Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Assessing the Accuracy of Air Quality Personal Exposure Monitors

Altmetrics

Downloads

158

Views

131

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

25 August 2023

Posted:

29 August 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Low-cost personal exposure monitors (PEMs) to measure personal exposure to air pollution are potentially promising tools for health research. However, their adoption requires robust validation. This study evaluated the performance of twenty-one Plume Lab Flow2 (PLF) by comparing its air pollutant measurements, particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 μm or less (PM2.5), 10 μm or less (PM10), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), against several high-quality air pollution monitors under field conditions (at indoor, outdoor, and roadside locations). Correlation and regression analysis were used to evaluate measurements obtained by different PLFs against reference instrumentation. For all measured pollutants, the overall correlation coefficient between the PLFs and the reference instruments was often weak (r<0.4). Moderate correlation was observed for one PLF unit at indoor location and two units at roadside location, when measuring PM2.5, but not for PM10 and NO2 concentration. During periods of particularly higher pollution, 11 PLF tools showed stronger regression results (R2 values > 0.5) with one-hour and 9 PLF units with one-minute time interval. Results show that the PLF cannot be used robustly to determine high and low exposure to poor air. Therefore, the use of PLFs in research studies should be approached with caution if data quality is important to the research outputs.
Keywords: 
Subject: Public Health and Healthcare  -   Public, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Introduction

Air pollution comprises a mix of gases and solid particles of varying composition. Particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are major pollutants of concern and their impact on health has been extensively studied [1,2,3]. Studies of this type are, however, often limited by a lack of understanding of personal exposure to poor quality air [4].
Personal exposure to air pollutants can be assessed using a variety of methods. Most studies have been restricted to indirect approaches, such as stationary monitors, dispersion modeling, and land use regression models [5,6], while others favor combining two or more methods in an attempt to provide a more accurate estimate of air pollution exposure [7,8]. Each of these methods has its own set of limitations, the most important of which is the inability to accurately quantify an individual’s actual exposure to multiple pollutants, and the temporal and/or spatial variability of the exposure [6,9].
In recent years, low-cost personal exposure monitors (PEMs), with technologies like compact pollution sensors enabled with GPS, have been employed as an approach for assessing personal exposure to air pollution and are now widely available commercially [10,11]. They are designed to be attached and carried by the person of interest, thus providing a measure of the personal exposure to air pollution [12,13]. PEM characteristics potentially provide important opportunities for improving of our understanding of the impact of air pollutants on health, [14,15] but also may support education and public awareness [16]. They could be used in combination with routine ambient air monitoring networks [17] to assess air pollution exposures at population levels, e.g. across cities [18]. However, data quality and lack of guidance on how to use these devices limit their use [19,20,21]. Their accuracy and reliability must be robustly tested before they can be adopted specially in health research studies.
Field and laboratory evaluations are vital for validating the performance of personal air quality monitors in order to ensure that the quality of data obtained is of high quality [19,20,21]. There is an ever-growing number of studies that asses the accuracy of a suite of static air pollution sensors designed to be used in networks, but studies showing the performance of personal air quality sensors are much more limited despite their use, at scale, in measuring personal exposure. Plume Lab Flow has been developed as a PEM and recently evaluated in a laboratory setting [22]. Plume Lab Flow 2’s performance has been reported by the South Coast AQMD, where they only compared three PLFs outdoors alongside a high reference-grade instruments [23]. All which were limited to certain environmental conditions. The assessment of PLF is still limited and needs to be evaluated in different field conditions that can represent the individual exposure level. In this study we evaluated the performance of 21 PLF against reference-grade instrumentation in a range of field environments over sufficient periods of time, to determine whether they can be effectively utilized.

