Development of a general calibration model and long-term performance evaluation of low-cost sensors for air pollutant gas monitoring

Abstract. Assessing the intracity spatial distribution and temporal variability in air quality can be facilitated by a dense network of monitoring stations. However, the cost of implementing such a network can be prohibitive if traditional high-quality, expensive monitoring systems are used. To this end, the Real-time Affordable Multi-Pollutant (RAMP) monitor has been developed, which can measure up to five gases including the criteria pollutant gases carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3), along with temperature and relative humidity. This study compares various algorithms to calibrate the RAMP measurements including linear and quadratic regression, clustering, neural networks, Gaussian processes, and hybrid random forest–linear regression models. Using data collected by almost 70 RAMP monitors over periods ranging up to 18 months, we recommend the use of limited quadratic regression calibration models for CO, neural network models for NO, and hybrid models for NO2 and O3 for any low-cost monitor using electrochemical sensors similar to those of the RAMP. Furthermore, generalized calibration models may be used instead of individual models with only a small reduction in overall performance. Generalized models also transfer better when the RAMP is deployed to other locations. For long-term deployments, it is recommended that model performance be re-evaluated and new models developed periodically, due to the noticeable change in performance over periods of a year or more. This makes generalized calibration models even more useful since only a subset of deployed monitors are needed to build these new models. These results will help guide future efforts in the calibration and use of low-cost sensor systems worldwide.

[1]  E. Seto,et al.  The Imperial County Community Air Monitoring Network: A Model for Community-based Environmental Monitoring for Public Health Action , 2017, Environmental health perspectives.

[2]  Olalekan Popoola,et al.  Development of a baseline-temperature correction methodology for electrochemical sensors and its implications for long-term stability , 2016 .

[3]  Michael Brauer,et al.  Within-urban variability in ambient air pollution: Comparison of estimation methods , 2008 .

[4]  John W. Cherrie,et al.  How Sensors Might Help Define the External Exposome , 2017, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[5]  Gb Stewart,et al.  The use of electrochemical sensors for monitoring urban air quality in low-cost, high-density networks , 2013 .

[6]  Michael Hannigan,et al.  Quantification Method for Electrolytic Sensors in Long-Term Monitoring of Ambient Air Quality , 2015, Sensors.

[7]  Allen L. Robinson,et al.  A machine learning calibration model using random forests to improve sensor performance for lower-cost air quality monitoring , 2018 .

[8]  David Balshaw,et al.  Assessing the Exposome with External Measures: Commentary on the State of the Science and Research Recommendations , 2017, Annual review of public health.

[9]  Daniel Krewski,et al.  Spatial analysis of air pollution and mortality in California. , 2013, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

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

[11]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  An introduction to neural computing , 1988, Neural Networks.

[12]  R. Burnett,et al.  Spatial Analysis of Air Pollution and Mortality in Los Angeles , 2005, Epidemiology.

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

[14]  L. Spinelle,et al.  Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical Field calibration of a cluster of low-cost available sensors for air quality monitoring. Part A: Ozone and nitrogen dioxide (cid:2) , 2022 .

[15]  Carl E. Rasmussen,et al.  Gaussian processes for machine learning , 2005, Adaptive computation and machine learning.

[16]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks , 1991, Neural Networks.

[17]  Jonathan P. Franklin,et al.  Calibration and assessment of electrochemical air quality sensors by co-location with regulatory-grade instruments , 2017 .

[18]  D. Niemeier,et al.  Near-roadway air quality: synthesizing the findings from real-world data. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  D. Worsnop,et al.  Use of electrochemical sensors for measurement of air pollution: correcting interference response and validating measurements , 2017 .

[20]  A. Robinson,et al.  Characterizing the spatial variation of air pollutants and the contributions of high emitting vehicles in Pittsburgh, PA. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[21]  Alena Bartonova,et al.  Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates? , 2017, Environment international.

[22]  Geb Thomas,et al.  Evaluation of low-cost electro-chemical sensors for environmental monitoring of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide , 2018, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[23]  A. Lewis,et al.  Clustering approaches to improve the performance of low cost air pollution sensors. , 2017, Faraday discussions.

[24]  Ian T. Nabney,et al.  Netlab: Algorithms for Pattern Recognition , 2002 .