate in each individual sampling line than the set value of 4.17
L/min, since the flow rates through the other three lines without
the upstream bubble flow calibrator were increased. The mea-
sured pressure drop and flow rate are summarized in Table 1.
The data show that when the orifices are not used, the maximum
relative difference in the pressure drop created by the Teflon fil-
ters is, 10.3%, which is large due to the differences in the filters.
The flow rates between sampling lines are shown to be nonuni-
form with a maximum relatively difference of 9.1%. However,
after the orifices are assembled behind the filter cassettes, the
pressure drop in each sampling line is increased by nearly the
same amount of about 40 cm H2 O, which reduces the relatively
differences in the pressure drop to less than 1.9%. Since the
pressure drop differences are reduced, the flow rate uniformity
between four sampling channels is achieved with a relatively
TABLE 1
Pressure drop and actual flow rate in each sampling channel, with and without an orifice (dia. = 1.1 mm) after the filter cassette.
Without orifice
Channel no. p (cmH2 O)∗ Qa (L/min)∗∗
1 13.75
2 14.37
3 13.03
4 13.54
Max. rel. diff. (%) 10.3
∗
Standard flow rate is fixed at 4.17 L/min by a MFC through each sampling channel.
∗∗
Standard flow rate is fixed at 16.7 L/min by a MFC through all sampling channels.
difference of less than 1.7% using just one MFC through four
PM10 or PM2.5 sampling filter cassettes.
Calibration Results
Major and other minor particle wall losses in the MFPPS
are shown in Figure 3a and b, respectively. Figure 3a shows
that the total particle wall loss, including minor losses, is less
than 4.0 % for particle smaller than 5 µm in dpa . It gradually
increases to 14% when dpa = 10 µm and 17% when dpa = 14
µm. Major particle loss occurred in the PM10 chamber and the
Y-type fitting when dpa = 8 and 10 µm, respectively. However,
the wall losses decreased for particle larger than 8 and 10 µm
at the PM10 chamber and the Y-type fitting, respectively. This is
because these two parts are downstream of the PM10 impactor,
where most of the particles larger than 10 µm have been im-
pacted already. For dpa larger than 10 µm, the major wall loss
occurred in the annular slot inlet and the PM10 cone-shaped
nozzle. As shown in Figure 3b, other minor losses were found
at the PM10 and PM2.5 flow splitter and the PM2.5 impactor wall
and chamber, and were less than 1.2 %. The wall losses were
measured by using liquid OA particles. The losses are expected
to be smaller for solid particles because of solid particle bounce
(Marple et al. 1991).
Figure 4a and b show the calibrated collection efficiency
of the PM10 and PM2.5 impactors by using liquid particles,
respectively, with and without considering wall losses. The
figures indicate that without considering wall losses, the cutoff
aerodynamic diameters of the PM10 and PM2.5 impactor are
10.3 ± 0.05 and 2.5 ± 0.05 µm, respectively, which agree well
with the theoretical cutpoints of 9.92 and 2.47, respectively,
calculated by Equation (2). When the wall losses are included,
the collection efficiency curve of the PM10 impactor shifts
slightly to the left of that without considering the wall losses,
and the dpa is decreased from 10.3 ± 0.05 to 9.8 ± 0.1 µm,
which is only 2 % smaller than the designed value. For the PM2.5
impactor, however, there is no obvious difference between
the collection efficiency curves with and without considering
the wall losses, and the cutoff aerodynamic diameters are
nearly the same. This is because the total wall loss is small for
particles smaller than 5 µm, so that the effect of wall losses
With orifice
p (cmH2 O)∗ Qa (L/min)∗∗
3.90 54.68 4.12
3.75 54.99 4.07
4.09 53.95 4.14
3.97 54.37 4.13
9.1 1.9 1.7
 A NOVEL MULTIFILTER SAMPLER 1485

20 Aerosol inlet 100

Nozzle of PM10 impactor Wall loss included
PM10 chamber Wall loss not included
Y-type fitting Hi-vol sampler

Particle collection efficiency (%)

16 Total (Minor losses included) 80
Particle loss (%)

12 60

8 40

4 20
Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University] at 17:03 22 July 2011

