Estimating Hourly Concentrations of PM2.5 across a Metropolitan Area Using Low-Cost Particle Monitors

There is concern regarding the heterogeneity of exposure to airborne particulate matter (PM) across urban areas leading to negatively biased health effects models. New, low-cost sensors now permit continuous and simultaneous measurements to be made in multiple locations. Measurements of ambient PM were made from October to April 2015–2016 and 2016–2017 to assess the spatial and temporal variability in PM and the relative importance of traffic and wood smoke to outdoor PM concentrations in Rochester, NY, USA. In general, there was moderate spatial inhomogeneity, as indicated by multiple pairwise measures including coefficient of divergence and signed rank tests of the value distributions. Pearson correlation coefficients were often moderate (~50% of units showed correlations >0.5 during the first season), indicating that there was some coherent variation across the area, likely driven by a combination of meteorological conditions (wind speed, direction, and mixed layer heights) and the concentration of PM2.5 being transported into the region. Although the accuracy of these PM sensors is limited, they are sufficiently precise relative to one another and to research grade instruments that they can be useful is assessing the spatial and temporal variations across an area and provide concentration estimates based on higher-quality central site monitoring data.

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

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

[3]  Paul A. Solomon,et al.  U.S. National PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Monitoring Networks—CSN and IMPROVE: Description of networks , 2014, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[4]  Yungang Wang,et al.  Urban-Scale Seasonal and Spatial Variability of Ultrafine Particle Number Concentrations , 2012, Water, Air, & Soil Pollution.

[5]  P. Hopke,et al.  Evaluation of new low-cost particle monitors for PM2.5 concentrations measurements , 2017 .

[6]  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.

[7]  J. Pearce,et al.  A review of intraurban variations in particulate air pollution: Implications for epidemiological research , 2005 .

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

[9]  J. Pinto,et al.  Spatial Variability of PM2.5 in Urban Areas in the United States , 2004, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[10]  Yungang Wang,et al.  Multiple-year black carbon measurements and source apportionment using Delta-C in Rochester, New York , 2012, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[11]  L. Morawska,et al.  The rise of low-cost sensing for managing air pollution in cities. , 2015, Environment international.

[12]  Nealson Watkins,et al.  Near-road NO2 Monitoring Technical Assistance Document , 2012 .

[13]  Judith C. Chow,et al.  Guidance for the network design and optimum site exposure for PM2.5 and PM10 , 1997 .

[14]  Tracy Allen,et al.  A low-cost particle counter as a realtime fine-particle mass monitor. , 2013, Environmental science. Processes & impacts.

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

[16]  Ronald Williams Evaluation of Field-deployed Low Cost PM Sensors , 2014 .

[17]  D. Holstius,et al.  Field calibrations of a low-cost aerosol sensor at a regulatory monitoring site in California , 2014 .

[18]  Iratxe Uria-Tellaetxe,et al.  Conditional bivariate probability function for source identification , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  C. Sabel,et al.  Quantifying human exposure to air pollution--moving from static monitoring to spatio-temporally resolved personal exposure assessment. , 2013, The Science of the total environment.

[20]  F. Wilcoxon Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods , 1945 .

[21]  Yungang Wang,et al.  Source apportionment of airborne particulate matter using inorganic and organic species as tracers , 2012 .

[22]  Ki-Hyun Kim,et al.  A review on the human health impact of airborne particulate matter. , 2015, Environment international.

[23]  Chun Lin,et al.  Personal exposure monitoring of PM2.5 in indoor and outdoor microenvironments. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[24]  Willy Z. Sadeh,et al.  A residence time probability analysis of sulfur concentrations at grand Canyon national park , 1985 .

[25]  Wenjun Ma,et al.  Hourly peak PM2.5 concentration associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in Guangzhou, China , 2017, Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology.

[26]  E. Seto,et al.  A distributed network of low-cost continuous reading sensors to measure spatiotemporal variations of PM2.5 in Xi'an, China. , 2015, Environmental pollution.

[27]  Matthias Budde,et al.  Distributed, Low-cost Particulate Matter Sensing: Scenarios, Challenges, Approaches , 2014 .

[28]  D. Marks,et al.  Daily air temperature interpolated at high spatial resolution over a large mountainous region , 1997 .

[29]  S. Friedlander,et al.  Comparative study of PM2.5 ambiente aerosol chemical databases , 1998 .

[30]  Philip K Hopke,et al.  Air pollution at Rochester, NY: Long-term trends and multivariate analysis of upwind SO2 source impacts. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[31]  Edzer Pebesma,et al.  Mapping of background air pollution at a fine spatial scale across the European Union. , 2009, The Science of the total environment.

[32]  Yungang Wang,et al.  Urban-scale Spatial-temporal Variability of Black Carbon and Winter Residential Wood Combustion Particles , 2011 .