Literature DB >> 31251121

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

Christopher Zuidema1, Larissa V Stebounova2, Sinan Sousan2,3, Geb Thomas4, Kirsten Koehler5, Thomas M Peters2.   

Abstract

The quality of mass concentration estimates from increasingly popular networks of low-cost particulate matter sensors depends on accurate conversion of sensor output (e.g., voltage) into gravimetric-equivalent mass concentration, typically using a calibration procedure. This study evaluates two important sources of variability that lead to error in estimating gravimetric-equivalent mass concentration: the temporal changes in sensor calibration and the spatial and temporal variability in gravimetric correction factors. A 40-node sensor network was deployed in a heavy vehicle manufacturing facility for 8 months. At a central location in the facility, particulate matter was continuously measured with three sensors of the network and a traditional, higher-cost photometer, determining the calibration slope and intercept needed to translate sensor output to photometric-equivalent mass concentration. Throughout the facility, during three intensive sampling campaigns, respirable mass concentrations were measured with gravimetric samplers and photometers to determine correction factors needed to adjust photometric-equivalent to gravimetric-equivalent mass concentration. Both field-determined sensor calibration slopes and intercepts were statistically different than those estimated in the laboratory (α = 0.05), emphasizing the importance of aerosol properties when converting voltage to photometric-equivalent mass concentration and the need for field calibration to determine slope. Evidence suggested the sensors' weekly field calibration slope decreased and intercept increased, indicating the sensors were deteriorating over time. The mean correction factor in the cutting and shot blasting area (2.9) was substantially and statistically lower than that in the machining and welding area (4.6; p = 0.01). Therefore, different correction factors should be determined near different occupational processes to accurately estimate particle mass concentrations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Correction factor; field calibration; low-cost sensors; particle composition; particulate matter concentration photometer

Year:  2019        PMID: 31251121      PMCID: PMC6954050          DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2019.1628965

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  18 in total

1.  Evaluation and quality control of personal nephelometers in indoor, outdoor and personal environments.

Authors:  Chang-Fu Wu; Ralph J Delfino; Joshua N Floro; Behzad S Samimi; Penelope J E Quintana; Michael T Kleinman; L-J Sally Liu
Journal:  J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2005-01

2.  Mapping particulate matter at the body weld department in an automobile assembly plant.

Authors:  Sa Liu; S Katharine Hammond
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 3.  On the use of small and cheaper sensors and devices for indicative citizen-based monitoring of respirable particulate matter.

Authors:  Milena Jovašević-Stojanović; Alena Bartonova; Dušan Topalović; Ivan Lazović; Boris Pokrić; Zoran Ristovski
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 8.071

4.  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

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

Review 6.  New Methods for Personal Exposure Monitoring for Airborne Particles.

Authors:  Kirsten A Koehler; Thomas M Peters
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2015-12

7.  Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building.

Authors:  Zuocheng Wang; Leonardo Calderón; Allison P Patton; MaryAnn Sorensen Allacci; Jennifer Senick; Richard Wener; Clinton J Andrews; Gediminas Mainelis
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.235

8.  Psychological and cognitive effects of laser printer emissions: A controlled exposure study.

Authors:  B Herbig; R A Jörres; R Schierl; M Simon; J Langner; S Seeger; D Nowak; S Karrasch
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2017-10-28       Impact factor: 5.770

9.  Low-Cost, Distributed Environmental Monitors for Factory Worker Health.

Authors:  Geb W Thomas; Sinan Sousan; Marcus Tatum; Xiaoxing Liu; Christopher Zuidema; Mitchell Fitzpatrick; Kirsten A Koehler; Thomas M Peters
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.576

10.  Sensor Selection to Improve Estimates of Particulate Matter Concentration from a Low-Cost Network.

Authors:  Sinan Sousan; Alyson Gray; Christopher Zuidema; Larissa Stebounova; Geb Thomas; Kirsten Koehler; Thomas Peters
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-09-08       Impact factor: 3.576

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Evolution and Applications of Recent Sensing Technology for Occupational Risk Assessment: A Rapid Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Giacomo Fanti; Andrea Spinazzè; Francesca Borghi; Sabrina Rovelli; Davide Campagnolo; Marta Keller; Andrea Borghi; Andrea Cattaneo; Emanuele Cauda; Domenico Maria Cavallo
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 3.847

2.  A Real-Time Comparison of Four Particulate Matter Size Fractions in the Personal Breathing Zone of Paris Subway Workers: A Six-Week Prospective Study.

Authors:  Rémy Pétremand; Guillaume Suárez; Sophie Besançon; J Hugo Dil; Irina Guseva Canu
Journal:  Sustainability       Date:  2022-05-15       Impact factor: 3.889

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.