Jiří Horák1, Lenka Kuboňová 1, Kamil Krpec1, František Hopan1, Petr Kubesa1, Jan Koloničný1, Daniela Plachá2,3 1 Energy Research Center, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, 708 33 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic
2 Nanotechnology Centre, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, 708 33 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic
3 Centre Energy Units for Utilization of Non Traditional Energy Sources, VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava, 708 33 Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic
Received:
October 24, 2017
Revised:
February 1, 2018
Accepted:
February 24, 2018
Download Citation:
||https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2017.10.0408
Cite this article:
Horák, J., Kuboňová, L., Krpec, K., Hopan, F., Kubesa, P., Koloničný, J. and Plachá, D. (2018). A Comparison of PAH Emission Sampling Methods (Cyclone, Impactor) in Particulate and Gaseous Phase.
Aerosol Air Qual. Res.
18: 849-855. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2017.10.0408
HIGHLIGHTS
ABSTRACT
Four different domestic heating boilers and four types of fuel (lignite, wet wood, wood pellets and mixed fuel) were tested, and the emissions of the particulate matter (PM) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were correlated. Dekati low-pressure impactor (DLPI, Dekati) sorting of the PM fractions into PM0.1, PM1, PM2.5 and PM10 was used to determine the emission factors of the PAHs in a dilution tunnel via isokinetic sampling and was compared with a cyclone (Tecora). The 4 PAHs were mostly detected on the fine particles of PM1 in the DLPI and on the fine particles of PM2.5 in the cyclone, and in some cases, they were mainly detected in polyurethane foam (PUF) used for the collection of the gas phase placed behind the DLPI and cyclone. The effectiveness of DLPI sampling was generally comparable or lower than the cyclone sampling of the range 0.01–1.33 mg kg–1.
Keywords:
Domestic heating; Particulate matter; PAH sampling; Impactor DLPI; Cyclone.
