» Articles » PMID: 28783065

Assessing the Utility of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors over a 12-Week Period in the Cuyama Valley of California

Overview
Journal Sensors (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Biotechnology
Date 2017 Aug 8
PMID 28783065
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The use of low-cost air quality sensors has proliferated among non-profits and citizen scientists, due to their portability, affordability, and ease of use. Researchers are examining the sensors for their potential use in a wide range of applications, including the examination of the spatial and temporal variability of particulate matter (PM). However, few studies have quantified the performance (e.g., accuracy, precision, and reliability) of the sensors under real-world conditions. This study examined the performance of two models of PM sensors, the AirBeam and the Alphasense Optical Particle Counter (OPC-N2), over a 12-week period in the Cuyama Valley of California, where PM concentrations are impacted by wind-blown dust events and regional transport. The sensor measurements were compared with observations from two well-characterized instruments: the GRIMM 11-R optical particle counter, and the Met One beta attenuation monitor (BAM). Both sensor models demonstrated a high degree of collocated precision (R² = 0.8-0.99), and a moderate degree of correlation against the reference instruments (R² = 0.6-0.76). Sensor measurements were influenced by the meteorological environment and the aerosol size distribution. Quantifying the performance of sensors in real-world conditions is a requisite step to ensuring that sensors will be used in ways commensurate with their data quality.

Citing Articles

Air Quality Monitoring Using Low-Cost Sensors in Urban Areas of Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

Huda R, Kumar P, Gupta R, Sharma A, Toteja G, Babu B Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024; 21(5).

PMID: 38791837 PMC: 11120845. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21050623.


Enhancing the reliability of particulate matter sensing by multivariate Tobit model using weather and air quality data.

Won W, Noh J, Oh R, Lee W, Lee J, Su P Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):13150.

PMID: 37573439 PMC: 10423292. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40468-z.


Evaluation of the Little Rock Green Schoolyard initiative: a quasi-experimental study protocol.

Barenie M, Howie E, Weber K, Thomsen M BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):1022.

PMID: 37254110 PMC: 10228067. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-15891-6.


Aerosol Measurement Degradation in Low-Cost Particle Sensors Using Laboratory Calibration and Field Validation.

Peck A, Handy R, Sleeth D, Schaefer C, Zhang Y, Pahler L Toxics. 2023; 11(1).

PMID: 36668782 PMC: 9862639. DOI: 10.3390/toxics11010056.


Field Evaluation and Calibration of Low-Cost Air Pollution Sensors for Environmental Exposure Research.

Huang J, Kwan M, Cai J, Song W, Yu C, Kan Z Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(6).

PMID: 35336552 PMC: 8948698. DOI: 10.3390/s22062381.


References
1.
Snyder E, Watkins T, Solomon P, Thoma E, Williams R, Hagler G . The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring. Environ Sci Technol. 2013; 47(20):11369-77. DOI: 10.1021/es4022602. View

2.
SCHLESINGER R, Kunzli N, Hidy G, Gotschi T, Jerrett M . The health relevance of ambient particulate matter characteristics: coherence of toxicological and epidemiological inferences. Inhal Toxicol. 2006; 18(2):95-125. DOI: 10.1080/08958370500306016. View

3.
Gao M, Cao J, Seto E . A distributed network of low-cost continuous reading sensors to measure spatiotemporal variations of PM2.5 in Xi'an, China. Environ Pollut. 2015; 199:56-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.01.013. View

4.
Nieuwenhuijsen M, Donaire-Gonzalez D, Rivas I, de Castro M, Cirach M, Hoek G . Variability in and agreement between modeled and personal continuously measured black carbon levels using novel smartphone and sensor technologies. Environ Sci Technol. 2015; 49(5):2977-82. DOI: 10.1021/es505362x. View

5.
Lewis A, Edwards P . Validate personal air-pollution sensors. Nature. 2016; 535(7610):29-31. DOI: 10.1038/535029a. View