2. Materials and Methods

Twenty-one PLFs were deployed in three field tests: two outdoor (roadside, urban background) for short duration (3 to 4 hours) and one indoor location for long duration (3 weeks). The PM2.5, PM10, NO2 measurements results from 21 PLFs were compared to those of side-by-side measurements using three reference instruments (depending on the field test): a) Portable Optical Particle Spectrometer (POPS) [24], b) ARISense Sensor [25], and c) monitors from the Manchester NERC Air Quality Supersite (http://www.cas.manchester.ac.uk/restools/firs/).

2.1. Instrumentation

2.1.1. Personal Exposure Monitor

The PLF (https://plumelabs.com/en/flow/) is a wearable low-cost (~150 USD/sensor) air quality sensor that connects to a mobile application via Bluetooth connection. It can be carried or worn by a person during their regular daily routine. It weighs 70 g, and the unit charge lasts approximately 24 hours. It is intended to track indoor and outdoor air quality. In this study, the PLF was chosen as it is one of the market leaders (at the time of the study) and measures (every minute) particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10; measured in µg/m³), NO2 (measured in ppb), volatile organic compounds (VOCs measured in ppb). The PLFs were operated according to the manufacturer’s instructions, where the data were synchronized every two to three days to ensure uploading of the data onto the manufacturer’s server. As per the manufacturer's instructions, each flow device was operated for a week before utilizing them in the fields. This data is not considered usable for the analysis.

2.1.2. Reference Instrumentation

The Portable Optical Particle Spectrometer (POPS) and ARISense (version 1.0 system) are portable air quality instruments suitable for indoor and outdoor use [24]. POPS is a lightweight particle counter that measures particle diameters between 0.13 to 3.0 µm by using a single-particle light scattering algorithm [26]. This study used POPS to measure PM2.5 (µg/m³), at outside roadside and indoor. The ARISense sensor is equipped with a variety of electrochemical sensors designed to measure the ambient levels of multiple pollutants in real-time, but were used here for reference data for two pollutants: NO2 (ppb) and PM10 (µg/m³) [24], which used to measure indoor air quality levels. In addition, two reference-grade instruments from the Manchester Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Air Quality Supersite (the NERC supersite monitors) were employed for outside background measurements: FIDAS200 (Palas GmbH, Germany) instrument to measure the PM10 (µg/m³) and PM2.5 (µg/m³) concentrations, and Teledyne API T500U Cavity Attenuated Phase Shift (CAPS) Analyser to monitor NO2 (ppb) concentrations, instruments type are described in detailed previously [27]. As per the manufacturer's instructions, each flow device was operated for a week before utilizing them in the fields. This data is not considered usable for the analysis.
It is important to note that the ARISense is a low-cost sensor; measurement errors in this instrument are possible. However, its high-performance quality has been demonstrated, making it a viable option for use as a reference in this study [24].

2.2. Sites and Measurement Periods

2.2.1. Indoor site measurements periods

In the indoor evaluation, PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 levels measured from the PLFs were compared with the PM2.5 levels measured by POPS, and PM10 and NO2 measured by ARISense. The measurement period lasted three weeks, from October 20 to November 16, 2020, inside the Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Manchester. During the sampling period, the PLFs operated continuously inside the building, except for the days when they were taken away to be used at other sites, as detailed in the following sections. In the building, the PLFs’ batteries were constantly charged alongside the reference device. The PLFs were placed within one meter of each other and next to a window. In order to simulate a natural use of the building, windows were opened and closed at various intervals during the indoor trial. In the UK, we spend up to 90% of our time indoors, it was therefore decided to prioritize the indoor evaluation aspect of this study [28].

2.2.2. Roadside site measurement period

The PLFs and POPS devices were used to measure PM2.5 levels on Upper Brook Street, Ardwick, Manchester (UK), a major arterial road route into the city centre. The measurement period for the road site was on November 13, 2020, from 11:26 AM to 3:41 PM, excluding the period between 1:00 PM and 2:00 PM. The PLFs were set side-by-side on top of the POPS instrument, and both were placed next to the road at the ground level.

