Literature DB >> 30682749

Long-term field evaluation of the Plantower PMS low-cost particulate matter sensors.

T Sayahi1, A Butterfield2, K E Kelly2.   

Abstract

The low-cost and compact size of light-scattering-based particulate matter (PM) sensors provide an opportunity for improved spatiotemporally resolved PM measurements. However, these inexpensive sensors have limitations and need to be characterized under realistic conditions. This study evaluated two Plantower PMS (particulate matter sensor) 1003s and two PMS 5003s outdoors in Salt Lake City, Utah over 320 days (1/2016-2/2016 and 12/2016-10/2017) through multiple seasons and a variety of elevated PM2.5 events including wintertime cold-air pools (CAPs), fireworks, and wildfires. The PMS 1003/5003 sensors generally tracked PM2.5 concentrations compared to co-located reference air monitors (one tapered element oscillating microbalance, TEOM, and one gravimetric federal reference method, FRM). The different PMS sensor models and sets of the same sensor model exhibited some intra-sensor variability. During winter 2017, the two PMS 1003s consistently overestimated PM2.5 by a factor of 1.89 (TEOM PM2.5<40 μg/m3). However, compared to the TEOM, one PMS 5003 overestimated PM2.5 concentrations by a factor of 1.47 while the other roughly agreed with the TEOM. The PMS sensor response also differed by season. In two consecutive winters, the PMS PM2.5 measurements correlated with the hourly TEOM measurements (R2 > 0.87) and 24-h FRM measurements (R2 > 0.88) while in spring (March-June) and wildfire season (June-October) 2017, the correlations were poorer (R2 of 0.18-0.32 and 0.48-0.72, respectively). The PMS 1003s maintained high intra-sensor agreement after one year of deployment during the winter seasons, however, one PMS 1003 sensor exhibited a significant drift beginning in March 2017 and continued to deteriorate through the end of the study. Overall, this study demonstrated good correlations between the PMS sensors and reference monitors in the winter season, seasonal differences in sensor performance, some intra-sensor variability, and drift in one sensor. These types of factors should be considered when using measurements from a network of low-cost PM sensors.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Air quality; Cold-air pools; Low-cost sensors; Particulate matter; Wildfires

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30682749     DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.11.065

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Pollut        ISSN: 0269-7491            Impact factor:   8.071


  23 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.  Use of low-cost PM monitors and a multi-wavelength aethalometer to characterize PM2.5 in the Yakama Nation Reservation.

Authors:  Orly Stampfer; Elena Austin; Terry Ganuelas; Tremain Fiander; Edmund Seto; Catherine Karr
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 4.798

3.  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

4.  Development and Application of a United States wide correction for PM2.5 data collected with the PurpleAir sensor.

Authors:  Karoline K Barkjohn; Brett Gantt; Andrea L Clements
Journal:  Atmos Meas Tech       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 4.184

5.  Calibration of PurpleAir PA-I and PA-II Monitors Using Daily Mean PM2.5 Concentrations Measured in California, Washington, and Oregon from 2017 to 2021.

Authors:  Lance Wallace; Tongke Zhao; Neil E Klepeis
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 3.847

6.  Indoor-Generated PM2.5 During COVID-19 Shutdowns Across California: Application of the PurpleAir Indoor-Outdoor Low-Cost Sensor Network.

Authors:  Amirhosein Mousavi; Jun Wu
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 11.357

7.  Laboratory Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors to Measure Transient Events of Pollution.

Authors:  Florentin Michel Jacques Bulot; Hugo Savill Russell; Mohsen Rezaei; Matthew Stanley Johnson; Steven James Johnston Ossont; Andrew Kevin Richard Morris; Philip James Basford; Natasha Hazel Celeste Easton; Gavin Lee Foster; Matthew Loxham; Simon James Cox
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Long-term field comparison of multiple low-cost particulate matter sensors in an outdoor urban environment.

Authors:  Florentin M J Bulot; Steven J Johnston; Philip J Basford; Natasha H C Easton; Mihaela Apetroaie-Cristea; Gavin L Foster; Andrew K R Morris; Simon J Cox; Matthew Loxham
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-05-16       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  The Effects of Ventilation and Filtration on Indoor PM2.5 in Office Buildings in Four Countries.

Authors:  Emily R Jones; Jose Guillermo Cedeño Laurent; Anna S Young; Piers MacNaughton; Brent A Coull; John D Spengler; Joseph G Allen
Journal:  Build Environ       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 7.093

10.  Field performance of a low-cost sensor in the monitoring of particulate matter in Santiago, Chile.

Authors:  Matías Tagle; Francisca Rojas; Felipe Reyes; Yeanice Vásquez; Fredrik Hallgren; Jenny Lindén; Dimitar Kolev; Ågot K Watne; Pedro Oyola
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 2.513

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.