0 0
0 4 8 12 16 0 4 8 12 16 20
Aerodynamic diameter (µm) Aerodynamic diameter (µm)
(a) (a)

2
100
PM2.5 chamber
Flow splitter (PM2.5)
1.6 Flow splitter (PM10)
80
Collection Efficiency (%)
Particle loss (%)

1.2
60

0.8
40

0.4 Wall loss included

20
Wall loss not included
WINS PM2.5 Impactor
Dichot, virtual impactor
0
0
0 4 8 12 16
0 2 4 6
Aerodynamic diameter (µm)
Aerodynamic Diameter (µm)
(b)
(b)
FIG. 3. (a) Major and (b) other minor particle losses in the MFPPS.
FIG. 4. Liquid particle collection efficiency for the (a) PM10 impactor and (b)
PM2.5 impactor.

on the separation characteristic is not observed. The collection

efficiency curves of the PM10 impactor (considering the wall
losses) and PM2.5 impactor are close to those of the hi-vol PM10
sampler (McFarland et al. 1984), the dichotomous PM10 and
EPA WINS PM2.5 sampler (Peters et al. 2001), respectively.
The above calibration results indicate that the traditional im-
pactor theory can be used to design the multifilter PM10 sampling
system successfully when particle wall losses are moderate in
the PM10 sampling system. For the multifilter PM2.5 sampling
system, since the wall losses in the system are small, the im-
pactor theory can be used with good confidence.
Figure 5a and b show the solid particle collection effi-
ciency of the PM10 and PM2.5 impactors, respectively, with
various quantities of oil coated on the impaction substrates.
Figures show that particle bounce occurs from the dry
 1486 C.-N. LIU ET AL.

100 120
Liquid test
(wall loss not included) 1:1 line
0.2 ml

Dichotomous PM10 sampler (µg/m3)

100 MFPPS vs. Dichotomous
80 0.1 ml y = 0.96x + 2.60
Without oil R2 = 0.996
Collection Efficiency, %

80

60 10%
60

40
40

20 20
Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University] at 17:03 22 July 2011

0
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 4 8 12 16 MFPPS PM10 (µg/m3)
Aerodynamic Diameter, µm (a)
(a)
60 60
100 1:1 line
Liquid test
MFPPS vs. Dichotomous
Dichotomous PM10 sampler (µg/m3)

(wall loss not inlcuded) 50 50

EPA WINS PM2.5 sampler (µg/m3)

y = 1.00x + 0.26
0.02 ml
80 R2 = 0.997
0.01 ml
Without oil 40 40
Collection Efficiency, %