2.2.3. NERC Supersite and measurement period

The NERC Supersite provides continuous reference-grade measurements, and therefore provides the ideal site to understand the performance of the sensors and allowed the characterization of the PLFs for PM2.5, PM10, and NO2. The station is located on the University of Manchester’s Fallowfield Campus, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester (UK); the location are described in detailed previously [27]. The measurement duration was 12:10 PM to 3:49 PM on November 19, 2020.
Despite the short period of co-location specially at roadside and background site, 3 to 4 hours, measurements at these reference sites are seen as best practice for understanding the performance of the PLF in an outdoor environment and is therefore included in this study.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed with R statistical software (version 4.0.1 – © 2004–2016 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing; (http://www.R-project.org), and “ggplot2”, “dplyr”, and “tidyquant” packages were used for all data processing. All data from the portable monitoring device and the reference monitoring instruments were recorded at one-minute intervals.
To compare the co-located PLF data with the reference measurements a variety of statistical tools were used, including descriptive statistical analysis and time series plot charts. Four PLFs were excluded due to the devices’ short battery life or the absence of data at the time the measurements were taken. Consequently, only 17 of the 21 PLF devices were included in the analysis. To determine how well the PLF exposure values agreed with those from the references, a Pearson correlation analysis (r) was conducted, to illustrate the relationships of their agreement. Descriptive and correlation coefficient analyses were performed for each site locations.
A linear least squares regression model was performed also for each PLFs and for PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 pollutants from the indoor location. The results were summarized using the most common error value metrics: the coefficient of determination of the linear fit (R2) and the root mean squared error (RMSE). This was completed assuming that the reference measurements were free from error and the PLFs would be subjected to measurement error.
The three-week indoor measurement period included a period of exceptionally high ambient pollution, during Guy Fawkes Night. For that reason, the regression was completed over two time periods: a) indoor monitoring, from November 3 to November 7 (five days only, including a Guy Fawkes Night event with high pollutant concentration levels), and b) from October 20 to November 16, 2020 (complete three-week period including the period of high pollution), where the regression was conducted with reference instruments’ (POPS and ARISense) values as the independent variable (x-axis), and PLF values as the dependent variable (y-axis). The equation for the linear regression is (Y = bX + a), “b” is the slope of the regression line, and “a” is the intercept. We evaluated the tool's performance for two different time intervals (1-minute and 1-hour). RMSE provides a good measure of measurement error; an RMSE of zero indicates that all predictions lie on the regression line, suggesting no errors (i.e., good performance). In addition, the higher R2 values (close to 1), which range from 0 to 1, indicate better performance.

3. Results and Discussion

For all measured pollutants, the overall correlation coefficient between the PLFs and the reference instruments was often weak (r<0.4). Moderate correlation coefficient with the reference instruments was observed with one of PLFs at indoor location (r = 0.58) and two of PLF at roadside location (0.4 < r < 0.6) when measuring PM2.5, but not for PM10 and NO2 concentrations. When analyzing only a subset of the data when the high pollution periods were observed during the Guy Fawkes Night (POPS measurement showed a maximum of 118.7 μg/m3), 11 PLF units showed stronger regression results (R2 values > 0.5) with a one-hour compared to a one-minute (n=9) for PM2.5 . For the full indoor measurement period (3 weeks), 4 PLF units showed stronger regression results (R2 values > 0.5) for PM2.5. PM10 and NO2 showed consistently poor regression results (R2 values < 0.5) in both the raw (1 min), 1 hour averaged, for both the high pollution period and for the full measurement interval.

