Literature DB >> 32704250

Field Test of Several Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors in High and Low Concentration Urban Environments.

Karoline K Johnson1, Michael H Bergin1, Armistead G Russell2, Gayle S W Hagler3.   

Abstract

Detailed quantification of the spatial and temporal variability of ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has, to date, been limited due to the cost and logistics involved with traditional monitoring approaches. New miniaturized particle sensors are a potential strategy to gather more time- and spatially-resolved data, to address data gaps in regions with limited monitoring and to address important air quality research priorities in a more cost-effective manner. This work presents field evaluations and lab testing of three models of low-cost (< $200) PM sensors (SHINYEI: models PPD42NS, PPD20V, PPD60PV) in three locations: urban background (average PM2.5: 8 μg m-3) and roadside in Atlanta, Georgia, USA (average PM2.5: 21 μg m-3), and a location with higher ambient concentrations in Hyderabad, India (average PM2.5: 72 μg m-3). Sensor measurements were compared against reference monitors in the lab using one-minute averages and in field locations using one-hour averages. At the Atlanta sites the sensors were weakly correlated with a tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) at best (R2 ≤ 0.30). In Hyderabad, the PPD20V sensors had the highest correlation with the environmental beta attenuation monitor (E-BAM) (R2 > 0.80), however the same sensors had poor agreement if the comparison was restricted to lower concentrations (R2 = ~0, < 40 μg m-3). The results of this work indicate the potential usefulness of these sensors, including the PPD20V, for higher concentration applications (< ~250 μg m-3). These field- testing results provide important insights into the varying performance of low-cost PM sensors under highly contrasting atmospheric conditions. The inconsistent performance results underscore the need for rigorous evaluation of optical particle sensors in the laboratory and in diverse field environments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Field calibration; Fine particulate matter; Low-cost sensor; SHINYEI

Year:  2018        PMID: 32704250      PMCID: PMC7377251          DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2017.10.0418

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aerosol Air Qual Res        ISSN: 1680-8584            Impact factor:   3.063


  23 in total

1.  Identification of particulate matter sources on an hourly time-scale in a wood burning community.

Authors:  Travis Ancelet; Perry K Davy; Tamsin Mitchell; William J Trompetter; Andreas Markwitz; David C Weatherburn
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2012-04-11       Impact factor: 9.028

2.  Determining PM2.5 calibration curves for a low-cost particle monitor: common indoor residential aerosols.

Authors:  Philip J Dacunto; Neil E Klepeis; Kai-Chung Cheng; Viviana Acevedo-Bolton; Ruo-Ting Jiang; James L Repace; Wayne R Ott; Lynn M Hildemann
Journal:  Environ Sci Process Impacts       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 4.238

Review 3.  The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring.

Authors:  Emily G Snyder; Timothy H Watkins; Paul A Solomon; Eben D Thoma; Ronald W Williams; Gayle S W Hagler; David Shelow; David A Hindin; Vasu J Kilaru; Peter W Preuss
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 9.028

4.  Determination of response of real-time SidePak AM510 monitor to secondhand smoke, other common indoor aerosols, and outdoor aerosol.

Authors:  Ruo-Ting Jiang; Viviana Acevedo-Bolton; Kai-Chung Cheng; Neil E Klepeis; Wayne R Ott; Lynn M Hildemann
Journal:  J Environ Monit       Date:  2011-05-17

5.  Ambient and laboratory evaluation of a low-cost particulate matter sensor.

Authors:  K E Kelly; J Whitaker; A Petty; C Widmer; A Dybwad; D Sleeth; R Martin; A Butterfield
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 8.071

6.  Validate personal air-pollution sensors.

Authors:  Alastair Lewis; Peter Edwards
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  High density ozone monitoring using gas sensitive semi-conductor sensors in the Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia.

Authors:  Mark Bart; David E Williams; Bruce Ainslie; Ian McKendry; Jennifer Salmond; Stuart K Grange; Maryam Alavi-Shoshtari; Douw Steyn; Geoff S Henshaw
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-03-13       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 8.  Measurement methods to determine compliance with ambient air quality standards for suspended particles.

Authors:  J C Chow
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.235

9.  Progress on understanding spatial and temporal variability of PM(2.5) and its components in the Detroit Exposure and Aerosol Research Study (DEARS).

Authors:  Carvin Stevens; Ron Williams; Paul Jones
Journal:  Environ Sci Process Impacts       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.238

10.  Laboratory Evaluation of the Shinyei PPD42NS Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensor.

Authors:  Elena Austin; Igor Novosselov; Edmund Seto; Michael G Yost
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-14       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  9 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.  Statistical field calibration of a low-cost PM2.5 monitoring network in Baltimore.

Authors:  Abhirup Datta; Arkajyoti Saha; Misti Levy Zamora; Colby Buehler; Lei Hao; Fulizi Xiong; Drew R Gentner; Kirsten Koehler
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 4.798

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

Authors:  Sydonia Manibusan; Gediminas Mainelis
Journal:  Aerosol Air Qual Res       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 3.063

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.  Characterizing methane and total non-methane hydrocarbon levels in Los Angeles communities with oil and gas facilities using air quality monitors.

Authors:  Kristen Okorn; Amanda Jimenez; Ashley Collier-Oxandale; Jill Johnston; Michael Hannigan
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2021-03-03       Impact factor: 10.753

6.  The U.S. EPA wildland fire sensor challenge: Performance and evaluation of solver submitted multi-pollutant sensor systems.

Authors:  Matthew S Landis; Russell W Long; Jonathan Krug; Maribel Colón; Robert Vanderpool; Andrew Habel; Shawn P Urbanski
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 4.798

7.  Monitoring Particulate Matter with Wearable Sensors and the Influence on Student Environmental Attitudes.

Authors:  Frances Kane; Joseph Abbate; Eric C Landahl; Mark J Potosnak
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 3.576

8.  Feasibility of low-cost particle sensor types in long-term indoor air pollution health studies after repeated calibration, 2019-2021.

Authors:  Elle Anastasiou; M J Ruzmyn Vilcassim; John Adragna; Emily Gill; Albert Tovar; Lorna E Thorpe; Terry Gordon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 4.996

9.  Measurement of Air Pollution Parameters in Montenegro Using the Ecomar System.

Authors:  Nikola Zaric; Velibor Spalevic; Nikola Bulatovic; Nikola Pavlicevic; Branislav Dudic
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.