Aerosol Science and Technology

ISSN: 0278-6826 (Print) 1521-7388 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uast20

Novel nonbouncing PM2.5 impactor modified from

well impactor ninety-six

Thi-Cuc Le & Chuen-Jinn Tsai

To cite this article: Thi-Cuc Le & Chuen-Jinn Tsai (2017): Novel nonbouncing PM2.5
impactor modified from well impactor ninety-six, Aerosol Science and Technology, DOI:
10.1080/02786826.2017.1341621

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2017.1341621

Accepted author version posted online: 12

Jun 2017.
Published online: 12 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 13

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uast20

Download by: [National Chiao Tung University 國國國國國國] Date: 29 June 2017, At: 18:01
AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2017.1341621

Novel nonbouncing PM2.5 impactor modified from well impactor ninety-six

Thi-Cuc Le and Chuen-Jinn Tsai
Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Chiao Tung University, Hsinchu, Taiwan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The impaction well containing an oil-soaked glass fiber (GF) filter of the well impactor ninety-six Received 7 March 2017
(WINS) needs to be replaced every five sampling days to avoid particle overloading which affects Accepted 6 June 2017
the cutoff diameter (dpa50) and the sampling accuracy. This study developed a novel modified WINS EDITOR
(M-WINS) which uses water to wash the wetted GF filter substrate clean continuously to eliminate Kihong Park
the particle overloading effect and extend the service life of the impactor without the need of
impaction well cleaning and replacement of the oil-soaked GF filter. The laboratory test showed
that dpa50 of the M-WINS only varied slightly from 2.44 to 2.49 mm while dpa50 of the WINS
decreased from 2.44 to 2.05 mm when the loaded particle mass increased from 0–6 mg. The field
test showed that dpa50 and the sampling bias of the novel M-WINS met the USEPA requirements
(dpa50 D 2.5 § 0.2 mm and sampling bias <§5%) while the WINS without regular replacement of
the well showed the decrease in dpa50 down to 2.12 mm and the increase in the negative sampling
bias to ¡20% after 17 continuous sampling days. Therefore, the current M-WINS can be used as the
PM2.5 inlet for unattended, continuous sampling for a long time with a very good sampling accuracy.

1. Introduction have sharp and nearly the same collection efficiency

Inertia impactors are often used as size-selective inlets in
ambient PM10 (particulate matter <10 mm in aerody-
namic diameter) and PM2.5 (particulate matter <2.5 mm
in aerodynamic diameter) sampling systems (Watson
and Chow 2011). The performance of inertial impactors
is characterized by the cutoff aerodynamic diameter
(dpa50), which is the aerodynamic diameter correspond-
ing to 50% collection efficiency, and the sharpness or
geometric standard deviation (GSD) of the collection
efficiency curve. The GSD is calculated as (Kenny et al.
2004):
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
dpa84
GSD D
dpa16
where dpa84 and dpa16 are the aerodynamic diameters cor-
responding to the collection efficiencies of 84% and 16%,
respectively. The most important parameter that governs
the collection efficiency is the Stokes number (Stk),
which is the ratio of the particle’s stopping distance to
the characteristic dimension of the nozzle. Jet Reynolds
number (Re) is another parameter governing the flow
field and the collection efficiency. Inertial impactors will
curves if Re ranges between 500 and 3000 (Marple and
Rubow 1986). Gravitational force of particles increases
the particle collection efficiency when Re is below about
1500 (Huang and Tsai 2001). Other parameters influenc-
ing the collection efficiency curves are the impaction
plate diameter, the particle density (Huang and Tsai
2002) and the design of impaction surfaces (Tsai and
Cheng 1995; Tsai and Lin 2000).
The inertial impactor is known to have problems
associated with particle overloading and solid particle
bounce, which cause the shift of the cutoff diameter and
the collection efficiency curve leading to incorrect PM
measurement (Pak et al. 1992; Tsai and Cheng 1995;
Kenny et al. 2000; Vanderpool et al. 2001b). To minimize
[1]
solid particle bounce, the impaction plate is usually
coated with vacuum grease, vacuum or silicone oil
(Turner and Hering 1987; Pak et al. 1992; Tsai et al.
2012) or covered by a glass-fiber (GF) filter saturated in
water (Dunbar et al. 2005). Use of rough impaction
plates (Marjam€aki and Keskinen 2004), porous sub-
strates (Huang et al. 2001; Marjam€aki and Keskinen
2004; Huang et al. 2005), or specially designed substrates
(Tsai and Cheng 1995; Chang et al. 1999; Kim et al.
2013) also help reduce particle bounce. In addition, the

