Dataset Information

One Year Evaluation of Three Low-Cost PM_2.5 Monitors.

ABSTRACT: The availability of low-cost monitors marketed for use in homes has increased rapidly over the past few years due to the advancement of sensing technologies, increased awareness of urban pollution, and the rise of citizen science. The user-friendly packages can make them appealing for use in research grade indoor exposure assessments, but a rigorous scientific evaluation has not been conducted for many monitors on the open market, which leads to uncertainty about the validity of the data. Furthermore, many previous sensor studies were conducted for a relatively short period of time, which may not capture the changes this type of instrument may exhibit over time (known as sensor aging). We evaluated three monitors (AirVisual Pro, Speck, and AirThinx) in an occupied, non-smoking residence over a 12-month period in order to assess the sensors, the built-in calibrations, and the need for additional data to achieve high accuracy for long deployments. Two units of each type of monitor were evaluated in order to assess the precision between units, and a personal DataRAM (pDR-1200) with a filter was placed in the home for about 20% of the sampling period (e.g., about a week each month) to evaluate the accuracy over time. The average PM_2.5 mass concentration from the periods of colocation with the pDR were 5.31 μg/m³ for the gravimetric-corrected pDR (hereafter pDR-corrected), 5.11 and 5.03 μg/m³ for the AirVisual Pro units, 13.58 and 22.68 μg/m³ for the Speck units, and 7.56 and 7.57 μg/m³ for the AirThinx units. The AirVisual Pros exhibited the best accuracy compared to the filter at about 86%, which was slightly better than the nephelometric component of the pDR compared to the filter weight (84%). The accuracies of the Speck (-174 and -405%) and AirThinx (42 and 40%) monitors were much lower. When the 1-minute averaged PM_2.5 mass concentrations were categorized by air quality index (AQI), the pDR-corrected matched the AirVisual Pro, Speck, and AirThinx bins about 97, 40, and 87% of the time, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficients (R²) between the unit pairs and the pDR were 0.90/0.90, 0.50/0.27, and 0.92/0.93 for the AirVisual Pro, Speck, and AirThinx units, respectively. The R² between units of the same type were 0.99, 0.17, and 1.00 for the AirVisual Pro, Speck, and AirThinx, respectively. All of the monitors could achieve better accuracy by adding filter corrections and post-processing to correct for known biases in addition to the manufacturer's correction routine. Monthly calibrations yielded the highest accuracies, but nearly as high of accuracies could be achieved with only one or two calibrations for the Air Visual Pro and the AirThinx for many applications. In general, this type of new low-cost monitor shows exciting potential for use in scientific research. However, only one of the three monitors exhibited high accuracy (within 20% of the true mass concentration) without any post processing or additional measurements, so an evaluation of each monitor is essential before the data can be used to confidently evaluate residential exposures.

SUBMITTER: Zamora ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7347290 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Particulate matter air pollution is a leading cause of global mortality, particularly in Asia and Africa. Addressing the high and wide-ranging air pollution levels requires ambient monitoring, but many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain scarcely monitored. To address these data gaps, recent studies have utilized low-cost sensors. These sensors have varied performance, and little literature exists about sensor intercomparison in Africa. By colocating 2 QuantAQ Modulair-PM, 2 PurpleAir PA-II SD, and 16 Clarity Node-S Generation II monitors with a reference-grade Teledyne monitor in Accra, Ghana, we present the first intercomparisons of different brands of low-cost sensors in Africa, demonstrating that each type of low-cost sensor PM2.5 is strongly correlated with reference PM2.5, but biased high for ambient mixture of sources found in Accra. When compared to a reference monitor, the QuantAQ Modulair-PM has the lowest mean absolute error at 3.04 μg/m3, followed by PurpleAir PA-II (4.54 μg/m3) and Clarity Node-S (13.68 μg/m3). We also compare the usage of 4 statistical or machine learning models (Multiple Linear Regression, Random Forest, Gaussian Mixture Regression, and XGBoost) to correct low-cost sensors data, and find that XGBoost performs the best in testing (R2: 0.97, 0.94, 0.96; mean absolute error: 0.56, 0.80, and 0.68 μg/m3 for PurpleAir PA-II, Clarity Node-S, and Modulair-PM, respectively), but tree-based models do not perform well when correcting data outside the range of the colocation training. Therefore, we used Gaussian Mixture Regression to correct data from the network of 17 Clarity Node-S monitors deployed around Accra, Ghana, from 2018 to 2021. We find that the network daily average PM2.5 concentration in Accra is 23.4 μg/m3, which is 1.6 times the World Health Organization Daily PM2.5 guideline of 15 μg/m3. While this level is lower than those seen in some larger African cities (such as Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo), mitigation strategies should be developed soon to prevent further impairment to air quality as Accra, and Ghana as a whole, rapidly grow.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the London Underground (LU) handling on average 2.8 million passenger journeys per day, the characteristics and potential health effects of the elevated concentrations of metal-rich PM2.5 found in this subway system are not well understood.MethodsSpatial monitoring campaigns were carried out to characterise the health-relevant chemical and physical properties of PM2.5 across the LU network, including diurnal and day-to-day variability and spatial distribution (above ground, depth below ground and subway line). Population-weighted station PM2.5 rankings were produced to understand the relative importance of concentrations at different stations and on different lines.ResultsThe PM2.5 mass in the LU (mean 88 μg m-3, median 28 μg m-3) was greater than at ambient background locations (mean 19 μg m-3, median 14 μg m-3) and roadside environments in central London (mean 22 μg m-3, median 14 μg m-3). Concentrations varied between lines and locations, with the deepest and shallowest submerged lines being the District (median 4 μg m-3) and Victoria (median 361 μg m-3 but up to 885 μg m-3). Broadly in agreement with other subway systems around the world, sampled LU PM2.5 comprised 47% iron oxide, 7% elemental carbon, 11% organic carbon, and 14% metallic and mineral oxides. Although a relationship between line depth and air quality inside the tube trains was evident, there were clear influences relating to the distance from cleaner outside air and the exchange with cabin air when the doors open. The passenger population-weighted exposure analysis demonstrated a method to identify stations that should be prioritised for remediation to improve air quality.ConclusionPM2.5 concentrations in the LU are many times higher than in other London transport Environments. Failure to include this environment in epidemiological studies of the relationship between PM2.5 and health in London is therefore likely to lead to a large exposure misclassification error. Given the significant contribution of underground PM2.5 to daily exposure, and the differences in composition compared to urban PM2.5, there is a clear need for well-designed studies to better understand the health effects of underground exposure.

Dataset Information

One Year Evaluation of Three Low-Cost PM_2.5 Monitors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Dataset Information

One Year Evaluation of Three Low-Cost PM2.5 Monitors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

One Year Evaluation of Three Low-Cost PM_2.5 Monitors.