3.1. Indoor Monitoring

Figure 1 shows measured time series of PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 by the reference instrumentation, POPS and ARISense (first column) and 3 PLF devices (PLF2, PLF11, and PLF12) out of 17, illustrating their highly variable performance. The series for the remaining 14 PLF devices are shown in Figure S1.
The reference indoor air quality instruments show strong variability in concentrations over the full measurement period. Levels of air pollution exceeded the WHO threshold during periods from October 20 to November 16, 2020 with a high exceedance detected by the POPS device at 9:24 PM for PM2.5 pollutant with a level of 118.77 μg/m3 (see Figure 1A). The PM10 and NO2 reference monitor readings also revealed a significant peak that exceeded the WHO threshold of 242.5 μg/m3 and 59.13 ppb, respectively. This occurred during Guy Fawkes Night from November 5, 2020 at 5:00 PM to November 6, 2020 at 3:00 AM (highlighted with a blue line), and the event also had a clear effect on the indoor air quality at this time. Outdoor air quality has a significant impact on indoor air quality, especially evident when indoor sources of pollution are absent [24]. Natural ventilation, open windows and doors, are the most prevalent ways for outside air to enter and influence indoor environments. Figure 1A, the high and low PM2.5 readings of the PLFs (PLF11 and PLF12) generally coincided with the PM2.5 concentrations measured by POPS. However, they did not follow the reference ARISense for PM10 and NO2 concentrations, as shown in Figure 1B,C. PLF2, for instance, showed inconsistent tracking patterns (high-frequency readings that exceed the WHO threshold) in comparison to the references for PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 levels. Most of the other PLFs, as shown in Figure S1, exhibit the same unreliable multiple high peak patterns during this time.
The summary statistics of the indoor monitoring pollutants measured by the PLFs and the POPS and ARISense instruments are shown in Table S1. The mean of indoor PM2.5 concentration reading taken by POPS over the duration of indoor sampling (three weeks) was 6.21 μg/m3, while that of PLFs ranged between 3.39 and 8.06 μg/m3. On the other hand, PM10 mean concentration from ARISense was 16.7 μg/m3, and that of PLFs ranged between 8.39 and 34.85 μg/m3. The mean of indoor NO2 reading concentration taken by ARISense was 6.91 ppb, while that of the PLFs ranged between 13.1 and 21.08 ppb.
Overall, the correlation coefficient average between the PLFs and the references was very weak (r values less than 0.4), indicating poor agreement (Supplemental digital content: Tables S4–S6). There was a moderate correlation between PLF and POPS reference for only one PLF unit (PLF19) (r = 0.58), the remining 16 of the 17 PLF revealed a weak degree of agreement for the PM2.5 (see Table S4). PM10 and NO2 concentration data measured by the PLFs revealed no to very weak agreement (0.005 < r < 0.29) and (0.02 < r < 0.22), respectively.
Table 1,Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the results of the regression analyses for each PLF. The range of the PLFs’ R2 values for PM2.5 is 0.0–0.63, PM10 is 0.0–0.05, and for NO2, it is 0.00–0.05. The RMSE value range is 3.2–8.8 for PM2.5, 20.2–47.5 for PM10, and 13.1–28.7 for NO2. For the PM2.5 measurements, 13 out of 17 PLFs have lower R2 values (below 0.5; close to 0) and higher RMSE values (far from zero), this suggests that the regression model has a relatively weaker goodness of fit and less accurate prediction, indicating a poor measurement performance of the PLF sensors. Exceptional have been seen in 4 PLF units (PLF11,12,13, and 19), for which R2 values ranged between 0.45 and 0.63 (R2 close to 1), and their RMSE values range between 3.4 and 4.2 (RMSE close to 0), indicating that all of the variance in the four PLF units is explained moderate to substantial portion of the variance in the references and the model’s predictions have relatively small deviations from the actual observed values, which suggesting a better measurement performance for PM2.5. The performance of all PLFs, not limited to those four units, showed poor measurements for PM10 and NO2.
