Volume 2020, Issue 1
  • EISSN: 2223-506X


Given the health hazards posed by particulate matter 2.5 (PM), the need exists for simple, cost-effective, and real-time methods to monitor air quality with high spatio-temporal resolution. Direct-reading photometric detection is one modality of real-time PM monitoring. However, photometric data often require correction factors specific to individual manufacturers, meteorological conditions, and particle sizes and compositions. We methodically compared and evaluated PM concentration values collected by two different photometric monitors (TSI Environmental Monitor 8540 and MetOne ES-642) in Education City, Doha, Qatar. We analyzed the data collected by the two monitors in two different locations in September and December 2019, and side-by-side for two weeks in February 2020. Correlation and linear regression analyses were conducted to determine correction factors between the two monitors. The results indicate that both monitors reported almost identical trends in PM concentration, while the TSI monitor exaggerated the values by approximately twofold. When correlation-based corrections were applied, data from the two monitors matched almost perfectly for all comparison periods. As correction factors between PM sensors may vary based on conditions, calibration must therefore be conducted on a case-by-case basis. However, our methodologies could constitute a template for future development of cross-calibration strategies. In addition, we determined average PM concentrations in Education City for each study period. These values were lower than those previously reported for other locations in Qatar during similar seasons. Our findings emphasize the relevance of the microenvironment when assessing PM levels for public health purposes. This investigation is expected to support and inform air quality management and mitigation strategies.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Harrison RM, Yin J. Particulate matter in the atmosphere: Which particle properties are important for its effects on health? Science of The Total Environment. 2000;249(1舑3):85舑101.
  2. Pöschl U. Atmospheric aerosols: Composition, transformation, climate and health effects. Angewandte Chemie International Edition. 2005;44(46):7520–7540.
  3. Wahlin P, Berkowicz R, Palmgren F. Characterisation of traffic-generated particulate matter in Copenhagen. Atmospheric Environment. 2006;40(12):2151–2159.
  4. Al-Thani H, Koc M, Fountoukis C, Isaifan RJ. Evaluation of particulate matter emissions from non-passenger diesel vehicles in Qatar. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2020;70(2):228–242.
  5. Riva DR, Magalhães CB, Lopes AA, Lancas T, Mauad T, Malm O, et al. Low dose of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) can induce acute oxidative stress, inflammation and pulmonary impairment in healthy mice. Inhalation Toxicology. 2011;23(5):257–267.
  6. Xing YF, Xu YH, Shi MH, Lian YX. The impact of PM 2.5 on the human respiratory system. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2016;8(1):E69–E74.
  7. Leiva GM, Santibañez DA, Ibarra ES, Matus CP, Seguel R. A five-year study of particulate matter (PM2.5) and cerebrovascular diseases. Environmental Pollution. 2013;181:1–6.
  8. Madrigano J, Kloog I, Goldberg R, Coull BA, Mittleman MA, Schwartz J. Long-term exposure to PM2.5 and incidence of acute myocardial infarction. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2013;121(2):192–196.
  9. Bowe B, Xie Y, Li T, Yan Y, Xian H, Al-Aly Z. The 2016 global and national burden of diabetes mellitus attributable to PM2.5 air pollution. Lancet Planetary Health. 2018;2(7):e301–e312.
  10. Braithwaite I, Zhang S, Kirkbride JB, Osborn DPJ, Hayes JF. Air pollution (particulate matter) exposure and associations with depression, anxiety, bipolar, psychosis and suicide risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2019;127(12):126002.
  11. Noble CA, Vanderpool RW, Peters TM, McElroy FF, Gemmill DB, Wiener RW. Federal reference and equivalent methods for measuring fine particulate matter. Aerosol Science and Technology. 2001;34(5):457–464.
  12. Zhu Y, Smith TJ, Davis ME, Levy JI, Herrick R, Jiang H. Comparing gravimetric and real-time sampling of PM2.5 concentrations inside truck cabins. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2011;8(11):662–672.
  13. Wanjura JD, Shaw BW, Parnell CB, Jr, Lacey RE, Capareda SC. Comparison of continuous monitor (TEOM) and gravimetric sampler particulate matter concentrations. Transactions of the ASABE. 2008;51(1):251–257.
  14. Takahashi K, Minoura H, Sakamoto K. Examination of discrepancies between beta-attenuation and gravimetric methods for the monitoring of particulate matter. Atmospheric Environment. 2008;42(21):5232–5240.
  15. Thorpe A, Walsh PT. Direct-reading inhalable dust monitoring – An assessment of current measurement methods. Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 2013;57(7):824–841.
