Abstract

Advances in air pollution sensor technology have enabled the development of small and low-cost systems to measure outdoor air pollution. The deployment of a large number of sensors across a small geographic area would have potential benefits to supplement traditional monitoring networks with additional geographic and temporal measurement resolution, if the data quality were sufficient. To understand the capability of emerging air sensor technology, the Community Air Sensor Network (CAIRSENSE) project deployed low-cost, continuous, and commercially available air pollution sensors at a regulatory air monitoring site and as a local sensor network over a surrounding ∼ 2 km area in the southeastern United States. Collocation of sensors measuring oxides of nitrogen, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particles revealed highly variable performance, both in terms of comparison to a reference monitor as well as the degree to which multiple identical sensors produced the same signal. Multiple ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and carbon monoxide sensors revealed low to very high correlation with a reference monitor, with Pearson sample correlation coefficient (r) ranging from 0.39 to 0.97, 0.25 to 0.76, and 0.40 to 0.82, respectively. The only sulfur dioxide sensor tested revealed no correlation (r < 0.5) with a reference monitor and erroneously high concentration values. A wide variety of particulate matter (PM) sensors were tested with variable results - some sensors had very high agreement (e.g., r = 0.99) between identical sensors but moderate agreement with a reference PM2.5 monitor (e.g., r = 0.65). For select sensors that had moderate to strong correlation with reference monitors (r > 0.5), step-wise multiple linear regression was performed to determine if ambient temperature, relative humidity (RH), or age of the sensor in number of sampling days could be used in a correction algorithm to improve the agreement. Maximum improvement in agreement with a reference, incorporating all factors, was observed for an NO2 sensor (multiple correlation coefficient R2 adj-orig = 0.57, R2 adj-final = 0.81); however, other sensors showed no apparent improvement in agreement. A four-node sensor network was successfully able to capture ozone (two nodes) and PM (four nodes) data for an 8-month period of time and show expected diurnal concentration patterns, as well as potential ozone titration due to nearby traffic emissions. Overall, this study demonstrates the performance of emerging air quality sensor technologies in a real-world setting; the variable agreement between sensors and reference monitors indicates that in situ testing of sensors against benchmark monitors should be a critical aspect of all field studies.

Highlights

  • Air quality monitoring, including measurements of common gas-phase and particulate matter pollutants, has traditionally been conducted by regulatory organizations using specific instrumentation and protocols

  • Based on the project goal of understanding whether these types of lowcost sensor data could be indicative of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) trends, the reference monitor utilized for comparison was the MetOne BAM 1020 federal equivalent methods (FEMs) PM2.5 monitor

  • FEM PM2.5 monitors are designed according to their application for use in determining compliance with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which are at a 24 h or annual time basis

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Air quality monitoring, including measurements of common gas-phase and particulate matter pollutants, has traditionally been conducted by regulatory organizations using specific instrumentation and protocols. Available particle sensor devices currently use laserbased or light-emitting diode (LED)-based optical detection of particles. The optical-based detection of particles is anticipated to be affected by humidity during high relative humidity (RH) conditions, as the uptake of water by hygroscopic particles can lead to an enhancement in the scattered light signal. Both lower and upper detection limits are an expected factor in sensor performance

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call