CONTACT Chuen-Jinn Tsai cjtsai@mail.nctu.edu.tw Institute of Environmental Engineering, National Chiao Tung University (NCTU), No. 1001 University
Road, Hsinchu 30010, Taiwan.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uast.
© 2017 American Association for Aerosol Research
2 T.-C. LE AND C.-J. TSAI
relative humidity of incoming aerosols can be condi-
tioned to a higher value to minimize particle bounce
(Dunbar et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2011).
Solid particle bounce from the grease-coated impac-
tion plate still occurs when the plate is loaded heavily
with particles. The incident particles strike on previously
deposited solid particles rather than the coated plate
resulting in possible particle bounce (Tsai and Cheng
1995; Vanderpool et al. 2001b). To increase the particle
loading capacity on the impaction substrate, the special
designs of impaction plates (Tsai and Cheng 1995), oil-
soaked filters (Peters et al. 2001a), oil-coated impaction
substrate (Turner and Hering 1987; Pak et al. 1992; Tsai
et al. 2012), or rotating substrates (Marple et al. 1991;
Tsai et al. 2012) were used.
The Well Impactor Ninety-Six (WINS), which is a
single-jet, round-nozzle inertial impactor with dpa50 of
2.48 mm and GSD of 1.18, consists of an upper housing
containing a nozzle and a lower housing supporting an
impaction well (Peters et al. 2001a; Vanderpool et al.
2001a). The well, which contains a 37 mm GF soaked
with 1 mL mineral oil as the substrate, is used to mini-
mize particle overloading and subsequent particle
bounce-off similar to a previous design (Tsai and Cheng
1995). Additionally, the well is also helpful for retaining
any blow-off from the tip of the conical build-up that is
typical after the collection of a large amount of particles
(Peters et al. 2001a). The collection efficiency curve of
the WINS is not affected by particle gravity as Re equals
6000 (Huang and Tsai 2001) and there is no particle loss
at the sidewall of the well since Stk50 and the well-to-jet
radius ratio equals 0.238 and 9.45, respectively (Hu et al.
2007). The WINS is designated as the inlet for an USEPA
PM2.5 Federal Reference Method (FRM) sampler or a
PM2.5 Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitor.
However, previous laboratory studies showed that
dpa50 of the WINS shifted downward to 2.15 mm after
loading aloxite powder to 4.5 mg (Kenny et al. 2000) and
to 2.21 mm after loading Arizona test dust (ATD) to
16 mg, corresponding to 5 consecutive sampling days
with a negative bias of ¡5% (Vanderpool et al. 2001b).
In the filed sampling studies, dpa50 of the WINS was also
shown to reduce by 12% (2.44 mm to 2.15 mm) after 4
weeks of sampling at a parking lot, corresponding to the
estimated bias in PM2.5 concentrations of ¡8.8% (Kenny
et al. 2000), and decrease to 2.32 mm with a maximum
bias of ¡2.1% in PM2.5 concentrations after 120-h of
sampling (Vanderpool et al. 2001b). This is because that
oil wicks up the previously deposited particle layer and
accumulates particles to form a mound which reduces
the cutoff diameter.
The above studies supported USA Federal regulation
that requires the replacement of the WINS impaction
well every 5 days of 24-h sampling (USEPA 1998;
Vanderpool et al. 2001b). In comparison, dpa50 of another
PM2.5 inlet called Very Sharp Cut Cyclone (VSCC) was
not changed and GSD increased only slightly from 1.16 to
1.2 after continuous sampling 90 days at an equivalent
concentration of 150 mg/m3 (Kenny et al. 2004). This is
due to a much more diffused particle deposition region in
the VSCC than the single jet deposition area in the WINS.
It is important to note that the “equivalent” 90 sampling
days at the concentration of 150 mg/m3 was determined
in the laboratory for 30 h with the ATD particle concen-
tration of 10 mg/m3.
This study aims to develop a novel modified WINS
(M-WINS), which uses water to wash the impaction
substrate clean continuously, to extend the 5-day
requirement to replace the impaction well of the
WINS to a much longer period. The M-WINS uses a
wetted GF filter as the substrate through which a
0.8 mm hole is drilled at the center as shown in
Figure 1. Deionized (DI) water flow is injected con-
tinuously upward at a flow rate of 0.3 mL/min by
using a syringe pump to wash off deposited particles
from the substrate. Washed water is drained off by
using another syringe pump through a hole drilled at
the edge of the well. The impaction surface is slightly
inclined downward at 5 degrees from the center to
the hole to ease the water flow. The wetted GF filter
is used because it can combine the actions of liquid
surface tension (capillary forces) and soluble particle
dissolution to prevent particle bounce and overload-
ing (Dunbar et al. 2005). The GF filter is relatively
cheap, has good chemical resistance and dense fiber
weave that retains solution effectively (Peters et al.
2001a).
In this article, the M-WINS was tested for the collec-
tion efficiency and the particle overloading effect in the
laboratory. The original WINS was also tested for com-
parison. After that, two field comparison tests were con-
ducted for 12 and 17 days, respectively, for the
performance and particle loading effect of both the
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the impaction well of the
M-WINS.