Specifically looking at the performance of PLF11 and PLF12, in Figure 1, where PLF11 and PLF12 seem to show reasonable performance with the PM2.5 variations as recorded by POPS, the error value metrics (R2 and RMSE) also improved. Their R2 and RMSE values are 0.58 and 3.4 and 0.58 and 3.6, respectively. The PM10 and NO2 variation from those two personal units still performed poorly (see Figure 1B,C). The poor linear responses were observed for all PLFs regarding PM10 and NO2, including those two units (PLF11 and PLF12, see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Their R2 and RMSE values are (0.05 and 20.2), and (0.03 and 26.1), respectively, for PM10, and (0.00 and 22.7), and (0.05 and 14.0), respectively, for NO2.
Preprints 83330 g004
Figure 4. Regression plots for PLFs and ARISense reference device for the 1-min NO2 concentrations carried out over a month at the indoor monitoring location. X-axis represents ARISense reference instrument; Y-axis represent PLFs tools; ----: Blue line represents the linear regression fit line between the measured NO2 concentrations from PLFs and ARISense; ----: Black line represents the 1:1 line. The equation for the linear regression is (Y = bX + a); R2 = coefficient of determination.
Figure 4. Regression plots for PLFs and ARISense reference device for the 1-min NO2 concentrations carried out over a month at the indoor monitoring location. X-axis represents ARISense reference instrument; Y-axis represent PLFs tools; ----: Blue line represents the linear regression fit line between the measured NO2 concentrations from PLFs and ARISense; ----: Black line represents the 1:1 line. The equation for the linear regression is (Y = bX + a); R2 = coefficient of determination.
Preprints 83330 g004
Table 2 show regression results comparing 1-min and 1-hour over the full indoor measurement period (3 weeks). During this period only 4 out of 17 PLFs showed better performance results (R2 values > 0.5, highlighted with gray in Table 2) when measuring PM2.5 levels with a 1-minute, and 1 out of 17 PLFs performed better (highlighted with blue in Table 2) with a 1-hour. R2 values for PM10 and NO2 showed poor performance (R2 values < 0.5) in both 1 min and 1 hour.
Similar have been seen for the short-time period (5 days) that included high levels of pollution (the Guy Fawkes Night event), see Table 3. During this period of high pollution 9 out of 17 PLFs showed better performance results (R2 values > 0.5, highlighted with gray in Table 3) when measuring PM2.5 levels with a 1-minute, and 11 out of 17 PLFs performed better (highlighted with blue in Table 3) with a 1-hour. R2 values for PM10 and NO2 showed poor performance (R2 values < 0.5) in both 1 min and 1 hour.
It is clear that, 1-hour intervals and during the selected high pollution period, 11 (out of 17) of the PLFs demonstrate some measurement proficiency. For example, the PM2.5 R2 values for PLF12 are 0.58 (1-min measurements for three weeks period in Table 2), 0.68 (1-min measurements for five days in Table 3), 0.75 (1-hr for five days). An earlier study that tested the same type of tools showed similar results[22]. In their study, they found that only three and four devices (out of 32) gave high precision (80 – 100%) for PM2.5 and PM10, respectively.