10%

60 30 30

20 20
40 MFPPS vs. WINS
y = 1.02x - 2.58
10 R2 = 0.995 10
20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 MFPPS PM2.5(µg/m3)
0 1 2 3 4 (b)
Aerodynamic diameter, µm
FIG. 6. Comparison of (a) PM10 concentrations and (b) PM2.5 concentrations
(b) between MFPPS, dichotomous PM10 and EPA WINS PM2.5 samplers.
FIG. 5. Solid particle collection efficiency for the (a) PM10 impactor and (b)
PM2.5 impactor with various amounts of coated oil on the impaction substrate. at these lower quantities of coated oil (Peters et al. 2001). When
the coated oil is increased to 0.2 and 0.02 ml for the PM10 and
PM2.5 impactors, respectively, solid particle bounce is seen to be
substrates, the maximum collection efficiencies are only 42% eliminated and the collection efficiency curves become sharp.
and 53% for PM10 and PM2.5 impactor, respectively. These The corresponding cutoff aerodynamic diameters are 10.2 ± 0.2
results were also observed in previous studies (Rao and Whitby and 2.5 ± 0.05 µm for PM10 and PM2.5 impactors, respectively,
1978; Cheng and Yeh 1979; Turner and Hering 1987; Tsai and which is in good agreement with those of the liquid particles.
Cheng 1995). Solid particle bounce still occurs when insuffi-
cient coated oil of 0.1 ml and 0.01 ml is used for the PM10 and Field Comparison Tests
PM2.5 impactor, respectively. The collection efficiency curves The comparison of PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations measured
are less sharp due to the increased influence of surface roughness by the MFPPS with those of the other two collocated FRM
 A NOVEL MULTIFILTER SAMPLER
samplers is shown in Figure 6a and b. The data points with error
bars represent the average ± 1 standard deviation calculated
from the concentrations of four sampling channels. Figure 6a,
shows that the MFPPS PM10 concentrations agree well with
those the dichotomous PM10 sampler with a good correlation
coefficient (R2) of 0.996. Similar results are illustrated in Figure
6b which shows that the PM2.5 mass concentrations obtained
by the MFPPS agree well with those obtained by both of the
dichotomous PM10 and EPA WINS PM2.5 samplers with R2 of
0.997 and 0.995, respectively. Data points in these figures al-
most fall on the 1 to 1 line with the difference of less than 10 %.
The ANOVA tests show no significant differences (p > .05) for
the 12 samples taken for both PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.
Furthermore, with the orifices in the filter cassettes, the concen-
tration differences between four sampling lines are found to be
small with the relative standard deviation of less than 4 and 3%
Downloaded by [National Chiao Tung University] at 17:03 22 July 2011
for PM10 and PM2.5 channels, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
This study presents the development, calibration, and field
validation of a novel MFPPS, which enables the collection of
four PM10 and four PM2.5 samples simultaneously. The sam-
pler operates at a total flow rate of 33.4 L/min by an active
flow control system. A proper designed orifice was assembled
behind each of the filter cassettes to reduce the differences in
the pressure drop of the sampling lines, which makes the flow
rate uniform at 4.17 L/min for each sampling line using just one
MFC for four PM10 or PM2.5 sampling lines. The pressure drop
increased by the orifices is much smaller than that of the critical
orifices used in many multifilter samplers.
Both liquid particles and solid particles were used to cali-
brate the MFPPS. Results showed the cutoff aerodynamic di-
ameters of the PM10 and PM2.5 impactors were very close to
the designed values of 10 and 2.5 µm, respectively, with the
consideration of particle wall losses. This study shows that the
traditional impactor theory can be used to design the multifilter
PM10 sampling system successfully when particle wall losses
are moderate in the PM10 sampling system. For the multifilter
PM2.5 sampling system, since the wall losses in the system are
small, the impactor theory can be used with good confidence.
Similar collection efficiency curves for liquid and solid par-
ticles indicate that there was no solid particles bounce occurred
on the impaction substrates coated with sufficient amount of oil.
In the field comparison study, the MFPPS, dichotomos PM10
and EPA WINS PM2.5 sampler were collocated for 24-h am-
bient aerosol sampling. Test results showed that the PM10 and
PM2.5 concentrations measured by all sampling channels of the