  16. Javed W, Iakovides M, Garaga R, Stephanou EG, Kota SH, Ying Q, et al. Source apportionment of organic pollutants in fine and coarse atmospheric particles in Doha, Qatar. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2019;69(11):1277–1292.
  17. Javed W, Iakovides M, Stephanou EG, Wolfson JM, Koutrakis P, Guo B. Concentrations of aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient PM2.5 and PM10 particulates in Doha, Qatar. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2019;69(2):162–177.
  18. Nasser Z, Salameh P, Nasser W, Abou Abbas L, Elias E, Leveque A. Outdoor particulate matter (PM) and associated cardiovascular diseases in the Middle East. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health. 2015;28(4):641–661.
  19. Argyropoulos CD, Abraham M, Hassan H, Ashraf A, Fthenou E, Sadoun E, et al., editors. Modeling of PM10 and PM2.5 building infiltration during a dust event in Doha, Qatar. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Atmospheric Dust – DUST2016. Castellaneta Marina-Taranto, Italy; 2016.
  20. Lanouar C, Al-Malk AY, Al Karbi K. Air pollution in Qatar: Causes and challenges. White Paper. 2016;1(3):1–7.
  21. State Of Qatar Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics. Environment Statistics Annual Report 2013; 2013.
  22. Saraga D, Maggos T, Sadoun E, Fthenou E, Hassan H, Tsiouri V, et al. Chemical characterization of indoor and outdoor particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) in Doha, Qatar. Aerosol and Air Quality Research. 2017;17:1156–1168.
  23. Al-Thani H, Koc M, Isaifan RJ. Investigations on deposited dust fallout in urban Doha: Characterization, source apportionment and mitigation. Environment and Ecology Research. 2018;6(5):493–506.
  24. TSI Inc. Rationale for programming a photometer calibration factor (PCF) of 0.38 for ambient monitoring; 2013. Retrieved from: www.tsi.com/getmedia/95751f37-537d-4cbf-95e1-edc46a763764/EXPMN-007_A4_Rationale_Programming_PCF_Ambient_Monitoring?ext=.pdf. Accessed on 23 April 2020.
  25. Li Z, Che W, Lau AKH, Fung JCH, Lin C, Lu X. A feasible experimental framework for field calibration of portable light-scattering aerosol monitors: Case of TSI DustTrak. Environmental Pollution. 2019;255(Pt 1): 113136. doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2019.113136
  26. TSI Inc. DustTrak environmental monitor models 8540, 8543, 8540-M, 8542-M, 8543-M: Operation and service manual. Revision F; 2018. Retrieved from: www.kenelec.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/TSI-8540-8543-DustTrak-Environmental-Monitor-Manual.pdf. Accessed on 23 April 2020.
  27. TSI Inc. Mass concentration comparison between the DustTrak DRX aerosol monitor and TEOM; 2012. Retrieved from: www.tsi.com/getmedia/df09e617-02f9-4fed-9608-d9ac8c7a11b0/EXPMN-004_DRX-TEOM_Comparison. Accessed on 23 April 2020.
  28. Wright P. White paper: Brake emissions at the base of Teton Pass, Wyoming. Wilson, WY: Inversion Labs, LLC; 2019.
  29. Loo BW, Cork CP. Development of high efficiency virtual impactors. Aerosol Science and Technology. 1988;9(3):167–176.
  30. Wang D, Kam W, Cheung K, Pakbin P, Sioutas C. Development of a two-stage virtual impactor system for high concentration enrichment of ultrafine, PM2.5, and coarse particulate matter. Aerosol Science and Technology. 2013;47(3):231–238.
  31. Du P, Liu J, Gui H, Zhang J, Yu T, Wang J, et al. Development of a static test apparatus for evaluating the performance of three PM2.5 separators commonly used in China. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2020;87:238–249.
  32. Chung A, Chang DPY, Kleeman MJ, Perry KD, Cahill TA, Dutcher D, et al. Comparison of real-time instruments used to monitor airborne particulate matter. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. 2001;51(1):109–120.
  33. Wallace LA, Wheeler AJ, Kearney J, Van Ryswyk K, You H, Kulka RH, et al. Validation of continuous particle monitors for personal, indoor, and outdoor exposures. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. 2011;21(1):49–64.
  34. World Health Organization. WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2005.
  35. Huang L, Rao C, van der Kuijp TJ, Bi J, Liu Y. A comparison of individual exposure, perception, and acceptable levels of PM2.5 with air pollution policy objectives in China. Environmental Research. 2017;157:78–86.
  36. Sun L, Wong KC, Wei P, Ye S, Huang H, Yang F, et al. Development and application of a next generation air sensor network for the Hong Kong Marathon 2015 Air Quality Monitoring. Sensors. 2016;16(2):211.

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error