[Quantitative Comparison of Methods to Assess the Airborne Particulate Matter Retention Capacity of Leaves]

The objective of this study was to explore the differences of five methods for evaluating the PM retention capacity of leaves based on the same experimental materials and leaf area measurement method and to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of each method. In this study, four tree species (Pinus tabuliformis, Platycladus orientalis, Ginkgo biloba, and Platanus occidentalis), which are common in Beijing and have greatly different leaf characteristics, were selected as the research objects. The mass subtraction method (MS), the membrane filter method (MF), the aerosol regenerator method(AR), the scanning electron method (SEM), and the elution weighing method coupled with a particle size analysis based on ultrasonic cleaning (ultrasonic-EWPA) were used to evaluate the PM retention capabilities and characteristics of the leaves of the four tree species. The total time needed and the total cost were measured simultaneously during the evaluation process. The results showed that although the values of PM retention efficiency obtained by different methods were quite different, the ranks of the efficiency of four tree species obtained by different methods were the same or partially the same. Additionally, the results obtained by the methods with the same or similar principles were more overlapped (AR and SEM had the most overlapped results). In addition, 89% of the species ranks of the same index obtained by each method were P. orientalis > P. tabuliformis > P. occidentalis > G. biloba, and the remaining 11% were P. occidentalis > G. biloba > P. orientalis > P. tabuliformis. Among the five methods, ultrasonic-EWPA was the one with the largest number of indexes and the highest cost, and MS was the one with the least number of indexes and the lowest cost. The one that needed most time was MF, while the one that needed the least time was AR. ultrasonic-EWPA and SEM are high input and high output methods. That is to say, although they needed more time and cost, they can prove more information; however, MS was opposite, which resulted in less information but lower time and cost needed. So, it is suitable for roughly evaluating the total PM retention capacities of trees; MF had a medium amount of information, low cost, but required too much time, which needs to be weighed and balanced before selecting this method. The AR method had strict requirements for equipment and parameters and should be used with caution. The results of this study can provide a comprehensive and detailed scientific basis for researchers to choose specific methods in the future.