Literature DB >> 28867868

Inter-comparison of Low-cost Sensors for Measuring the Mass Concentration of Occupational Aerosols.

Sinan Sousan1, Kirsten Koehler2, Geb Thomas3, Jae Hong Park1, Michael Hillman3, Andrew Halterman4, Thomas M Peters1.   

Abstract

Low-cost sensors are effective for measuring the mass concentration of ambient aerosols and secondhand smoke in homes, but their use at concentrations relevant to occupational settings has not been demonstrated. We measured the concentrations of four aerosols (salt, Arizona road dust, welding fume, and diesel exhaust) with three types of low-cost sensors (a DC1700 from Dylos and two commodity sensors from Sharp), an aerosol photometer, and reference instruments at concentrations up to 6500 μg/m3. Raw output was used to assess sensor precision and develop equations to compute mass concentrations. EPA and NIOSH protocols were used to assess the mass concentrations estimated with low-cost sensors compared to reference instruments. The detection efficiency of the DC1700 ranged from 0.04% at 0.1 μm to 108% at 5 μm, as expected, although misclassification of fine and coarse particles was observed. The raw output of the DC1700 had higher precision (lower coefficient of variation, CV = 7.4%) than that of the two sharp devices (CV = 25% and 17%), a finding attributed to differences in manufacturer calibration. Aerosol type strongly influenced sensor response, indicating the need for on-site calibration to convert sensor output to mass concentration. Once calibrated, however, the mass concentration estimated with low-cost sensors was highly correlated with that of reference instruments (R2=0.99). These results suggest that the DC1700 and Sharp sensors are useful in estimating aerosol mass concentration for aerosols at concentrations relevant to the workplace.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 28867868      PMCID: PMC5580827          DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2016.1162901

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aerosol Sci Technol        ISSN: 0278-6826            Impact factor:   2.908


  11 in total

1.  Comparison of the Grimm 1.108 and 1.109 portable aerosol spectrometer to the TSI 3321 aerodynamic particle sizer for dry particles.

Authors:  Thomas M Peters; Darrin Ott; Patrick T O'Shaughnessy
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2006-10-14

2.  An inexpensive particle monitor for smoker behaviour modification in homes.

Authors:  Sean Semple; Andrew Apsley; Laura Maccalman
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  Air pollution in relation to U.S. cancer mortality rates: an ecological study; likely role of carbonaceous aerosols and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Authors:  William B Grant
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.480

4.  Respiratory symptoms and spirometry in experienced coal miners: effects of both distant and recent coal mine dust exposures.

Authors:  P K Henneberger; M D Attfield
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.214

5.  A low-cost particle counter as a realtime fine-particle mass monitor.

Authors:  Amanda L Northcross; Rufus J Edwards; Michael A Johnson; Zhong-Min Wang; Kunning Zhu; Tracy Allen; Kirk R Smith
Journal:  Environ Sci Process Impacts       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 4.238

6.  An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities.

Authors:  D W Dockery; C A Pope; X Xu; J D Spengler; J H Ware; M E Fay; B G Ferris; F E Speizer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-12-09       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Occupational diesel exhaust exposure as a risk factor for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Authors:  Jaime E Hart; Ellen A Eisen; Francine Laden
Journal:  Curr Opin Pulm Med       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.155

Review 8.  Health effects of welding.

Authors:  James M Antonini
Journal:  Crit Rev Toxicol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.635

9.  Personal exposure monitoring of PM2.5 in indoor and outdoor microenvironments.

Authors:  Susanne Steinle; Stefan Reis; Clive E Sabel; Sean Semple; Marsailidh M Twigg; Christine F Braban; Sarah R Leeson; Mathew R Heal; David Harrison; Chun Lin; Hao Wu
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2014-12-11       Impact factor: 7.963

10.  Promoting smoke-free homes: a novel behavioral intervention using real-time audio-visual feedback on airborne particle levels.

Authors:  Neil E Klepeis; Suzanne C Hughes; Rufus D Edwards; Tracy Allen; Michael Johnson; Zohir Chowdhury; Kirk R Smith; Marie Boman-Davis; John Bellettiere; Melbourne F Hovell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-23       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  29 in total

Review 1.  A Review of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors from the Developers' Perspectives.

Authors:  Brigida Alfano; Luigi Barretta; Antonio Del Giudice; Saverio De Vito; Girolamo Di Francia; Elena Esposito; Fabrizio Formisano; Ettore Massera; Maria Lucia Miglietta; Tiziana Polichetti
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-29       Impact factor: 3.576

2.  Mapping Occupational Hazards with a Multi-sensor Network in a Heavy-Vehicle Manufacturing Facility.

Authors:  Christopher Zuidema; Sinan Sousan; Larissa V Stebounova; Alyson Gray; Xiaoxing Liu; Marcus Tatum; Oliver Stroh; Geb Thomas; Thomas Peters; Kirsten Koehler
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 2.179

3.  One Year Evaluation of Three Low-Cost PM2.5 Monitors.

Authors:  Misti Levy Zamora; Jessica Rice; Kirsten Koehler
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2020-05-31       Impact factor: 4.798

Review 4.  Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone?

Authors:  Lidia Morawska; Phong K Thai; Xiaoting Liu; Akwasi Asumadu-Sakyi; Godwin Ayoko; Alena Bartonova; Andrea Bedini; Fahe Chai; Bryce Christensen; Matthew Dunbabin; Jian Gao; Gayle S W Hagler; Rohan Jayaratne; Prashant Kumar; Alexis K H Lau; Peter K K Louie; Mandana Mazaheri; Zhi Ning; Nunzio Motta; Ben Mullins; Md Mahmudur Rahman; Zoran Ristovski; Mahnaz Shafiei; Dian Tjondronegoro; Dane Westerdahl; Ron Williams
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 9.621

5.  Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter.

Authors:  Sinan Sousan; Kirsten Koehler; Laura Hallett; Thomas M Peters
Journal:  J Aerosol Sci       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 3.433

6.  Evaluation of the Alphasense Optical Particle Counter (OPC-N2) and the Grimm Portable Aerosol Spectrometer (PAS-1.108).

Authors:  Sinan Sousan; Kirsten Koehler; Laura Hallett; Thomas M Peters
Journal:  Aerosol Sci Technol       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 2.908

7.  Laboratory evaluation of a low-cost, real-time, aerosol multi-sensor.

Authors:  Robert J Vercellino; Darrah K Sleeth; Rodney G Handy; Kyeong T Min; Scott C Collingwood
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.155

8.  Sources of error and variability in particulate matter sensor network measurements.

Authors:  Christopher Zuidema; Larissa V Stebounova; Sinan Sousan; Geb Thomas; Kirsten Koehler; Thomas M Peters
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 2.155

9.  Effects of aerosol particle size on the measurement of airborne PM2.5 with a low-cost particulate matter sensor (LCPMS) in a laboratory chamber.

Authors:  Temitope Oluwadairo; Lawrence Whitehead; Elaine Symanski; Cici Bauer; Arch Carson; Inkyu Han
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 2.513

10.  DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION OF A COMPACT LOW-COST OPTICAL PARTICLE SIZER.

Authors:  Tomas Njalsson; Igor Novosselov
Journal:  J Aerosol Sci       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.433

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.