M-WINS and the WINS using the VSCC as the main
reference.
2. Experimental method
2.1. Laboratory tests
Figure 2 shows the experimental setup for determin-
ing the collection efficiency curves of the M-WINS or
the WINS. The experimental method is similar to
that in detail in the previous study (Peters et al.
2001b). Solid ammonium fluorescein particles (AF
particles; density is 1.35 g/cm3) with the aerodynamic
diameter ranging from 1.5 to 5.0 mm were generated
by a Vibrating-Orifice Aerosol Generator (VOAG,
TSI model 3450, TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN, USA)
(Vanderpool and Rubow 1998). The electrostatic
charge of particles was neutralized by a neutralizer
(Kr-85, TSI model 3054) before particles enter the
impactors and/or were measured. The upstream and
downstream particle concentrations of the impactors
were measured by an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer
(APS, TSI model 3321, USA) to calculate the collec-
tion efficiency, hexp (%), as:
Cin ¡ Cout
hexp ð%Þ D £ 100%
Cin
where Cin and Cout are the upstream and downstream
aerosol number concentrations (#/cm3). The collec-
tion efficiency for each particle diameter was calcu-
lated from at least six upstream and downstream
measurements. The APS was calibrated first with four
standard PSL particles (polystyrene latex, 1, 2, 3, and
4 mm) before the tests and the accuracy was found to
be approximately §3%. The discrete collection
Figure 2. Experimental setup of the particle collection efficiency test.
AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3
efficiency data were fitted by following equation to
obtain dpa50 and GSD (Peters et al. 2001a):
" ¡"a ¡ b
hfit ð%Þ D 100%   1  !# ¡ e #
dpa C dln 2e ¡ 1 ¡ c
£ 1¡ 1 C exp
d
[3]
where a, b, c, d, and e are parameters. This equation
should be fitted with R2 > 0.99.
A spreadsheet was used to perform the numerical
integration of the collection efficiency curve of the
M-WINS or the WINS with the idealized ambient distri-
butions to estimate PM2.5 mass concentrations (Csamp),
which is similar to that in the previous study (Vander-
pool et al. 2001b). The sampling bias in estimated PM2.5
concentrations of the M-WINS or the WINS and the
ideal WINS is calculated by
Csamp ¡ Cideal
Bias ð%Þ D £ 100% [4]
Cideal
where Cideal (mg/m3) is the estimated PM2.5 mass concen-
tration of the ideal WINS. Cideal equals 13.81, 34.28 and
78.53 mg/m3 corresponding to idealized fine, typical and
[2]
coarse ambient particle size distributions, respectively
(USEPA 1998; Vanderpool et al. 2001b).
In order to study the particle overloading of the
M-WINS or the WINS, Al2O3 powder (QF-Al-500,
Sipernat, Japan) was dispersed by using a Small-Scale
Powder Disperser (SSPD, TSI model 3433) at the aerosol
flow rate of 18.5 L/min. Generated particles were then
introduced into the 5 L stainless steel chamber and
diluted by 3.2 L/min clean airflow. The upstream particle
mass concentration was determined by filter cassette 01
4 T.-C. LE AND C.-J. TSAI
at 5.0 L/min and remaining 16.7 L/min passed through
the M-WINS or the WINS. The downstream mass con-
centration was determined by filter cassette 02 at 5.0 L/
min. 47 mm Teflon filters (Teflo R2PL037, Pall Corp.,
NY, USA) installed in cassette 01 and 02 were weighed
before and after sampling after being conditioned for at
least 24-h in an environment conditioning room where
the 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 weighted by a microbalance (Model CP2P-F,
Startorius, Germany). The precision of weighting was
determined to be 2.0 mg by repeated weighing for at least
five times. The total loaded particle mass, ML (mg), in
the WINS or the M-WINS was calculated as
16:7 ðL=minÞ
ML ðmg Þ D ðMin ¡ Mout Þ £ [5]
5 ðL=minÞ
where Min and Mout are the collected particles mass of fil-
ter cassette 01 and 02, respectively (mg).
Two syringe pumps were used to keep the impaction
substrate of the M-WINS clean during the particle load-
ing test at the water flow rate of 0.3 mL/min. After pre-
