the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Performance evaluation of an online monitor based on X-ray fluorescence for detecting elemental concentrations in ambient particulate matter
Abstract. Knowledge of the chemical composition of particulate matter (PM) is essential for understanding its source distribution, identifying potential health impacts of toxic elements and to develop efficient air pollution abatement strategies. Traditional methods for analysing PM composition, such as collection on filter substrates and subsequent offline analysis with e.g., inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), are time-consuming and prone to measurement errors due to multiple preparation steps. Emerging near-real time techniques based on non-destructive Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence (EDXRF) offer advantages for continuous monitoring and source apportionment.
This study characterises the Horiba PX-375 EDXRF monitor by applying a straightforward performance evaluation including (a) limit of detection (LoD), (b) identification and quantification of uncertainty sources, and (c) investigating and comparing measurement results from three contrasting sites in Luxembourg (urban, semi-urban, rural). We used multi-element reference materials (ME-RMs) from UC Davis for calibration and performed measurements during spring and summer 2023. The LoDs for toxic elements like Ni, Cu, Zn, and Pb were below 3 ng m-3 at one-hour time resolution. Higher LoDs were observed for lighter elements (e.g., Al, Si, S, K, Ca). Expanded uncertainties ranged between 5 and 25 % for elemental concentrations above 20 ng m-3 and were maximal for concentrations below 10 ng m-3, reaching 60–85 %. Elemental analysis revealed S and mineral elements (Fe, Si, Ca, Al) as dominant contributors to PM10. Toxic elements (As, Ni, Pb) were often below the LoD, suggesting minimal exposure risk in the sampled areas. Our results explained on average 51–74 % of the gravimetric PM10 mass at the three sites. The study highlights the suitability and importance of the continuous PX-375 particle monitor for future air quality monitoring and source apportionment studies, particularly under changing emission scenarios and air pollution abatement strategies.
- Preprint
(2028 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-134', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-134/amt-2024-134-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ivonne Trebs, 18 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-134', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Sep 2024
The manuscript describes the use and evaluation of an online energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) detector, the Horiba PX-375, for elemental analysis of ambient particulate matter. The team characterized the performance of the detector, including its limit of detection and measurement uncertainties, and compared the field measurements.
This online EDXRF technique offers advantages for non-destructive, near-real-time, and continues measurements, as well as source apportionment. A comprehensive study and understanding of the detector’s performance is highly desired. I would recommend accepting the manuscript with minor edits.
Line 160-171: Equations (1) and (2) need clarification. In particular, is the standard deviation term the average of three standard deviations? Also, how is the calibration curve derived?
Line 175-177: Is the standard uncertainty calculated from the mean of a series of observations, or from the standard deviation of the observations, or from several means of several series of observations?
Line 198-199: Are 50 kV and 15 kV the energies of the incident photons radiating the samples? Or are they the incident beams hitting some targets, generating photons that then excite the samples. My understanding from the manuscript (Line 137) is that they are the incident photon energies directed at the sample. However, in that case, I am not sure why 50 kV is used instead of 15 kV for Fe. Fe is excited with 15 kV and has a higher cross section at 15 keV than 50 keV. In fact, many elements listed in the 50 keV section of Table 2 should be excited with 15 keV incident photons. It may be helpful to include more instrument details.
Line 240: Does “self-absorption” here refer only to the signal absorption by the particles themselves, or does it include more general signal absorption, such as by the air path, detector window, etc.? Corrections for the air path and window thickness should be implemented in the data quantification. The impart of particle absorption can be estimated by the size of the particles.
Lastly, I suggest adding a description of the spectrum analysis, including, for example, spectrum fitting and peak identification.
Technical corrections:
Line 82, should be “several months”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-134-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ivonne Trebs, 18 Sep 2024
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on amt-2024-134', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://amt.copernicus.org/preprints/amt-2024-134/amt-2024-134-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ivonne Trebs, 18 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on amt-2024-134', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Sep 2024
The manuscript describes the use and evaluation of an online energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) detector, the Horiba PX-375, for elemental analysis of ambient particulate matter. The team characterized the performance of the detector, including its limit of detection and measurement uncertainties, and compared the field measurements.
This online EDXRF technique offers advantages for non-destructive, near-real-time, and continues measurements, as well as source apportionment. A comprehensive study and understanding of the detector’s performance is highly desired. I would recommend accepting the manuscript with minor edits.
Line 160-171: Equations (1) and (2) need clarification. In particular, is the standard deviation term the average of three standard deviations? Also, how is the calibration curve derived?
Line 175-177: Is the standard uncertainty calculated from the mean of a series of observations, or from the standard deviation of the observations, or from several means of several series of observations?
Line 198-199: Are 50 kV and 15 kV the energies of the incident photons radiating the samples? Or are they the incident beams hitting some targets, generating photons that then excite the samples. My understanding from the manuscript (Line 137) is that they are the incident photon energies directed at the sample. However, in that case, I am not sure why 50 kV is used instead of 15 kV for Fe. Fe is excited with 15 kV and has a higher cross section at 15 keV than 50 keV. In fact, many elements listed in the 50 keV section of Table 2 should be excited with 15 keV incident photons. It may be helpful to include more instrument details.
Line 240: Does “self-absorption” here refer only to the signal absorption by the particles themselves, or does it include more general signal absorption, such as by the air path, detector window, etc.? Corrections for the air path and window thickness should be implemented in the data quantification. The impart of particle absorption can be estimated by the size of the particles.
Lastly, I suggest adding a description of the spectrum analysis, including, for example, spectrum fitting and peak identification.
Technical corrections:
Line 82, should be “several months”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-134-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ivonne Trebs, 18 Sep 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
309 | 79 | 133 | 521 | 11 | 15 |
- HTML: 309
- PDF: 79
- XML: 133
- Total: 521
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1