Long-term evaluation and calibration of three types of low-cost PM2.5 sensors at different air quality monitoring stations

被引:43
作者
Hong, Gung-Hwa [1 ,2 ]
Le, Thi-Cuc [1 ,2 ]
Tu, Jing-Wei [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Chieh [1 ,2 ]
Chang, Shuenn-Chin [3 ,4 ]
Yu, Jhih-Yuan [3 ]
Lin, Guan-Yu [5 ]
Aggarwal, Shankar G. [6 ]
Tsai, Chuen-Jinn [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Natl Chiao Tung Univ, Inst Environm Engn, Hsinchu, Taiwan
[2] Natl Yang Ming Chiao Tung Univ, Inst Environm Engn, Hsinchu, Taiwan
[3] Execut Yuan, Environm Protect Adm, Dept Environm Monitoring & Informat Management, Taipei, Taiwan
[4] Natl Def Med Ctr, Sch Publ Hlth, Taipei, Taiwan
[5] Tunghai Univ, Dept Environm Sci & Engn, Taichung, Taiwan
[6] CSIR Natl Phys Lab, Environm Sci & Biomed Metrol Div, New Delhi, India
关键词
Low-cost PM2.5 sensor; Long-term field test; Multivariate linear regression (MLR); Non-linear regression (NLR); BAM-1020; PARTICULATE MATTER SENSORS; FIELD-EVALUATION; POLLUTION; AMBIENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105829
中图分类号
TQ [化学工业];
学科分类号
0817 ;
摘要
To evaluate the performance of low-cost PM2.5 sensors and develop calibration models for cor-recting for the PM2.5 sensor data (PM2.5,S), field comparison tests were conducted based on Met One BAM-1020 data at various locations using long-term (>one year) data of Plantower PMS5003, Sensirion SPS30, and Honeywell HPMA115S0 PM2.5 sensors. Both multivariate linear regression (MLR) and non-linear regression (NLR) models using hourly RHs and original sensor PM2.5 data as parameters were able to obtain accurate calibrated hourly PM2.5 values with MNBs (mean normalized biases) less than about +/- 10% and MNEs (mean normalized errors) less than about 30% for all three types of PM2.5 sensors at all monitoring locations. On the other hand, the MNB and MNE of the calibrated 24-hr average PM2.5 data for the two models were less than +/- 13% and 20%, respectively. Moreover, the slope, intercept, and R-2 of the linear regression line of the calibrated 24-hr average PM2.5 and BAM-1020 data were as good as 1.0 +/- 0.1, 0.0 +/- 2.0 mu g/m(3), and >0.88, respectively. Therefore, these well-calibrated sensors can well be served for education and information (MNE<50%), hotspot identification and characterization (MNE<30%), and personal exposure study (MNE<30%) purposes, and even supplement the existing daily PM2.5 data of the air quality monitoring stations (MNE<20%).
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Evaluation of Low-Cost Sensors for Ambient PM2.5 Monitoring
    Badura, Marek
    Batog, Piotr
    Drzeniecka-Osiadacz, Anetta
    Modzel, Piotr
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SENSORS, 2018, 2018
  • [2] Long-term Field Evaluation of Low-cost Particulate Matter Sensors in Nanjing
    Bai, Lu
    Huang, Lin
    Wang, Zhenglu
    Ying, Qi
    Zheng, Jun
    Shi, Xiaowen
    Hu, Jianlin
    [J]. AEROSOL AND AIR QUALITY RESEARCH, 2020, 20 (02) : 242 - 253
  • [3] Using Low-cost Sensors to Quantify the Effects of Air Filtration on Indoor and Personal Exposure Relevant PM2.5 Concentrations in Beijing, China
    Barkjohn, Karoline K.
    Bergin, Michael H.
    Norris, Christina
    Schauer, James J.
    Zhang, Yinping
    Black, Maril yn
    Hu, Min
    Zhang, Junfeng
    [J]. AEROSOL AND AIR QUALITY RESEARCH, 2020, 20 (02) : 297 - 313
  • [4] Incorporating Low-Cost Sensor Measurements into High-Resolution PM2.5 Modeling at a Large Spatial Scale
    Bi, Jianzhao
    Wildani, Avani
    Chang, Howard H.
    Liu, Yang
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2020, 54 (04) : 2152 - 2162
  • [5] How to Get the Best from Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors: Guidelines and Practical Recommendations
    Brattich, Erika
    Bracci, Alessandro
    Zappi, Alessandro
    Morozzi, Pietro
    Di Sabatino, Silvana
    Porcu, Federico
    Di Nicola, Francesca
    Tositti, Laura
    [J]. SENSORS, 2020, 20 (11) : 1 - 33
  • [6] Long-term field comparison of multiple low-cost particulate matter sensors in an outdoor urban environment
    Bulot, Florentin M. J.
    Johnston, Steven J.
    Basford, Philip J.
    Easton, Natasha H. C.
    Apetroaie-Cristea, Mihaela
    Foster, Gavin L.
    Morris, Andrew K. R.
    Cox, Simon J.
    Loxham, Matthew
    [J]. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2019, 9 (1)
  • [7] Development of Low-Cost Air Quality Stations for Next Generation Monitoring Networks: Calibration and Validation of PM2.5 and PM10 Sensors
    Cavaliere, Alice
    Carotenuto, Federico
    Di Gennaro, Filippo
    Gioli, Beniamino
    Gualtieri, Giovanni
    Martelli, Francesca
    Matese, Alessandro
    Toscano, Piero
    Vagnoli, Carolina
    Zaldei, Alessandro
    [J]. SENSORS, 2018, 18 (09)
  • [8] Spatial and Temporal Variations of PM2.5 in North Carolina
    Cheng, Bin
    Wang-Li, Lingjuan
    [J]. AEROSOL AND AIR QUALITY RESEARCH, 2019, 19 (04) : 698 - 710
  • [9] MEASUREMENT METHODS TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH AMBIENT AIR-QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SUSPENDED PARTICLES
    CHOW, JC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, 1995, 45 (05) : 320 - 382
  • [10] Evaluation of a low-cost optical particle counter (Alphasense OPC-N2) for ambient air monitoring
    Crilley, Leigh R.
    Shaw, Marvin
    Pound, Ryan
    Kramer, Louisa J.
    Price, Robin
    Young, Stuart
    Lewis, Alastair C.
    Pope, Francis D.
    [J]. ATMOSPHERIC MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES, 2018, 11 (02) : 709 - 720