liminary tests, the water flow rate was set at 0.3 mL/min
to not only wash off the deposited particles effectively
but also minimize the amount of water used. After each
loaded particle mass of 0.5, 4.0 and 6.0 mg, the M-WINS
or the WINS was tested for the particle collection effi-
ciency curve immediately by using the APS.
2.2. Field comparison tests
The field comparison tests were conducted at National
Chiao Tung University (NCTU) from Oct. 29 to Nov.
10, 2016 (period #1, 12 days) and from Nov. 15 to Dec.
3, 2016 (period #2, 17 days). The NCTU sampling site
was located at the rooftop of the five-floor building of
the Institute of Environmental Engineering of NCTU,
which is about 1 km away from heavy-traffic roads. Sam-
plers were set up at a sampling platform with 2-meter
height inlet tubes.
One Dichot (Dichotomous PM2.5 sampler, Model 241,
Andersen Inc., Georgia, USA) equipped with the M-
WINS and the other Dichot equipped with the WINS
were collocated with a PartisolÒ -FRM 2000 sampler con-
taining the VSCC and a TEOM-FDMS (tapered element
oscillating microbalance with a filter dynamic measure-
ment systems, Model 1405-DF) as the reference sam-
plers. Only the base-mode PM2.5 data of the TEOM-
FDMS were used for comparison without correcting for
the reference-mode PM2.5. The M-WINS or the WINS
was used to replace the original virtual impactor in the
Dichot so that only PM2.5 was sampled. A 47 mm Teflon
filter (Teflo R2PL047, Pall Corp.) was used in the Parti-
sol-VSCC and two 37 mm Teflon filters (Teflo R2PL037,
Pall Corp.) were used in the Dichot-M-WINS and the
Dichot-WINS, respectively. The filter conditioning, pre-
weighting, and post-weighting procedures were similar
to those described in the previous section.
In period #1, the WINS and the VSCC were cleaned
manually every day (i.e., clean inlets) to evaluate the per-
formance of the M-WINS. In period #2, the VSCC was
cleaned while the WINS was not cleaned during the sam-
pling period to examine the particle loading effect of
both the WINS and M-WINS (i.e., uncleaned inlets). In
both periods, the substrate of the M-WINS was cleaned
automatically by injecting water at the flow rate of
0.3 mL/min. After the test of period #2 was over, the
impaction wells of the M-WINS and the WINS were
tested for the cutoff diameter in the laboratory following
the method described in the previous section.
In order to evaluate the sampling precision of
M-WINS or the WINS, paired sample t tests were
conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences, version 22.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) to
determine whether two PM2.5 data sets measured by
two collocated pairs of samplers are statically the same
(p > 0.05).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Laboratory results—particle collection
efficiency
Figure 3 shows the particle collection efficiency curve of
the WINS. The cutoff diameter equals 2.44 § 0.05 mm,
which is very close to the cutoff diameters of 2.48 §
0.05 mm by Peters et al. (2001a) and 2.44 § 0.03 mm by
Kenny et al. (2000). The GSD of the collection efficiency
curve of the WINS is 1.2, indicating that the particle col-
lection efficiency curve is less sharp than that in Peters
et al. (2001a) (GSD D 1.18) but sharper than that in
Kenny et al. (2000) (GSD D 1.23). The particle collection
efficiencies of the coarse particles (2.5 to 4 mm) are lower
than those obtained by Peters et al. (2001a) while the
particle collection efficiencies of the fine particles are
slightly lower than those obtained by Kenny et al. (2000).
The difference in GSDs between the present study and
that of Peters et al. (2001a) is mainly due to more data
points acquired for coarse particles and hence better data
fitting in the current study, although the same kind of
test particles (monodisperse AF particles) were used. The
test particles used in Kenny et al. (2000) were solid, poly-
disperse spherical glass microspheres with the number

