Dataset Information

Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter.

ABSTRACT: Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings. In a laboratory study, PM2.5 measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from reference instruments for three aerosols (salt, welding fume, and Arizona road dust, ARD) at concentrations up to 8500 ?g/m3. Three of each type of CAM were included to estimate precision. Compared to reference instruments, mass concentrations measured with the Foobot (r-value = 0.99) and medium-cost photometer (r-value = 0.99) show strong correlation, whereas those from the Speck (r-value range 0.88 - 0.99) and AirBeam (0.7 - 0.96) were less correlated. The Foobot bias was (-12%) for ARD and measurements were similar to the medium-cost instrument. Foobot bias was (< -46%) for salt and welding fume aerosols. Speck bias was at 18% salt for ARD and -86% for welding fume. AirBeam bias was (-36%) for salt and (-83%) for welding fume. All three photometers had a bias (< -82%) for welding fume. Precision was excellent for the Foobot (coefficient of variation range: 5% to 8%) and AirBeam (2% to 9%), but poorer for the Speck (8% to 25%). These findings suggest that the Foobot, with a linear response to different aerosol types and good precision, can provide reasonable estimates of PM2.5 in the workplace after site-specific calibration to account for particle size and composition.

SUBMITTER: Sousan S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5580935 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter.

Sousan Sinan S Koehler Kirsten K Hallett Laura L Peters Thomas M TM

Journal of aerosol science 20170221

Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings. In a laboratory study, PM<sub>2.5</sub> measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from refere ...[more]

PMID: 28871212

Similar Datasets

Project description:(1) Background: Small, lightweight, low-cost optical particulate matter (PM) monitors are becoming popular in the field of occupational exposure monitoring, because these devices allow for real-time static measurements to be collected at multiple locations throughout a work site as well as being used as wearables providing personal exposure estimates. Prior to deployment, devices should be evaluated to optimize and quantify measurement accuracy. However, this can turn out to be difficult, as no standardized methods are yet available and different deployments may require different evaluation procedures. To gain insight in the relevance of different variables that may affect the monitor readings, six PM monitors were selected based on current availability and evaluated in the laboratory; (2) Methods: Existing strategies that were judged appropriate for the evaluation of PM monitors were reviewed and seven evaluation variables were selected, namely the type of dust, within- and between-device variations, nature of the power supply, temperature, relative humidity, and exposure pattern (peak and constant). Each variable was tested and analyzed individually and, if found to affect the readings significantly, included in a final correction model specific to each monitor. Finally, the accuracy for each monitor after correction was calculated; (3) Results: The reference materials and exposure patterns were found to be main factors needing correction for most monitors. One PM monitor was found to be sufficiently accurate at concentrations up to 2000 µg/m3 PM2.5, with other monitors appropriate at lower concentrations. The average accuracy increased by up to three-fold compared to when the correction model did not include evaluation variables; (4) Conclusions: Laboratory evaluation and readings correction can greatly increase the accuracy of PM monitors and set boundaries for appropriate use. However, this requires identifying the relevant evaluation variables, which are heavily reliant on how the monitors are used in the workplace. This, together with the lack of current consensus on standardized procedures, shows the need for harmonized PM monitor evaluation methods for occupational exposure monitoring.

Project description:ObjectiveFinely resolved PM2.5 exposure measurements at the level of individual participants or over a targeted geographic area can be challenging due to the cost, size and weight of the monitoring equipment. We propose re-purposing the low-cost, portable and lightweight Shinyei PPD42NS particle counter as a particle counting device. Previous field deployment of this sensor suggests that it captures trends in ambient PM2.5 concentrations, but important characteristics of the sensor response have yet to be determined. Laboratory testing was undertaken in order to characterize performance.MethodsThe Shinyei sensors, in-line with a TSI Aerosol Particle Sizer (APS) model 3321, tracked particle decay within an aerosol exposure chamber. Test atmospheres were composed of monodisperse polystyrene spheres with diameters of 0.75, 1, 2 3 and 6 um as well as a polydisperse atmosphere of ASHRAE test dust #1.ResultsTwo-minute block averages of the sensor response provide a measurement with low random error, within sensor, for particles in the 0.75-6μm range with a limit of detection of 1 μg/m3. The response slope of the sensors is idiomatic, and each sensor requires a unique response curve. A linear model captures the sensor response for concentrations below 50 μg/m3 and for concentrations above 50 μg/m3 a non-linear function captures the response and saturates at 800 μg/m3. The Limit of Detection (LOD) is 1 μg/m3. The response time is on the order of minutes, making it appropriate for tracking short-term changes in concentration.ConclusionsWhen paired with prior evaluation, these sensors are appropriate for use as ambient particle counters for low and medium concentrations of respirable particles (< 100 ug/m3). Multiple sensors deployed over a spatial grid would provide valuable spatio-temporal variability in PM2.5 and could be used to validate exposure models. When paired with GPS tracking, these devices have the potential to provide time and space resolved exposure measurements for a large number of participants, thus increasing the power of a study.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter.

Publications

Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets