Search

Abstract: Factors and sources affecting measurement uncertainty associated with monitoring metals in airborne particulate matter (PM) were investigated as part of the Windsor, Ontario Exposure Assessment Study (WOEAS). The assessment was made using co-located duplicate samples and a comparison of two analytical approaches: ED-XRF and ICP-MS. Sampling variability was estimated using relative percent difference (RPD) of co-located duplicate samples. The comparison of ICP-MS and ED-XRF results yields very good correlations (R 2 ≥ 0.7) for elements present at concentrations that pass both ICP-MS and ED-XRF detection limits (e.g. Fe, Mn, Zn, Pb and Cu). PM concentration ranges (median, sample number) of 24-h indoor PM10 and personal PM10 filters, and outdoor PM2.5 filters were determined to be 2.2–40.7 (11.0, n = 48) μg m−3, 8.0–48.3 (11.9, n = 48) μg m−3, and 17.1–42.3 (21.6, n = 18) μg m−3, respectively. The gravimetric analytical results reveal that the variations in PM mass measurements for same-day sampling are insignificant compared to temporal or spatial variations: 92%, 100% and 96% of indoor, outdoor and personal duplicate samples, respectively, pass the quality criteria (RPD ≤ 20%). Uncertainties associated with ED-XRF elemental measurements of S, Ca, Mn, Fe and Zn for 24-h filter samples are low: 78%–100% of the duplicate samples passed the quality criteria. In the case of 24-h filter samples using ICP-MS, more elements passed the quality criteria due to the lower detection limits. These were: Li, Na, K, Ca, Si, Al, V, Fe, Mn, Co, Cu, Mo, Ag, Zn, Pb, As, Mg, Sb, Sn, Sr, Th, Ti, Tl, and U. Low air concentrations of metals (near or below instrumental detection limits) and/or inadvertent introduction of metal contamination are the main causes for excluding elements based on the pass/fail criteria. Uncertainty associated with elemental measurements must be assessed on an element-by-element basis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]