Figure 3. Particle collection efficiency curve of the WINS.
median diameter around 1.5 mm. These different types of
solid particles may create the differences in the GSDs.
Despite the small differences in the cutoff diameters and
GSDs, the estimated biases of the WINS in the present
study are less than §1.1%, which still meet
the criteria specified in the USEPA FRM regulation
(<§5%) (USEPA 2001).
Figure 4 shows the collection efficiency curve of the
M-WINS with the wetted GF filter substrate. The cutoff
diameter of the M-WINS equals 2.46 § 0.05 mm, which
agrees with the theoretical cutoff diameter of 2.4 mm
(Marple and Willeke 1976; Peters et al. 2001a), is similar
to that of the WINS and meets the criteria specified in
Figure 4. Particle collection efficiency curve of the M-WINS.
AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5
the USEPA FRM regulation (2.5 § 0.2 mm) (USEPA
2001). The dimensions of the nozzle, which are not
changed in the M-WINS, were designed to achieve dpa50
of »2.5 mm (Peters et al. 2001a). The GSD of the collec-
tion efficiency curve of the M-WINS is 1.24, indicating
that the collection efficiency curve of the M-WINS is
slightly less sharp than that of the WINS when using
water-saturated GF filter instead of oil-soaked GF filter,
especially in the particle diameter range of 2.5 to 4 mm.
This is because the particle collection characteristics of
the impactor is notably influenced by the nature of
impaction surface (Marjam€aki and Keskinen 2004). In
this study, the silicon oil (KF96SP, Shin-Etsu Chemical
Co. Ltd., Taiwan) with the kinetic viscosity of 100 mm2/s
used in the WINS could retain particles on the impaction
substrate more effectively as compared to water with
a lower kinetic viscosity of 0.89 mm2/s used in the
M-WINS.
In Figure 4, it is apparent that the M-WINS with a dry
impaction plate without adhesive coating has low particle
collection efficiency for coarse particles due to particle
bounce. It is observed that particles deposit in the inner
wall and some are trapped in the antispill ring of the
impaction well after bouncing from the plate. This parti-
cle loss is considered a part of the collection efficiency
determined by the APS, which explains the steady-state
collection efficiency of 80% for particles larger than
4.0 mm. When the plate is wetted by water, solid particle
bounce is suppressed, dpa50 reduces to 2.5 mm which still
satisfies the acceptance criteria of the USEPA. However,
GSD increases to 1.37 indicating a lower coarse particle
collection efficiency and less sharp efficiency curve com-
pared to that of the WINS with the wetted GF filter sub-
strate (Figure 4). Since Re of the M-WINS is 6000, a
large fraction of the particles will impact on the substrate
within a spot whose radius equals to the nozzle radius
(Sethi and John 1993; Huang and Tsai 2002). With the
GF filter substrate, injected water could trap and wash
off deposited particles effectively. In comparison, part of
the injected water can be blown away without trapping
particles. This explains a lower collection efficiency of
the wetted plate than that of the wetted GF filter sub-
strate. Therefore, the wetted GF filter in the M-WINS
improves the collection efficiency of coarse particles over
the wet impaction plate since it makes the impaction sur-
face rough and the filter media retains water keeping it
from being blown off by the aerosol jet. This tells why
the wetted GF filter has to be used in the M-WINS.
The sampling biases of the M-WINS with the wetted
GF filter substrate are shown in Table 1. There is a small
positive bias of C2.25% for the idealized coarse distribu-
tion, and small negative biases of ¡0.58% and ¡0.15% for
the idealized fine and idealized typical distributions,
6 T.-C. LE AND C.-J. TSAI
Table 1. Estimated bias of the M-WINS in PM2.5 concentrations
for three ambient aerosol size distributions.
M-WINS Fine aerosol Typical aerosol
Estimated mass (mg/m ) 3
78.08 34.23
Bias (%) ¡0.58% ¡0.15%
respectively. That is, the M-WINS can be used as the
PM2.5 inlet to measure the PM2.5 mass concentration as it
meets the performance FRM requirements (dpa50 D 2.5 §
0.2 mm and sampling bias <§5%).
Besides, it was observed that AF particles, which are
water soluble, were dissolved completely in DI water
after striking on the substrate, indicating that washed
water could be further analyzed for determining the
chemical constituents for soluble coarse particles.
3.2. Laboratory results—particle loading effect
The laboratory test results of the cutoff diameters and the
collection efficiency curves of the WINS at different loaded
particle masses are shown in Figures 5a and b, respec-
tively. It can be seen that dpa50 of the WINS decreases
from 2.44 to 2.05 mm and the collection efficiency curve
shifts to the left as the loaded particle mass increases from
0.0 to 6.0 mg. When striking on the oil-soaked GF sub-
strate, the deposited particles retain and pile up on the
substrate, resulting in the change of the flow field in the
impaction region and the increase in a likelihood of parti-
cle collection. Thereby the cutoff diameter decreases and
the collection efficiency curve shifts to the left.
In Figure 5a, the trend of decreasing cutoff diameter is
similar to the results in previous studies (Kenny et al. 2000;
Vanderpool et al. 2001b) but the decrease in dpa50 is more
significant with increasing loaded particle mass in this
Figure 5. (a) Cutoff aerodynamic diameter and (b) collection efficiency curve of the loaded WINS. (Note: the data of Vanderpool et al.
(2001b) at loaded particle mass of 16 mg are not shown.)
study. This is because the loaded particles (Al2O3 powder:
0–4 mm) with the Mass Median Aerodynamic Diameter
Coarse aerosol (MMAD) of »2 mm and GSD of »1.93 are smaller than
14.12
those in Kenny et al. (2000) (Aloxite, MMAD D 6 mm
C2.25% and GSD D 1.4) and Vanderpool et al. (2001b) (ARD,
MMAD D 5 mm and GSD D 3). Previous studies also
found that smaller loaded particles cause greater overload-
ing effect and more shift in dpa50 than larger particles at the
same loaded mass (Chen and Huang 1998; Kenny et al.
2000). Smaller loaded particles form a steady mound
underneath the nozzle, which can grow gradually while
bigger loaded particles form an unsteady mound, which
can be broken off. The type of loaded particles also contrib-
utes to the differences in Figure 5a in different studies of
the WINS (Chen and Huang 1998).
In Figure 5b, a slight decrease in the sharpness of
collection efficiency curve (i.e., GSD slightly increases
from 1.2 to 1.25) was observed as the loaded particle
mass increases from 0.0 to 6.0 mg since the increase in
the collection of particles smaller than the cutoff diame-
ter occurs. It is due to the formation of the mound
which enhances the collection efficiency of fine particles
(Jurcik and Wang 1995). The consistent relationship of
the decrease in the sharpness and the cutoff diameter is
similar to that in Vanderpool et al. (2001b) and Kenny
et al. (2000). The estimated negative biases of the
loaded WINS increase (¡1.1% to ¡6.9%) with the
increase in loaded mass (0.0–6.0 mg), indicating that
particle overloading causes the underestimation in
PM2.5 mass concentrations. When the loaded mass is
greater than 4 mg, the estimated bias of the loaded
WINS exceeds the FRM requirement of §5%. For com-
parison, Kenny et al. (2000) estimated the mass loading
for the WINS performance to deteriorate significantly
is less than 3 mg.
 AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7

