Aerosol Chamber Characterization for Commercial Particulate Matter (PM) Sensor Evaluation

ABSTRACT The negative impact of PM2.5 exposure has encouraged the development of scattering-based PM sensors for monitoring the PM level spatially and temporally. These PM sensors excel in terms of cost, operating power, and compactness, but the performance of each model needs to be evaluated individually. The evaluation of a PM sensor can be conducted inside an aerosol chamber by measuring the PM concentration in time series using both the sensor and reference monitors. However, earlier experimental processes were time-consuming, as a long time was needed to decrease the PM concentration by loss mechanisms. We designed an aerosol chamber by introducing an output airflow rate to decay the PM concentration more quickly. The characterization of the chamber yielded an empirical equation to describe the PM concentration decay profile, which can be used to predict the measurement time and the number of data points. The chamber was then utilized to evaluate three PM sensors (Sharp GP2Y1010AU0F, Winsen ZH03A, and Novafitness SDS011). A condensation particle counter (TSI, 3025A) and particle sensor (Honeywell, HPMA115S0-XXX) were employed as reference monitors. The evaluation determined the linearity, calibration curve, and precision of the PM sensors. The evaluated models showed excellent linearity, with R2 values above 0.956. The least square and RMA correlation of the evaluated PM sensors demonstrated the best linearity achieved at a low PM measurement range (0–400 µg m–3). As the Winsen ZH03A and Novafitness SDS011 sensors had coefficients of variation below 10%, both of the sensors have an acceptable precision according to the EPA standard.

[1]  Zhengqiang Li,et al.  Long-term trends and spatial patterns of satellite-retrieved PM2.5 concentrations in South and Southeast Asia from 1999 to 2014. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[2]  Chenyang Lu,et al.  Spatiotemporal distribution of indoor particulate matter concentration with a low-cost sensor network , 2018 .

[3]  Carlo Ratti,et al.  End-user perspective of low-cost sensors for outdoor air pollution monitoring. , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[4]  Ugur Soysal,et al.  Aerosol mass concentration measurements: Recent advancements of real-time nano/micro systems , 2017 .

[5]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Performance calibration of low-cost and portable particular matter (PM) sensors , 2017 .

[6]  Jing Zhang,et al.  A WiFi-enabled indoor air quality monitoring and control system: The design and control experiments , 2017, 2017 13th IEEE International Conference on Control & Automation (ICCA).

[7]  K. Koehler,et al.  Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter. , 2017, Journal of aerosol science.

[8]  Jiayu Li,et al.  Optical characterization studies of a low-cost particle sensor , 2017 .

[9]  P. Hopke,et al.  A Chamber Study of Secondary Organic Aerosol (SOA) Formed by Ozonolysis of d-Limonene in the Presence of NO , 2017 .

[10]  P. Hopke,et al.  Laboratory assessment of low-cost PM monitors , 2016 .

[11]  Ekkarat Boonchieng,et al.  Converting air quality monitoring low cost sensor data to digital value via mobile interface , 2016, 2016 9th Biomedical Engineering International Conference (BMEiCON).

[12]  Chang-Yu Wu,et al.  Upon correlating diameters measured by optical particle counters and aerodynamic particle sizers , 2016 .

[13]  Yi Cui,et al.  Nanofiber Air Filters with High-Temperature Stability for Efficient PM2.5 Removal from the Pollution Sources. , 2016, Nano letters.

[14]  Geb Thomas,et al.  Inter-comparison of low-cost sensors for measuring the mass concentration of occupational aerosols , 2016, Aerosol science and technology : the journal of the American Association for Aerosol Research.

[15]  M. L. Pignata,et al.  Particulate matter concentrations originating from industrial and urban sources: Validation of atmospheric dispersion modeling results , 2016 .

[16]  James L. Repace,et al.  Determining PM2.5 calibration curves for a low-cost particle monitor: common indoor residential aerosols. , 2015, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

[17]  A. Bartoňová,et al.  On the use of small and cheaper sensors and devices for indicative citizen-based monitoring of respirable particulate matter. , 2015, Environmental pollution.

[18]  Yang Wang,et al.  Laboratory Evaluation and Calibration of Three Low-Cost Particle Sensors for Particulate Matter Measurement , 2015 .

[19]  Jianing Zhao,et al.  Size-Resolved Ultrafine Particle Deposition and Brownian Coagulation from Gasoline Vehicle Exhaust in an Environmental Test Chamber. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[20]  P. Lestari,et al.  Characteristics of carbonaceous aerosols emitted from peatland fire in Riau, Sumatra, Indonesia (2): Identification of organic compounds , 2015 .

[21]  Yi Cui,et al.  Transparent air filter for high-efficiency PM2.5 capture , 2015, Nature Communications.

[22]  Mohd Talib Latif,et al.  A case-crossover analysis of forest fire haze events and mortality in Malaysia , 2014 .

[23]  Zhou Zhang,et al.  Design and characterization of a smog chamber for studying gas-phase chemical mechanisms and aerosol formation , 2013 .

[24]  J. Reid,et al.  Chemical speciation of trace metals emitted from Indonesian peat fires for health risk assessment , 2013 .

[25]  Shuxiao Wang,et al.  Characteristics and health impacts of particulate matter pollution in China (2001–2011) , 2013 .

[26]  Michal Green,et al.  Evolution of Ultrafine Particle Size Distributions Following Indoor Episodic Releases: Relative Importance of Coagulation, Deposition and Ventilation , 2012 .

[27]  Tami C. Bond,et al.  Global emission projections of particulate matter (PM): I. Exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles , 2011 .

[28]  W. Landman Climate change 2007: the physical science basis , 2010 .

[29]  Anzhi He,et al.  Mass concentration calculation with the pulse height distribution of aerosols and system calibration , 2010 .

[30]  H. Karlsson,et al.  Size-dependent toxicity of metal oxide particles--a comparison between nano- and micrometer size. , 2009, Toxicology letters.

[31]  Xiaoliang Wang,et al.  A Novel Optical Instrument for Estimating Size Segregated Aerosol Mass Concentration in Real Time , 2009 .

[32]  Benjamin J. Mullins,et al.  Performance evaluation of three optical particle counters with an efficient “multimodal” calibration method , 2008 .

[33]  B. Wehner,et al.  Particle counting efficiencies of new TSI condensation particle counters , 2007 .

[34]  WHO Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide , 2006 .

[35]  Gurumurthy Ramachandran,et al.  Characterizing Indoor and Outdoor 15 Minute Average PM 2.5 Concentrations in Urban Neighborhoods , 2003 .

[36]  P. Lestari,et al.  Atmospheric Particulate Concentration Measured in an Urban Area Bandung , 2003 .

[37]  R C Flagan,et al.  State-of-the-art chamber facility for studying atmospheric aerosol chemistry. , 2001, Environmental science & technology.

[38]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  Mathematical model for gas-particle partitioning of secondary organic aerosols , 1997 .

[39]  Harvey Patashnick,et al.  Continuous PM-10 Measurements Using the Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance , 1990 .