MFPPS were uniform and agreed well with those measured by
the other two FRM samplers.
In the future, different filters and sampling components can
be assembled in different sampling lines for different chemical
analyses, and for the study of sampling artifacts of OCs and ionic
species in the PM10 and PM2.5 filter samples simultaneously.
1487
REFERENCES
AeroVironment (1987). Design and Testing of the SCAQS Sampler for the
SCAQS Study. Report # AV-FR-86/649. AeroVironment, Monrovia, CA.
Anderson, H. R. (2000). Differential Epidemiology of Ambient Aerosols.
Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London. Series A, Math. & Phys. Sci., 1775;
2771–2785.
Chang, C. T., Tsai, C. J., Lee, C. T., Chang, S. Y., Cheng, M. T., and Chein,
H. M. (2001). Differences in PM10 Concentrations Measured by β-gauge
Monitor and Hi-Vol Sampler. Atmos. Environ., 35:5741–5748.
Chen, S. C., Tsai, C. J., Huang, C. Y., Chen, H. D., Chen, S. J., Lin, C. C.,
et al. (2010). Chemical Mass Closure and Chemical Characteristic of Am-
bient Ultrafine Particles and Other PM Fractions. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 44:
713–723.
Cheng, Y. S., and Yeh, H. C. (1979). Particle Bounce in Cascade Impactors.
Environ. Sci. Technol., 13:1392–1396.
Dockery, D. W., and Pope, C. A. (1994). Acute Respiratory Effects of Particulate
Air Pollution. Annu. Rev. Public Health., 15:107–132.
Huang, C. H., Chang, C. S., Chang, S. H., Tsai, C. J., Shih, T. S., and Tang, D. T.
(2005). Use of Porous Form as the Substrate of an Impactor for Respirable
Aerosol Sampling. J. Aerosol Sci., 36:1373–1386.
Huang, C. H., and Tsai, C. J. (2001). Effect of Gravity on Particle Collection
Efficiency of Inertial Impactors. J. Aerosol Sci., 32:375–387.
John, W., and Reischl, G. (1980). A Cyclone for Size-selective Sampling of
Ambient Air. JAPCA, 30:872–876.
John, W., and Wang, H. C. (1991). Laboratory Testing Method for PM-10 Sam-
plers: Lowered Effectiveness from Particle Loading. Aerosol Sci. Technol.,
14:93–101.
Kan, H., London, S. J., Chen, G., Zhang, Y., Song, G., Zhao, N., et al. (2007).
Differentiating the Effects of Coarse and Fine Particles on Daily Mortality
in Shanghai, China. Environ. Int., 33:376–384.
Marple, V. A., Rubow, K. L., and Behm, S. M. (1991). A Microorifice Uniform
Deposit Impactor (MOUDI): Description, Calibration and Use. Aerosol Sci.
Technol., 14;434–446.
McFarland, A. R., Ortiz, C. A., and Bertch, R. W. (1984). A 10µm Cutpoint
Size Selective Inlet for Hi-Vol Sampler. JAPCA., 34:544–547.
Monn, C., and Becker, S. (1999). Cytotoxicity and Induction of Proinflammatory
Cytokines From Human Monocytes Exposed to Fine (PM2.5 ) and Coarse
Particles (PM10–2.5 ) in Outdoor and Indoor Air. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.,
155(3):245–252.
Oanh, N. T. K., Pongkiatkul, P., Upadhyay, N., and Hopke, P. P. (2009). Design-
ing Ambient Particulate Matter Monitoring Program for Source Apportion-
ment Study by Receptor Modeling. Atmos. Environ., 43:3334–3344.
Peters, T. M., Vanderpool, R. W., and Wiener, R. W. (2001). Design and Cali-
bration of the EPA PM2.5 Well Impactor Ninety-Six (WINS). Aerosol Sci.
Technol., 34:389–397.
Rao, A. K., and Whitby K. T. (1978). Non-ideal Collection Characteristics of
Inertial Impactors—II. Cascade Impactors. J. Aerosol Sci., 9:87–100.
Tsai, C. J., and Cheng, Y. H. (1995). Solid Particle Collection Characteristics on
Impaction Surfaces of Different Designs. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 23:96–106.
Tsai, C. J., Chang, C. S., Chen, S. C., Chen, P., Shih, T. S., Pui, D. Y. H., et al.
(2008). Laboratory and Field Tests of a Novel Three- Stage Personal Dust
Sampler for Sampling Three Dust Fractions Simultaneously. Aerosol Sci.
Technol., 42:85–95.
Tsai, C. J., and Perng, S. N. (1998). Artifacts of Ionic Species for hi-vol PM10
and PM10 Dichotomous Samplers. Atmos. Environ., 32:1605–1613.
Turner, J. R., and Hering, S. V. (1987). Greased and Oiled Substrates as Bounce-
free Impaction Surfaces. J. Aerosol Sci., 18:215–224.
U.S. EPA. (2011). National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html (accessed March 1, 2011).
Watson, J. G., and Chow, J. C. (2001). Ambient Air Sampling. in Aerosol Mea-
surement: Principle, Techniques and Applications (2nd ed.), P. A. Brown
and K. Willeke, eds., Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 821–824.
Witschger, O., Fabries, J. F., and Görner, P. (1997). Particle Entry Efficiency of
an Annular Slot Aerosol Sampler. J. Aerosol Sci., 28:S679–S680.