Performance evaluation of twelve low-cost PM2.5 sensors at an ambient air monitoring site

Abstract A variety of low-cost sensors are now available on the consumer market for measuring air pollutants. The use of these low-cost sensors for ambient air monitoring applications is increasing and includes fence-line or near-source monitoring, community monitoring, emergency response, hot-spot identification, mobile monitoring, epidemiological studies, and supplemental monitoring to improve the spatial-temporal resolution of current monitoring networks. Evaluating and understanding the performance of these devices is necessary to properly interpret the results and reduce confusion when low-cost sensor measurements are not in agreement with measurements from regulatory-grade instrumentation. Systematic and comprehensive field and laboratory studies comparing low-cost sensors with regulatory-grade instrumentation are necessary to characterize sensor performance. This paper presents the results of 12 particulate matter (PM) sensors measurement of PM2.5 (particles with aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 μm) tested under ambient conditions against a federally equivalent method (FEM) instrument at an ambient air monitoring station in Riverside, CA spanning over a 3-year period from 02/05/15 to 03/27/18. Sensors were evaluated in triplicate with a typical time duration of 8-week. Performance evaluation results found 6 of the 12 sensor triplicates with average R2 values ≥ 0.70 for PM2.5 concentrations less than 50 μg/m3. Within this subset, the Mean Absolute Error (MAE) ranged from 4.4 to 7.0 μg/m3 indicating the need for caution when interpreting data from these sensors. Additional analysis revealed that the impact of relative humidity on sensor performance varied between models with several models exhibiting increased bias error with increasing humidity. Results indicate that a number of these sensors have potential as useful tools for characterizing PM2.5 levels in ambient environments when data is interpreted and understood correctly with regard to existing ambient air quality networks. The performance evaluation results are specific for Riverside, CA under non-repeatable ambient weather conditions and particle properties with the expectation that performance evaluation testing at other locations with different particle properties and weather conditions would yield similar but non-identical results.

[1]  Michael Brauer,et al.  Addressing Global Mortality from Ambient PM2.5. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[2]  T. Sharpe,et al.  Field evaluation of a low-cost indoor air quality monitor to quantify exposure to pollutants in residential environments , 2018 .

[3]  Sungroul Kim,et al.  Evaluation of Performance of Inexpensive Laser Based PM2.5 Sensor Monitors for Typical Indoor and Outdoor Hotspots of South Korea , 2019, Applied Sciences.

[4]  Bin Ouyang,et al.  Developing a Relative Humidity Correction for Low-Cost Sensors Measuring Ambient Particulate Matter , 2018, Sensors.

[5]  M. Brauer,et al.  High-Resolution Air Pollution Mapping with Google Street View Cars: Exploiting Big Data. , 2017, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  Steven J. Johnston,et al.  Long-term field comparison of multiple low-cost particulate matter sensors in an outdoor urban environment , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[7]  B. Ostro,et al.  Long-term source apportionment of ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in the Los Angeles Basin: a focus on emissions reduction from vehicular sources. , 2014, Environmental pollution.

[8]  K. Kelly,et al.  Long-term field evaluation of the Plantower PMS low-cost particulate matter sensors. , 2019, Environmental pollution.

[9]  Majid Ezzati,et al.  Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the United States. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  P. Schneider,et al.  Performance Assessment of a Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensor for a near Four-Month Period in Oslo, Norway , 2019, Atmosphere.

[11]  Andreas Matzarakis,et al.  Selection of Appropriate Thermal Indices for Applications in Human Biometeorological Studies , 2019, Atmosphere.

[12]  E. Snyder,et al.  The changing paradigm of air pollution monitoring. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[13]  R. Burnett,et al.  Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. , 2002, JAMA.

[14]  W. Thompson,et al.  The association of PM(2.5) with full term low birth weight at different spatial scales. , 2014, Environmental research.

[15]  Hang Zhang,et al.  Development of an environmental chamber for evaluating the performance of low-cost air quality sensors under controlled conditions , 2017 .

[16]  Majid Sarrafzadeh,et al.  Temperature and humidity calibration of a low-cost wireless dust sensor for real-time monitoring , 2017, 2017 IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium (SAS).

[17]  Evan Coffey,et al.  Intra-urban spatial variability of surface ozone in Riverside, CA: viability and validation of low-cost sensors , 2018 .

[18]  Randal S. Martin,et al.  Ambient and laboratory evaluation of a low-cost particulate matter sensor. , 2017, Environmental pollution.

[19]  A. Lewis,et al.  Validate personal air-pollution sensors , 2016, Nature.

[20]  A. Robinson,et al.  Spatial Variability of Sources and Mixing State of Atmospheric Particles in a Metropolitan Area. , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[21]  M. Koç,et al.  A review on the direct effect of particulate atmospheric pollution on materials and its mitigation for sustainable cities and societies , 2018, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[22]  Elena Austin,et al.  Laboratory Evaluation of the Shinyei PPD42NS Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensor , 2015, PloS one.

[23]  A. Robinson,et al.  Intracity Variability of Particulate Matter Exposure Is Driven by Carbonaceous Sources and Correlated with Land-Use Variables. , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  Yi He,et al.  The Effect of Particulate Matter on Visibility in Hangzhou, China , 2018, Journal of Environmental Science and Management.

[25]  Francesca Borghi,et al.  Precision and Accuracy of a Direct-Reading Miniaturized Monitor in PM2.5 Exposure Assessment , 2018, Sensors.

[26]  Piotr Batog,et al.  Evaluation of Low-Cost Sensors for Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring , 2018, J. Sensors.

[27]  Jian Gao,et al.  Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone? , 2018, Environment international.

[28]  B. Kerkez,et al.  Field and Laboratory Evaluations of the Low-Cost Plantower Particulate Matter Sensor. , 2019, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  Anondo Mukherjee,et al.  Assessing the Utility of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors over a 12-Week Period in the Cuyama Valley of California , 2017, Sensors.

[30]  Andrea Polidori,et al.  Air Quality Sensors and Data Adjustment Algorithms: When Is It No Longer a Measurement? , 2018, Environmental science & technology.

[31]  B. Magi,et al.  Evaluation of PM2.5 measured in an urban setting using a low-cost optical particle counter and a Federal Equivalent Method Beta Attenuation Monitor , 2020, Aerosol Science and Technology.

[32]  Armistead G. Russell,et al.  Field Test of Several Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors in High and Low Concentration Urban Environments. , 2018, Aerosol and air quality research.

[33]  Joshua Rickard,et al.  Long-term evaluation of air sensor technology under ambient conditions in Denver, Colorado , 2018, Atmospheric measurement techniques.

[34]  Xiaoting Liu,et al.  The influence of humidity on the performance of a low-cost air particle mass sensor and the effect of atmospheric fog , 2018 .

[35]  G. Hagler,et al.  Community Air Sensor Network (CAIRSENSE) project: evaluation of low-cost sensor performance in a suburban environment in the southeastern United States. , 2016, Atmospheric measurement techniques.

[36]  Matthew L. Thomas,et al.  Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015 , 2017, The Lancet.

[37]  Ronak Sutaria,et al.  Field evaluation of low-cost particulate matter sensors in high- and low-concentration environments , 2018, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques.

[38]  F. Pope,et al.  of Birmingham Evaluation of a low-cost optical particle counter (Alphasense OPC-N2) for ambient air monitoring , 2018 .