3.2. Roasdside and supersite intercomparison

PM2.5 pollution levels were measured only at the roadside with the POPS instrument, and PM2.5, PM10 and NO2 levels were measured at the Supersite. Due to the short time period of the measurements, only descriptive and correlation coefficient analyses for each site were conducted. At the time of measurements, the air quality measurements at both sites (road and Supersite locations) showed concentrations lower than the WHO 24-hour mean limit value (see Figures S2 and S3). An elevated concentration of PM2.5 was observed for periods between 3:30 PM and 3:41 PM (November 13, 2020), as detected by POPS at the roadside location for PM2.5, with the maximum level reaching 18.60 μg/m3 (see Figure 4A).
Preprints 83330 g005
Figure 4. Time series of POPS and Supersite monitors (reference) and three PLF tools for PM2.5, 1-min concentrations carried out for over three hours at the (a) roadside and (b) Manchester Air Quality Supersite. ---- : Red dash line represents the WHO limited value (15 µg/m3 for 24-hr mean PM2.5).
Figure 4. Time series of POPS and Supersite monitors (reference) and three PLF tools for PM2.5, 1-min concentrations carried out for over three hours at the (a) roadside and (b) Manchester Air Quality Supersite. ---- : Red dash line represents the WHO limited value (15 µg/m3 for 24-hr mean PM2.5).
Preprints 83330 g005
Tables S2 and S3 provide a summary of the roadside and Supersite pollutants measured by the PLFs, and references POPS and Supersite instruments. The roadside mean concentration of PM2.5 recorded by PLFs ranged between 2.4 and 18.54 μg/m3 (maximum of 12.54–75.18 μg/m3), while the mean concentration of 7.12 μg/m3 (maximum of 18.6 μg/m3) with measurements taken by POPS. Findings from the Supersite location, the mean concentration of PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 recorded by PLFs ranged between 2.12 and 7.72 μg/m3 (maximum of 11.25–78.91 μg/m3), 8.14 and 27.59 μg/m3 (maximum of 115.41–572.93 μg/m3), 1.8 and 23.89 ppb (maximum of 15.97–183.3 ppb), respectively, while the mean concentration was 3.05 μg/m3, 6.48 μg/m3, and 9.92 ppb (maximum of 4.13 μg/m3, 8.8 μg/m3, and 18.38 ppb) for PM2.5, PM10, and NO2, respectively with measurements taken by the Supersite monitors.
Despite the short measurement periods in the outdoor environments, the measured pollutant levels obtained from the PLFs (n= 15 units) do not show a good correlation (r < 0.4) with the concentrations measured by the POPS and supersite instruments at both locations. Exceptional results were seen with two PLFs (PLF2 and PLF17) that showed moderate correlation (0.4 < r < 0.6) when measuring PM2.5 at roadside location. The correlation tables for the road and Supersite locations are given in the supplementary material (see Tables S8 and S9).
Our field evaluation results show, at best, a weak correlation between the majority of the PLF devices (n=16) and the reference instruments for all measured pollutants. Only one PLFs showed a moderate correlation with the reference data. Our results are in agreement with another field evaluation reported by the South Coast AQMD [23]. Their R2 for PM2.5 measurement between 0.02 and 0.15 for three PLF units and a Federal Equivalent Monitor GRIMM (FEM GRIMM) over an hour period, and was stronger over 24 h of observation (0.02 < R2 < 0.72) compere to 5 min (0.01 < R2 < 0.09) [22].