Figure 6. Field comparison of clean WINS and M-WINS (a) with clean VSCC and (b) with TEOM-FDMS as the references.

In contrast, dpa50 of the M-WINS only varies slightly
from 2.44 to 2.49 mm with the loaded particle mass rang-
ing from 0 to 6 mg. That is, the cutoff diameter of the
M-WINS is not affected by the loaded particle mass. No
particle mound was observed at the center of the impac-
tion substrate in the laboratory study and in the field
study to be discussed in the following section. It was
observed that the Al2O3 test particles, which are indissol-
uble, were washed off by continuous injected water pre-
venting the accumulation of the deposited particles. The
pictures of the substrates with the mound (WINS) and
without the mound (M-WINS) taken after 17 sampling
days can be seen in Figure 8 for comparison. That is, it is
demonstrated that the M-WINS is able to eliminate the
particle loading effect on the cutoff characteristics under
a high loading condition.
between the performance of the M-WINS and that of the
VSCC (R2 > 0.99), and the TEOM-FDMS (R2 > 0.98).
The data of the WINS correlates well with those of the
VSCC (R2 > 0.997) and the TEOM-FDMS (R2 > 0.991).
The WINS data show a better linear fit to the reference
data with higher R2 values than those of the M-WINS,
indicating that the WINS outperforms the M-WINS.
This is because the sampling effectiveness (dpa50 and
GSD) of the WINS is quite similar to the VSCC. Besides,
the linear regression coefficients of the M-WINS and the
references meet the USEPA performance requirements
for comparability of PM2.5 candidate equivalent method
samplers (i.e., slope D 1.0 § 0.05, intercept D 0.0 §
1.0 mg/m3, and R2 > 0.97) (Kenny et al. 2004).
Figure 7 shows that the uncleaned WINS under-
samples PM2.5 concentrations compared to the VSCC

