Performance of Four Consumer-grade Air Pollution Measurement Devices in Different Residences

Overview

Journal Aerosol Air Qual Res

Date 2020 Nov 13

PMID 33184562

Citations 4

Authors

Sydonia Manibusan

Gediminas Mainelis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

There has been a proliferation of inexpensive consumer-grade devices for monitoring air pollutants, including PM and certain gasses. This study compared the performance of four consumer-grade devices-the Air Quality Egg 2 (AQE2), BlueAir Aware, Foobot, and Speck-that utilize optical sensors to measure the PM concentration. The devices were collocated and operated for 7 days in each of three residences, and the PM mass concentrations were compared with those measured by established optical sensing devices, viz., the personal DataRAM and DustTrak DRX, as well as the filter-based Personal Modular Impactor (PMI). Overall, the Foobot and BlueAir displayed the strongest correlations with the direct-reading reference instruments for both the hourly and daily PM mass concentrations. Comparing the 1-hour averages obtained with the DustTrak DRX for all of the residences with those obtained with the Foobot, BlueAir, AQE2, and Speck, the Pearson's correlation coefficients (R's) were 0.80, 0.88, -0.028, and 0.60, respectively. Overall, the strength of the correlation depended on the specific residence, likely due to the differences in aerosol composition. The correlations with the PMI measurements were moderate, with R values of 0.44 and 0.56 for the BlueAir and Foobot, respectively. The correlation coefficients for the daily values obtained with the AQE2 and Speck were -0.59 and 0.70 compared to the PMI. According to a paired -test, the average 24-h PM concentration data obtained using the consumer-grade monitors were statistically different (p > 0.05) from the mass values measured by the gravimetric filters. Overall, this study demonstrates the ability of consumer grade air pollution monitors to report PM trends accurately; however, for accurate mass concentration measurements, these monitors must be calibrated for a particular location and application. Further testing is needed to determine their suitability for long-term indoor field studies.

Citing Articles

Towards Personalization of Indoor Air Quality: Review of Sensing Requirements and Field Deployments.

Xu Q, Goh H, Mousavi E, Rafsanjani H, Varghese Z, Pandit Y Sensors (Basel). 2022; 22(9).

PMID: 35591133 PMC: 9104953. DOI: 10.3390/s22093444.

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.

Indoor Air Quality in Domestic Environments during Periods Close to Italian COVID-19 Lockdown.

Pietrogrande M, Casari L, Demaria G, Russo M Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(8).

PMID: 33921463 PMC: 8070062. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18084060.

Wildfire and prescribed burning impacts on air quality in the United States.

Jaffe D, ONeill S, Larkin N, Holder A, Peterson D, Halofsky J J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2020; 70(6):583-615.

PMID: 32240055 PMC: 7932990. DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2020.1749731.

References

Sousan S, Koehler K, Hallett L, Peters T . Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter. J Aerosol Sci. 2017; 107:123-133. PMC: 5580935. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.013. View

Klepeis N, Nelson W, Ott W, Robinson J, Tsang A, Switzer P . The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2001; 11(3):231-52. DOI: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500165. View

Wang Z, Calderon L, Patton A, Sorensen Allacci M, Senick J, Wener R . Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2016; 66(11):1109-1120. PMC: 5153892. DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2016.1201022. View

Sundell J . On the history of indoor air quality and health. Indoor Air. 2004; 14 Suppl 7:51-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2004.00273.x. View

Johnson K, Bergin M, Russell A, Hagler G . Field Test of Several Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors in High and Low Concentration Urban Environments. Aerosol Air Qual Res. 2020; 18(3):565-578. PMC: 7377251. DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2017.10.0418. View

Curto A, Donaire-Gonzalez D, Barrera-Gomez J, Marshall J, Nieuwenhuijsen M, Wellenius G . Performance of low-cost monitors to assess household air pollution. Environ Res. 2018; 163:53-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.024. View

Kim K, Kabir E, Kabir S . A review on the human health impact of airborne particulate matter. Environ Int. 2014; 74:136-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2014.10.005. View

Wagner W, Fisher E, Pascual P . Whose science? A new era in regulatory "science wars". Science. 2018; 362(6415):636-639. DOI: 10.1126/science.aau3205. View

Northcross A, Edwards R, Johnson M, Wang Z, Zhu K, Allen T . A low-cost particle counter as a realtime fine-particle mass monitor. Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2014; 15(2):433-9. DOI: 10.1039/c2em30568b. View

10.

Sexton K, Wesolowski J . Safeguarding indoor air quality. Environ Sci Technol. 2012; 19(4):305-9. DOI: 10.1021/es00134a604. View

11.

Castell N, Dauge F, Schneider P, Vogt M, Lerner U, Fishbain B . Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates?. Environ Int. 2017; 99:293-302. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.007. View

12.

Austen K . Environmental science: Pollution patrol. Nature. 2015; 517(7533):136-8. DOI: 10.1038/517136a. View

13.

Benton-Vitz K, Volckens J . Evaluation of the pDR-1200 real-time aerosol monitor. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2008; 5(6):353-9. DOI: 10.1080/15459620802009919. View

14.

Jiao W, Hagler G, Williams R, Sharpe R, Brown R, Garver D . Community Air Sensor Network (CAIRSENSE) project: evaluation of low-cost sensor performance in a suburban environment in the southeastern United States. Atmos Meas Tech. 2020; 9(11):5281-5292. PMC: 7425750. DOI: 10.5194/amt-9-5281-2016. View