Back | Next | Home
Missoula Technology &
Development Center
|
Table
of Contents Back | Next | Home |
Missoula Technology & Development Center |
Evaluation of Optical Instruments for Real-Time Continuous Monitoring of Smoke Particulates
Field Results—Figure 21 shows the DataRam results for the field collocation study. Field tests conducted in 1998 and 1999 show the DataRam overestimated the gravimetric results by 21 percent (slope = 1.21, R² = 0.89, N = 20).
Figure 21—The 1998 and 1999 field results of the DataRam
No. 1 plotted against the gravimetric results. Gravimetric
results are from the Fire Sciences Laboratory and the
Federal Reference Method samplers.
2000 Laboratory Tests—Concentration ranges for the 2000 laboratory tests were intended to be lower than in the 1998 laboratory tests (similar to concentrations that would be seen in actual field use). The concentrations during the 2000 laboratory tests ranged from under 20 µg/m³ to just under 120 µg/m³ as measured by the FRM. Figure 22 shows the results of the two DataRams compared to results of the average of the two FRM samplers. Both DataRams underestimated the mass concentration. DataRam No. 1 had a slope of 0.70 (R² = 0.76) while DataRam No. 2 had a slope of 0.80 (R² = 0.79). Comparison of the two DataRams (figure 23) to each other indicates that DataRam No. 2 read 14 percent higher than DataRam No. 1 (slope = 1.14, R² = 0.99, N = 15). These instrument comparison results are remarkably similar to the 1998 laboratory results conducted at concentrations more than twice as great, showing instrument consistency and individuality.
Figure 22—Results of the two DataRams used in the 2000
laboratory tests compared to the gravimetric results.
Gravimetric results are derived from the average of the two
Federal Reference Method samplers used during the tests.
Figure 23—Comparison of the two DataRams used in the 2000
laboratory tests.
 E-mail: wo_mtdc_webmaster@fs.fed.us |
Back | Next Table of Contents |
Missoula Technology & Development Center |