Literature DB >> 33184562

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

Sydonia Manibusan1, Gediminas Mainelis1.   

Abstract

There has been a proliferation of inexpensive consumer-grade devices for monitoring air pollutants, including PM2.5 and certain gasses. This study compared the performance of four consumer-grade devices-the Air Quality Egg 2 (AQE2), BlueAir Aware, Foobot, and Speck-that utilize optical sensors to measure the PM2.5 concentration. The devices were collocated and operated for 7 days in each of three residences, and the PM2.5 mass concentrations were compared with those measured by established optical sensing devices, viz., the personal DataRAM and DustTrak DRX, as well as the filter-based Personal Modular Impactor (PMI). Overall, the Foobot and BlueAir displayed the strongest correlations with the direct-reading reference instruments for both the hourly and daily PM2.5 mass concentrations. Comparing the 1-hour averages obtained with the DustTrak DRX for all of the residences with those obtained with the Foobot, BlueAir, AQE2, and Speck, the Pearson's correlation coefficients (R's) were 0.80, 0.88, -0.028, and 0.60, respectively. Overall, the strength of the correlation depended on the specific residence, likely due to the differences in aerosol composition. The correlations with the PMI measurements were moderate, with R values of 0.44 and 0.56 for the BlueAir and Foobot, respectively. The correlation coefficients for the daily values obtained with the AQE2 and Speck were -0.59 and 0.70 compared to the PMI. According to a paired t-test, the average 24-h PM2.5 concentration data obtained using the consumer-grade monitors were statistically different (p > 0.05) from the mass values measured by the gravimetric filters. Overall, this study demonstrates the ability of consumer grade air pollution monitors to report PM2.5 trends accurately; however, for accurate mass concentration measurements, these monitors must be calibrated for a particular location and application. Further testing is needed to determine their suitability for long-term indoor field studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Indoor air; Low-cost monitors; PM2.5

Year:  2020        PMID: 33184562      PMCID: PMC7654960          DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2019.01.0045

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


  14 in total

1.  Safeguarding indoor air quality.

Authors:  K Sexton; J J Wesolowski
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  1985-04-01       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 2.  A review on the human health impact of airborne particulate matter.

Authors:  Ki-Hyun Kim; Ehsanul Kabir; Shamin Kabir
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 9.621

3.  Whose science? A new era in regulatory "science wars".

Authors:  Wendy Wagner; Elizabeth Fisher; Pasky Pascual
Journal:  Science       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  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

5.  Performance of low-cost monitors to assess household air pollution.

Authors:  A Curto; D Donaire-Gonzalez; J Barrera-Gómez; J D Marshall; M J Nieuwenhuijsen; G A Wellenius; C Tonne
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 6.498

6.  The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants.

Authors:  N E Klepeis; W C Nelson; W R Ott; J P Robinson; A M Tsang; P Switzer; J V Behar; S C Hern; W H Engelmann
Journal:  J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2001 May-Jun

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

Authors:  Karoline K Johnson; Michael H Bergin; Armistead G Russell; Gayle S W Hagler
Journal:  Aerosol Air Qual Res       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 3.063

8.  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 9.  On the history of indoor air quality and health.

Authors:  J Sundell
Journal:  Indoor Air       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.770

10.  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

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Towards Personalization of Indoor Air Quality: Review of Sensing Requirements and Field Deployments.

Authors:  Qian Xu; Hui Ci Goh; Ehsan Mousavi; Hamed Nabizadeh Rafsanjani; Zubin Varghese; Yogesh Pandit; Ali Ghahramani
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 3.847

Review 2.  Wildfire and prescribed burning impacts on air quality in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel A Jaffe; Susan M O'Neill; Narasimhan K Larkin; Amara L Holder; David L Peterson; Jessica E Halofsky; Ana G Rappold
Journal:  J Air Waste Manag Assoc       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 2.235

3.  Indoor Air Quality in Domestic Environments during Periods Close to Italian COVID-19 Lockdown.

Authors:  Maria Chiara Pietrogrande; Lucia Casari; Giorgia Demaria; Mara Russo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-04-12       Impact factor: 3.390

4.  Field Evaluation and Calibration of Low-Cost Air Pollution Sensors for Environmental Exposure Research.

Authors:  Jianwei Huang; Mei-Po Kwan; Jiannan Cai; Wanying Song; Changda Yu; Zihan Kan; Steve Hung-Lam Yim
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 3.576

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.