Evaluation of two low-cost PM monitors under different laboratory and indoor conditions

被引:0
|
作者
He, Ruikang [1 ]
Han, Taewon [1 ]
Bachman, Daniel [3 ]
Carluccio, Dominick J. [3 ]
Jaeger, Rudolph [3 ]
Zhang, Jie [1 ]
Thirumurugesan, Sanjeevi [2 ]
Andrews, Clinton [2 ]
Mainelis, Gediminas [1 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers State Univ, Dept Environm Sci, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[2] Rutgers State Univ, Edward J Bloustein Sch Planning & Publ Policy, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[3] CH Technol Inc, Westwood, NJ USA
关键词
Kihong Park; PARTICULATE AIR-POLLUTION; PARTICLE COUNTER; MATTER; EXPOSURE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PERFORMANCE; QUALITY; SENSORS; AEROSOL; NANOPARTICLES;
D O I
10.1080/02786826.2020.1851649
中图分类号
TQ [化学工业];
学科分类号
0817 ;
摘要
Innovation and technological development have led to a proliferation of various low-cost air quality monitors, most of which use light scattering techniques to detect airborne particles. As these monitors are used in various environments, their testing should also be performed in diverse environments and with different particle types. This study evaluated three Foobot units and three AirVisual Nodes in two laboratory environments and in one residential apartment when measuring five types of aerosols (0.72 and 2.00 mu m polystyrene latex (PSL) spheres, Arizona Road Dust (ARD), nanosilver-based surface cleaner, and particles created by a cooking event). The low-cost monitors were highly correlated with the DustTrak DRX (TSI) for most aerosol types (r > 0.78), except when measuring nanosilver spray, where the r value decreased to 0.55. For PSL spheres, Foobot overestimated DRX PM2.5 concentrations while AirVisual's readings were closer to those of DRX and aligned relatively well with the 1:1 line. Both Foobot and AirVisual underestimated PM2.5 concentrations for ARD, nanosilver spray, and particles from a cooking event. Overall, the Foobots reported higher PM2.5 concentrations than the AirVisuals, except when measuring particles created by the cooking event. The paired monitors' precision error varied between 0.15 and 0.47, depending on the aerosol type and monitor pairs. The coefficient of variation ranged from 15.2% to 21.0% for the Foobots and from 12.5% to 28.7% for the AirVisuals. Both monitors showed high accuracy and precision when measuring temperature and humidity as compared to the IAQ Meter (TSI Inc.). AirVisual showed high accuracy and precision when measuring CO2, as compared to the IAQ meter. Foobot, however, didn't report accurate CO2 concentrations. Additionally, we found the AirVisual is easier to operate, and it provided more options to read, save, and download data. Copyright (c) 2020 American Association for Aerosol Research
引用
收藏
页码:316 / 331
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of two low-cost PM monitors under different laboratory and indoor conditions
    He, Ruikang
    Han, Taewon
    Bachman, Daniel
    Carluccio, Dominick J
    Jaeger, Rudolph
    Zhang, Jie
    Thirumurugesan, Sanjeevi
    Andrews, Clinton
    Mainelis, Gediminas
    [J]. Aerosol Science and Technology, 2020, 55 (03): : 316 - 331
  • [2] Laboratory assessment of low-cost PM monitors
    Manikonda, Abhisek
    Zikova, Nadezda
    Hopke, Philip K.
    Ferro, Andrea R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE, 2016, 102 : 29 - 40
  • [3] One year evaluation of three low-cost PM2.5 monitors
    Zamora, Misti Levy
    Rice, Jessica
    Koehler, Kirsten
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 235
  • [4] Evaluation of new low-cost particle monitors for PM2.5 concentrations measurements
    [J]. Ferro, Andrea R., 1600, Elsevier Ltd (105):
  • [5] Indoor PM10 concentration measurements using low-cost monitors in selected locations in Warsaw
    Rogulski, Mariusz
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES, CONECT 2018, 2018, 147 : 137 - 144
  • [6] Evaluation of new low-cost particle monitors for PM2.5 concentrations measurements
    Zikova, Nadezda
    Hopke, Philip K.
    Ferro, Andrea R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AEROSOL SCIENCE, 2017, 105 : 24 - 34
  • [7] Performance assessment of low-cost environmental monitors and single sensors under variable indoor air quality and thermal conditions
    Demanega, Ingrid
    Mujan, Igor
    Singer, Brett C.
    Andelkovic, Aleksandar S.
    Babich, Francesco
    Licina, Dusan
    [J]. BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2021, 187
  • [8] Performance of low-cost indoor air quality monitors for PM2.5 and PM10 from residential sources
    Wang, Zhiqiang
    Delp, William W.
    Singer, Brett C.
    [J]. BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT, 2020, 171
  • [9] Evaluations of Low-cost Air Quality Sensors for Particulate Matter (PM2.5) under Indoor and Outdoor Conditions
    Rabuan, Utbah
    Nadzir, Mohd Shahrul Mohd
    Sham, Siti Zahanah Abdullah
    Bahri, Sharifah Batrisyia Izzati Wan Shaiful
    Borah, Jintu
    Majumdar, Shubhankar
    Lei, Thomas M. T.
    Ali, Sawal Hamid Md
    Wahab, Muhammad Ikram A.
    Yunus, Noor Hidayah Mohd
    [J]. SENSORS AND MATERIALS, 2023, 35 (08) : 2881 - 2895
  • [10] Investigation of the Performance of Various Low-Cost Radon Monitors under Variable Environmental Conditions
    Rabago, Daniel
    Fernandez, Enrique
    Celaya, Santiago
    Fuente, Ismael
    Fernandez, Alicia
    Quindos, Jorge
    Rodriguez, Raul
    Quindos, Luis
    Sainz, Carlos
    [J]. SENSORS, 2024, 24 (06)