Automatic weighing system vs. manual weighing precision comparison in PM-loaded filter measurements under different humidity conditions

Abstract

Currently, there is a lack of research directly comparing the precision of automatic weighing systems and manual weighing in the context of particulate matter (PM) filter equilibration and measurements under different humidity conditions. During experimental measurements, three different types of PM-loaded filters were weighed using manual and automatic balances. During manual weighing, every filter was weighed twice in three different relative humidity conditions. The same procedure was done using an automated weighing system. In most cases, it was found that under relative humidities in the range of 30-55% RH, the manual and automated methods can be treated as referential. Regarding device stability, very slight but overall better precision was found for 30% RH, suggesting that 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L requirements regarding conditioning humidity (30-40% RH) seem more suitable than those presented in the PN-EN 12341:2014 standard (45-50% RH). Understanding the effects of the influence of the RH% on PM mass measurements is a matter of great importance, because water vapor condensed on a filter can affect the particulate matter concentrations. This is especially important in areas where regulatory limits are exceeded. Calculation of uncertainty in the PM mass measurements is therefore crucial for determining the actual sample mass and improving air monitoring practices. In a nutshell, the experimental results obtained clearly describe how changing RH% conditions affect the PM weighing precision during manual and automated measurements.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.