3.3. Field comparison results

Figure 6 shows field comparison results for the M-WINS
and the clean WINS with the VSCC (Figure 6a) and with
the TEOM-FDMS (Figure 6b) as the references at the
NCTU sampling site. The results of paired sample t test
show that the PM2.5 concentrations of the M-WINS
ranging from 3.7 to 34.1 mg/m3 agree well with those of
the VSCC (period #1: p D 0.142 > 0.05; period #2: p D
0.886 > 0.05) and the TEOM-FDMS (period #1: p D
0.220 > 0.05; period #2: p D 0.413 > 0.05). Similarly, the
PM2.5 concentrations of the clean WINS ranging from
7.9 to 34.8 mg/m3 have no significant difference with
those of the clean VSCC (period #1: p D 0.058 > 0.05)
and the TEOM-FDMS (period #1: p D 0.059 > 0.05).
This indicates that the Dichot-M-WINS is not statisti-
cally different from the other samplers for PM2.5 sam-
pling over a wide concentration range.
The slope, intercept, and correlation coefficient (R2)
of linear regression lines of pairwise comparisons are Figure 7. Sampling biases of the uncleaned WINS and the
shown in Figure 6. It shows a good comparability M-WINS using the VSCC as the reference.
8 T.-C. LE AND C.-J. TSAI
Figure 8. Impaction substrates of (a) the uncleaned WINS and (b) the M-WINS after 17 sampling days.
with the sampling biases increasing from ¡3.0 to ¡5.7%
(day 1 to day 5), ¡9.0 to ¡17.1% (day 6 to day 11, if the
data at day 9 and day 11 with the sampling biases of
»30% were disregarded), and ¡15.7 to ¡21.3% (day 12
to day 17). Because of low PM2.5 concentrations (<11.0
mg/m3) at day 9 and day 11, biases become high. During
period #2, the PM2.5/PM10 ratio is 0.62 § 0.19 and the
measured PM2.5 concentration range of the VSCC is 3.7–
33.5 mg/m3. The deposited particle mound was observed
on the WINS substrate as shown in Figure 8 at the end
of sampling. The cutoff diameter of the uncleaned WINS
shifts downward from 2.48 to 2.12 mm as the estimated
loaded mass is increased to 4.1 mg and the total sampled
PM2.5 is calculated to be 5.8 mg after 17 sampling days.
The trend is similar to the results in previous studies
as described in the introduction (Kenny et al. 2000; Van-
derpool et al. 2001b). However, the present sampling
bias of the uncleaned WINS (<¡20%) is higher than the
estimated sampling bias by Kenny et al. (2000)
(<¡8.8%) in which the similar total sampled PM2.5
(»6 mg) and PM2.5/PM10 ratios (0.5–0.75) were
reported. The present sampling bias of the uncleaned
WINS is ¡19.6% as the calculated loaded mass is 2.3 mg
after 12 continuous sampling days but a small estimated
sampling bias of < ¡1.8% was reported by Vanderpool
et al. (2001b) at the same estimated loaded mass
(»2.3 mg) and PM2.5/PM10 ratio (0.62). In addition, after
5 days of sampling, the sampled PM2.5 concentration of
the uncleaned WINS is »6% lower than that of the clean
VSCC, which is beyond the acceptance criteria of the
estimated PM2.5 concentration (sampling bias <§5%).
This agrees well with USA Federal regulation that
requires replacing the well of the WINS every 5 days of
24-hr sampling.
The sampling biases of the novel M-WINS are
<§3.6% when PM2.5 concentration is greater than
7.1 mg/m3 (day 1 to 8 and 11 to 17). The biases are
increased slightly to ¡6.4% when PM2.5 concentration
is low: 3.7mg/m3 at day 9 and 4.6 mg/m3 at day 10.
These results are still in good agreement with the
results of the previous studies which found that the
sampling biases of PM2.5 FRM could be 2–6% (Peters
et al. 2001c) or »10% (Chow et al. 2008) for
determining the mass. The cutoff diameter of the
M-WINS only shifts from 2.46 to 2.51 mm, which not
only meets the accuracy of dpa50 § 0.07 (Kenny et al.
2000) but also falls well in the range of the USEPA
requirement of 2.5 § 0.2 mm. The water injected
through the wetted GF filter of the M-WINS not only
washes off the deposited particles but can also dis-
solves most of the inorganic species dominant at the
NCTU sampling site. Black color was seen at the cen-
tral spot on the substrate due to the deposition of
un-dissolvable particles such as soot, which were not
washed off completely. However, no particles piled up
on the substrate were observed after 17 continuous
sampling days as shown in Figure 8.
4. Conclusion
The novel M-WINS using the wetted GF filter as
the substrate was developed in this study. In the
M-WINS, the injected water captures and washes off
the deposited particles on the wetted GF filter contin-
uously, preventing the particle overloading effect. The
laboratory tests showed no shift in the cutoff diame-
ter with the loaded particle mass ranging from 0.0 to
6.0 mg and the field comparison study showed accu-
rate PM2.5 concentration measurement during 17 con-
tinuous sampling days. The study demonstrates that
the M-WINS has a great potential to be used as the
PM2.5 inlet for continuous PM2.5 sampling and moni-
toring for a long period with the sampling bias less
than the USEPA requirement of §5%. In the future,
the collected liquid sample can also be coupled with
an Ion Chromatograph for the real time measurement
of water-soluble ions in coarse particles.
Funding
The final support of this work by the Taiwan Ministry of
Science and Technology via the contracts MOST 105-2622-8-
009-007-TE4 and MOST 105-2221-E-009-005-MY3 is grate-
fully acknowledged.