4. Conclusions

There is increasing adoption of commercial low-cost air quality monitors by health researchers and public authorities. The body of literature assessing the accuracy of these devices is continuously expanding, but little is reported on commercially available personal exposure monitors. In this study, we evaluated the performance of a market-leading real-time air quality exposure monitor, the Plume Lab Flow2, by comparing its air pollutant measurements (PM2.5, PM10, and NO2) against readings from several high-quality air pollution monitor (ARISense, POPS, and Manchester Air Quality Supersite monitoring sites) under field conditions at indoor, outdoor, and roadside locations. Our field evaluation study demonstrated that the PLF cannot offer reliable measurements for use in exposure studies. The results suggest that the PLF is not sensitive enough to measure the very low concentration levels detected by the reference instruments. A limitation of the study is the relatively short duration of roadside measurements. Another limitation arises from the use of multiple different reference instruments, which may introduce a potential bias that is challenging to quantify. Further studies should examine whether PLFs maintain their performance over extended durations to accurately represent their potential real-world applications. Accordingly, a comparison of personal monitoring devices with corresponding reference methods should be a routine quality assurance to continue developing more efficient sensors, to guarantee the reliability of the data.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: www.mdpi.com/xxx/s1, Figures S1 – S3: Time series plots of all measured pollutants measured by PLFs and the references carried out at the indoor monitoring site, road site, and at the Manchester Air Quality Supersite. Tables S1−S3: Descriptive summary results of all measured pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, and NO2) by the 17th PLF devices and the references (ARIESense, POPS, Supersite), Tables S4−S9: Correlation coefficient results of all measured pollutants between the 17th PLF devices and the reference.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Halah Aljofi, Thomas Bannan, Daniel R. Brison, Edward Johnstone and Andrew Povey; Data curation, Halah Aljofi and Emily Matthews ; Formal analysis, Halah Aljofi; Methodology, Halah Aljofi, Thomas Bannan, Daniel R. Brison, Martie Van Tongeren, Edward Johnstone and Andrew Povey; Resources, Michael Flynn , James Evans , David Topping, Sebastian Diez, Pete Edwards and Hugh Coe ; Supervision, Thomas Bannan, Daniel R. Brison, Martie Van Tongeren, Edward Johnstone and Andrew Povey; Validation, Thomas Bannan; Writing – original draft, Halah Aljofi; Writing – review & editing, Halah Aljofi, Thomas Bannan, Emily Matthews , Daniel R. Brison, Martie Van Tongeren, Edward Johnstone and Andrew Povey.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data can be available upon request. Availability Statements are available in section “MDPI Research Data Policies” at https://www.mdpi.com/ethics.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Natalie Crnosija (Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health) for providing valuable feedback on this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Li, X.; Huang, S.; Jiao, A.; Yang, X.; Yun, J.; Wang, Y.; Xue, X.; Chu, Y.; Liu, F.; Liu, Y.; et al. Association between Ambient Fine Particulate Matter and Preterm Birth or Term Low Birth Weight: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 227, 596–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Manisalidis, I.; Stavropoulou, E.; Stavropoulos, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Environmental and Health Impacts of Air Pollution: A Review. Front Public Health 2020, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cohen, A.J.; Brauer, M.; Burnett, R.; Anderson, H.R.; Frostad, J.; Estep, K.; Balakrishnan, K.; Brunekreef, B.; Dandona, L.; Dandona, R.; et al. Estimates and 25-Year Trends of the Global Burden of Disease Attributable to Ambient Air Pollution: An Analysis of Data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015. Lancet 2017, 389, 1907–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lin, X.; Luo, J.; Liao, M.; Su, Y.; Lv, M.; Li, Q.; Xiao, S.; Xiang, J. Wearable Sensor-Based Monitoring of Environmental Exposures and the Associated Health Effects: A Review. Biosensors 2022, 12, 1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hoek, G. Methods for Assessing Long-Term Exposures to Outdoor Air Pollutants. Curr Environ Health Rep 2017, 4, 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zou, B.; Wilson, J.G.; Zhan, F.B.; Zeng, Y. Air Pollution Exposure Assessment Methods Utilized in Epidemiological Studies. J Environ Monit 2009, 11, 475–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Monn, C. Exposure Assessment of Air Pollutants: A Review on Spatial Heterogeneity and Indoor/Outdoor/Personal Exposure to Suspended Particulate Matter, Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone. Atmospheric Environment 2001, 35, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Duan, N.; Mage, D.T. Combination of Direct and Indirect Approaches for Exposure Assessment. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 1997, 7, 439–470. [Google Scholar]
