Literature DB >> 28871213

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

Sinan Sousan1, Kirsten Koehler2, Laura Hallett1, Thomas M Peters1.   

Abstract

We compared the performance of a low-cost (∼$500), compact optical particle counter (OPC, OPC-N2, Alphasense) to another OPC (PAS-1.108, Grimm Technologies) and reference instruments. We measured the detection efficiency of the OPCs by size from 0.5 to 5 μm for monodispersed, polystyrene latex (PSL) spheres. We then compared number and mass concentrations measured with the OPCs to those measured with reference instruments for three aerosols: salt, welding fume and Arizona road dust. The OPC-N2 detection efficiency for monodispersed was similar to the PAS-1.108 for particles larger than 0.8 μm (minimum of 79% at 1 μm and maximum of 101% at 3 μm). For 0.5-μm particles, the detection efficiency of OPCN2 was underestimated at 78%, whereas PAS-1.108 overestimated concentrations by 183%. The mass concentrations from the OPCs were linear (r ≥ 0.97) with those from the reference instruments for all aerosols, although the slope and intercept were different. The mass concentrations were overestimated for dust (OPC-N2, slope = 1.6; PAS-1.108, slope = 2.7) and underestimated for welding fume (OPC-N2, slope = 0.05; PAS-1.108, slope = 0.4). The coefficient of variation (CV, precision) for OPC-N2 for all experiments was between 4.2% and 16%. These findings suggest that, given site-specific calibrations, the OPC-N2 can provide number and mass concentrations similar to the PAS-1.108 for particles larger than 1 μm.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 28871213      PMCID: PMC5580936          DOI: 10.1080/02786826.2016.1232859

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


  24 in total

1.  Fine particles are more strongly associated than coarse particles with acute respiratory health effects in schoolchildren.

Authors:  J Schwartz; L M Neas
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 4.822

2.  Effects of particulate and gaseous air pollution on cardiorespiratory hospitalizations.

Authors:  R T Burnett; M Smith-Doiron; D Stieb; S Cakmak; J R Brook
Journal:  Arch Environ Health       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr

3.  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

Review 4.  Health effects associated with exposure to ambient air pollution.

Authors:  Jonathan Samet; Daniel Krewski
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health A       Date:  2007-02-01

5.  Comparison of the TSI Model 8520 and Grimm Series 1.108 portable aerosol instruments used to monitor particulate matter in an iron foundry.

Authors:  Yu-Hsiang Cheng
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.155

6.  Particle size distribution and composition in a mechanically ventilated school building during air pollution episodes.

Authors:  J L Parker; R R Larson; E Eskelson; E M Wood; J M Veranth
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2008-07-18       Impact factor: 5.770

7.  Ultrafine particle deposition and clearance in the healthy and obstructed lung.

Authors:  James S Brown; Kirby L Zeman; William D Bennett
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 8.  Health effects of welding.

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

9.  Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution.

Authors:  C Arden Pope; Richard T Burnett; Michael J Thun; Eugenia E Calle; Daniel Krewski; Kazuhiko Ito; George D Thurston
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-03-06       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  What is responsible for the carcinogenicity of PM2.5?

Authors:  R M Harrison; D J T Smith; A J Kibble
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.402

View more
  24 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.  The Kansas City Transportation and Local-Scale Air Quality Study (KC-TRAQS): Integration of Low-Cost Sensors and Reference Grade Monitoring in a Complex Metropolitan Area. Part 1: Overview of the Project.

Authors:  Sue Kimbrough; Stephen Krabbe; Richard Baldauf; Timothy Barzyk; Matthew Brown; Steven Brown; Carry Croghan; Michael Davis; Parikshit Deshmukh; Rachelle Duvall; Stephen Feinberg; Vlad Isakov; Russell Logan; Tim McArthur; Amy Shields
Journal:  Chemosensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-05-27

Review 3.  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

4.  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

5.  Evaluating the Performance of Using Low-Cost Sensors to Calibrate for Cross-Sensitivities in a Multipollutant Network.

Authors:  Misti Levy Zamora; Colby Buehler; Hao Lei; Abhirup Datta; Fulizi Xiong; Drew R Gentner; Kirsten Koehler
Journal:  ACS ES T Eng       Date:  2022-04-11

6.  Laboratory Determination of Gravimetric Correction Factors for Real-time Area Measurements of Electronic Cigarette Aerosols.

Authors:  Sinan Sousan; Jack Pender; Dillon Streuber; Meaghan Haley; Will Shingleton; Eric Soule
Journal:  Aerosol Sci Technol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 4.809

7.  Development of an in-home, real-time air pollutant sensor platform and implications for community use.

Authors:  Sara E Gillooly; Yulun Zhou; Jose Vallarino; MyDzung T Chu; Drew R Michanowicz; Jonathan I Levy; Gary Adamkiewicz
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 8.071

8.  Effects of air cleaners and school characteristics on classroom concentrations of particulate matter in 34 elementary schools in Korea.

Authors:  Ju-Hyeong Park; Tae Jung Lee; Mi Jeong Park; Hyung Na Oh; Young Min Jo
Journal:  Build Environ       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 6.456

9.  Real-time indoor PM2.5 monitoring in an urban cohort: Implications for exposure disparities and source control.

Authors:  MyDzung T Chu; Sara E Gillooly; Jonathan I Levy; Jose Vallarino; Lacy N Reyna; Jose Guillermo Cedeño Laurent; Brent A Coull; Gary Adamkiewicz
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 6.498

10.  From a Low-Cost Air Quality Sensor Network to Decision Support Services: Steps towards Data Calibration and Service Development.

Authors:  Tiago Veiga; Arne Munch-Ellingsen; Christoforos Papastergiopoulos; Dimitrios Tzovaras; Ilias Kalamaras; Kerstin Bach; Konstantinos Votis; Sigmund Akselsen
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.576

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.