Technology
CONSTRUCTION DUST MONITORING: WHY FIT-FOR-PURPOSE PM₁₀ MEASUREMENT MATTERS
TSI Incoporated explores why fi t-for-purpose PM₁₀ measurements are important at construction and demolition sites
Construction and demolition sites generate short, intense bursts of coarse dust. These events are not outliers; they are a predictable part of demolition, earthworks, construction and trackout activity, and are explicitly recognised in the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) Construction Dust Guidance.
Managing these emissions is essential for protecting local receptors, preventing complaints, and meeting planning or permit requirements.
In recent years, low-cost optical particle counter (OPC) sensors have become widely available and are sometimes positioned as a solution for construction monitoring. While they have clear value in certain ambient applications, their typical technical design means they are not well suited to the high-dust, coarse- particle environments found on active construction sites.
The risk is simple. If the instrument cannot reliably capture the dust events that matter, it cannot provide defensible evidence within a Dust Management Plan (DMP) or to a local authority.
This article explains why many low-cost OPC-based sensors struggle, why PM₁₀ construction monitoring is fundamentally different from typical ambient monitoring, how standards like MCERTS and CEN/TS 17660 fi t into this landscape, and what a fi t-for-purpose monitor needs to deliver on real sites.
Why construction sites are different: high-dust events are expected
IAQM guidance makes clear that construction dust risk should be assessed using Dust Emission Magnitude (DEM) combined with receptor sensitivity. DEM categories are based on:
• Volume of material to be demolished • Site area and soil type for earthworks • Volume and construction method for new structures • Vehicle movements and trackout distances.
Large DEM phases routinely generate PM₁₀ concentrations far beyond typical ambient levels, often reaching into the hundreds or thousands of micrograms per cubic metre.
These bursts are not anomalies; they are an inherent feature of construction activity. Monitoring systems must therefore be able to remain stable and usable during rapid changes, coarse particulate loads, and strong winds. Those conditions can be well outside the design envelope of many low-cost ambient sensors.
Why low-cost OPC sensors struggle in construction environments
Many low-cost OPC-based sensors do not directly measure PM₁₀ mass across the full coarse size range. They count smaller particles, often focused on fi ne fractions up to a few micrometres in diameter, and then estimate PM₁₀ mass using assumed particle densities and size distributions.
This can work reasonably well in clean ambient environments dominated by fi ne combustion aerosols. It breaks down when coarse mechanical dust dominates, such as:
• Demolition debris • Concrete crushing • Soil disturbance • Trackout from haul routes.
In addition, many low-cost OPC systems move very little air through a compact optics chamber. From an active sampling perspective, the fl ow is low and the air is only just being drawn past the optics. This can slow the response to rapid concentration changes, smoothing out or missing short-duration peaks that are important for IAQM-based dust management.
Three fundamental problems arise.
1. PM₁₀ is inferred, not robustly measured Once the aerosol becomes coarse and the true size distribution differs from the assumptions in the OPC algorithm, uncertainty increases. PM₁₀ can be under-reported because the instrument is less sensitive to the larger particles that drive mass. The same issue affects PM₁ estimates, which contribute to the total PM₁₀ mass. The result can be misleading behaviour in both PM₁ and PM₁₀ estimates, varying signifi cantly with dust type.
2. Concentration range is limited
Many low-cost OPC sensors specify an upper measurement range in the region of 150-200 µg/m³. In practice, some units saturate or clamp readings in this range, either to avoid false positives in fog or high humidity, or because the optics and fan cannot handle high loading. This can create fl atlines during peak events; exactly when monitoring is most important for IAQM- based risk management.
3. Environmental stability can be poor
Low-cost OPCs typically rely on very small fans and relatively exposed optical paths. Wind gusts, humidity spikes and optical contamination can all introduce noise and drift. Even if the system is aligned or calibrated on day one, performance can degrade more quickly on exposed construction sites than in the ambient environments for which many of these sensors were designed.
When these issues combine, there is a real risk of missing or underestimating the events that matter to local authorities, communities, and project compliance teams.
As local authorities gain expanded powers and
as developers adopt more
robust DMPs, the distinction between ambient-grade sensors and construction- grade monitors becomes increasingly important
Where standards fi t: MCERTS, CEN/TS 17660 and high-dust applications
MCERTS has historically provided a performance framework for indicative ambient PM monitors in the UK. The DustTrak™ Environmental Monitor achieved certifi cation under the previous scheme, demonstrating agreement with reference samplers and meeting uncertainty requirements for the tested conditions. MCERTS remains widely referenced by local authorities, particularly in London boroughs where real-time PM₁₀ monitoring is often attached to planning conditions.
The newer European Technical Specifi cation, CEN/TS 17660- 2:2024, is an important step toward more consistent evaluation of sensor systems. At present it is focused on ambient applications rather than high-dust construction environments, and it will take time for test capacity and market use to develop.
iv
IET - JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