References
Chang, M., Kim, S., Sioutas, C. (1999). Experimental Studies on
Particle Impaction and Bounce: Effects of Substrate Design
and Material. Atmos. Environ., 33:2313–2322.
Chen, C. C., Huang, S. H. (1998). Shift of Aerosol Penetration
in Respirable Cyclone Samplers. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J.,
60:720–730.
Chen, S. C., Tsai, C. J., Chen, H. D., Huang, C. Y., Roam, G. D.
(2011). The Influence of Relative Humidity on Nanoparticle
Concentration and Particle Mass Distribution Measure-
ments by the MOUDI. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 45:596–603.
Chow, J., Doraiswamy, P., Watson, J., Chen, L., Ho, S., Sode-
man, D. (2008). Advances in Integrated and Continuous
Measurements for Particle Mass and Chemical Composi-
tion. J Air Waste Manag. Assoc., 58:141–163.
Dunbar, C., Kataya, A., Tiangbe, T. (2005). Reducing Bounce
Effects in the Andersen Cascade Impactor. Inter. J. Pharma-
ceutics., 301:25–32.
Hu, S., Seshadri, S., McFarland, A. R. (2007). CFD Study on
Compound Impaction in a Jet-in-Well Impactor. Aerosol
Sci. Technol., 41:1102–1109.
Huang, C. H., Tsai, C. J. (2001). Effect of Gravity on Particle
Collection Efficiency of Inertial Impactors. J. Aerosol Sci.,
35:375–387.
Huang, C. H., Tsai, C. J. (2002). Influence of Impaction Plate
Diameter and Particle Density on Collection Efficiency of
Round-Nozzle Inertial Impactors. Aerosol Sci. Technol.,
36:714–720.
Huang, C. H., Tsai, C. J., Shih, T. S. (2001). Particle Collection
Efficiency of an Impactor with Porous Metal Substrates. J.
Aerosol Sci., 32:1035–1044.
Huang, C. H., Chang, C. S., Chang, S. H., Tsai, C. J., Shih, T. S.,
Tang, D. T. (2005). Use of Porous Foam as the Substrate of
an Impactor for Respirable Aerosol Sampling. J. Aerosol
Sci., 36:1373–1386.
Jurcik, B., Wang, H. (1995). On the Shape of Impactor Effi-
ciency Curve. J Aerosol Sci., 26:1139–1147.
Kenny, L. C., Gussman, R., Meyer, M. (2000). Development of
a Sharp-cut Cyclone for Ambient Aerosol Monitoring
Applications. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 32:338–358.
Kenny, L. C., Merrifield, T., Mark, D., Gussman, R., Thorpe, A.
(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.
Kim, W. G., Yook, S. J., Ahn, K. H. (2013). Collection Effi-
ciency of Rectangular Slit-Nozzle Inertial Impactors with
Impaction Plates of Elliptical Concave Curvature. Aerosol
Sci. Technol., 47:99–105.
Marjam€aki, M., Keskinen, J. (2004). Effect of Impaction Plate
Roughness and Porosity on Collection Efficiency. J. Aerosol
Sci., 35:301–308.
Marple, V. A., Willeke, K. (1976). Impactor Design. Atmos.
Environ., 10:891–896.
Marple, V. A., and Rubow, K. L. (1986). Theory and Design
Guidelines, in Cascade Impactor, P. J. Lodge, T. L. Chan, and
T. L. Chan Jr, eds., Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc., Ohio, pp. 79–101.
AEROSOL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9
Marple, V. A., Rubow, K. L., Behm, S. M. (1991). A Microori-
fice Uniform Deposit Impactor (MOUDI): Description,
Calibration and Use. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 14:434–446.
Pak, S. S., Liu, B. Y. H., Rubow, K. L. (1992). Effect of Coating
Thickness on Particle Bounce in Inertial Impactors. Aerosol
Sci. Technol., 16:141–150.
Peters, T. M., Vanderpool, R. W., Wiener, R. W. (2001a).
Design and Calibration of the EPA PM2.5 Well Impactor
Ninety-Six (WINS). Aerosol Sci. Technol., 34:389–397.
Peters, T. M., Vanderpool, R. W., Wiener, R. W. (2001b).
Methodology for Measuring PM2.5 Separator Character-
istics Using an Aerosizer. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 34:398–
406.
Peters, T., Norris, G., Vanderpool, R., Gemmill, D., Wiener, R.,
Murdoch, R., McElroy, F., Pitchford, M. (2001c). Field Per-
formance of PM2.5 Federal Reference Method Samplers.
Aerosol Sci. Technol., 34:433–447.
Sethi, V., John, W. (1993). Particle Impaction Patterns from A
Circular Jet. Aerosol Sci. Technol., 18:1–10.
Tsai, C. J., Cheng, Y. H. (1995). Solid Particle Collection
Characteristics on Impaction Surfaces of Different Designs.
Aerosol Sci. Technol., 23:96–106.
Tsai, C. J., Lin, T. I. (2000). Particle Collection Efficiency of
Different Impactor Designs. Sep. Sci. Technol., 35(16):2639–
2650.
Tsai, C. J., Liu, C. N., Hung, S. M., Chen, S. C., Uang, S.
N., Cheng, Y. S., Zhou, Y. (2012). Novel Active Personal
Nanoparticle Sampler for the Exposure Assessment of
Nanoparticles in Workplaces. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
46:4546–4552.
Turner, J. R., Hering, S. V. (1987). Greased and Oiled Sub-
strates as Bounce-free Impaction Surfaces. J. Aerosol Sci.,
18:215–224.
USEPA. (1998). Monitoring PM2.5 in Ambient Air Using Des-
ignated Reference or Class I Equivalent Methods, in Quality
Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Sys-
tems, Volume II, Part II, Section 2.12. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division,
RTP, NC27711.
USEPA. (2001). Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and
Equivalent Methods. Federal Register 40CFR Parts 53,
Subpt. F, Table F-1.
Vanderpool, R. W., Rubow, K. L. (1998). Generation of Large,
Solid, Monodisperse Calibration Aerosols. Aerosol Sci.
Technol., 9:65–69.
Vanderpool, R. W., Peters, T. M., Natarajan, S., Tolocka, D. B.,
Gemmill, D. B., Wiener, R. W. (2001a). Sensitivity Analysis
of the USEPA WINS PM2.5 Separator. Aerosol Sci. Technol.,
34:465–476.
Vanderpool, R. W, Peters, T. M, Natarajan, S., Gemmill, D. B.,
Wiener, R. W. (2001b). Evaluation of the Loading Charac-
teristics of the EPA WINS PM2.5 Separator. Aerosol Sci.
Technol., 34:444–456.
Watson, J. G., Chow, J. C. (2011). Ambient aerosol
sampling, in Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techni-
ques and Applications, P. Kulkarni, P. A. Baron, and K.
Willeke, eds., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey, pp.
821–844.