  9. Watson, A.Y.; Bates, R.R.; Kennedy, D. Assessment of Human Exposure to Air Pollution: Methods, Measurements, and Models; National Academies Press (US), 1988.
  10. Wu, J.; Jiang, C.; Liu, Z.; Houston, D.; Jaimes, G.; McConnell, R. Performances of Different Global Positioning System Devices for Time-Location Tracking in Air Pollution Epidemiological Studies. Environ Health Insights 2010, 4, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, M.; Barkjohn, K.K.; Norris, C.; Schauer, J.J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Hu, M.; Bergin, M. Using Low-Cost Sensors to Monitor Indoor, Outdoor, and Personal Ozone Concentrations in Beijing, China. Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts 2020, 22, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Borghi, F.; Spinazzè, A.; Rovelli, S.; Campagnolo, D.; Del Buono, L.; Cattaneo, A.; Cavallo, D.M. Miniaturized Monitors for Assessment of Exposure to Air Pollutants: A Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017, 14, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Chambliss, S.E.; Pinon, C.P.R.; Messier, K.P.; LaFranchi, B.; Upperman, C.R.; Lunden, M.M.; Robinson, A.L.; Marshall, J.D.; Apte, J.S. Local- and Regional-Scale Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Air Pollution Determined by Long-Term Mobile Monitoring. PNAS 2021, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gaskins, A.J.; Hart, J.E. The Use of Personal and Indoor Air Pollution Monitors in Reproductive Epidemiology Studies. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2020, 34, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ong, H.; Holstius, D.; Li, Y.; Seto, E.; Wang, M. Air Pollution and Child Obesity: Assessing the Feasibility of Measuring Personal PM2.5 Exposures and Behaviours Related to BMI in Preschool-Aged Children in China. Obesity Medicine 2019, 16, 100149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, L.-W.A.; Olawepo, J.O.; Bonanno, F.; Gebreselassie, A.; Zhang, M. Schoolchildren’s Exposure to PM2.5: A Student Club–Based Air Quality Monitoring Campaign Using Low-Cost Sensors. Air Qual Atmos Health 2020, 13, 543–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mead, M.I.; Popoola, O.A.M.; Stewart, G.B.; Landshoff, P.; Calleja, M.; Hayes, M.; Baldovi, J.J.; McLeod, M.W.; Hodgson, T.F.; Dicks, J.; et al. The Use of Electrochemical Sensors for Monitoring Urban Air Quality in Low-Cost, High-Density Networks. Atmospheric Environment 2013, 70, 186–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cattaneo, A.; Garramone, G.; Taronna, M.; Peruzzo, C.; Cavallo, D.M. Personal Exposure to Airborne Ultrafine Particles in the Urban Area of Milan. J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2009, 151, 012039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Castell, N.; Dauge, F.R.; Schneider, P.; Vogt, M.; Lerner, U.; Fishbain, B.; Broday, D.; Bartonova, A. Can Commercial Low-Cost Sensor Platforms Contribute to Air Quality Monitoring and Exposure Estimates? Environ Int 2017, 99, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Snyder, E.G.; Watkins, T.H.; Solomon, P.A.; Thoma, E.D.; Williams, R.W.; Hagler, G.S.W.; Shelow, D.; Hindin, D.A.; Kilaru, V.J.; Preuss, P.W. The Changing Paradigm of Air Pollution Monitoring. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 11369–11377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Morawska, L.; Thai, P.K.; Liu, X.; Asumadu-Sakyi, A.; Ayoko, G.; Bartonova, A.; Bedini, A.; Chai, F.; Christensen, B.; Dunbabin, M.; et al. Applications of Low-Cost Sensing Technologies for Air Quality Monitoring and Exposure Assessment: How Far Have They Gone? Environ Int 2018, 116, 286–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Crnosija, N.; Levy Zamora, M.; Rule, A.M.; Payne-Sturges, D. Laboratory Chamber Evaluation of Flow Air Quality Sensor PM2.5 and PM10 Measurements. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022, 19, 7340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. South Coast. Available online: https://www.aqmd.gov/aq-spec/sensors (accessed on 18 March 2023).
  24. Leung, D.Y.C. Outdoor-Indoor Air Pollution in Urban Environment: Challenges and Opportunity. Front. Environ. Sci. 2015, 2, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Cross, E.S.; Williams, L.R.; Lewis, D.K.; Magoon, G.R.; Onasch, T.B.; Kaminsky, M.L.; Worsnop, D.R.; Jayne, J.T. Use of Electrochemical Sensors for Measurement of Air Pollution: Correcting Interference Response and Validating Measurements. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques 2017, 10, 3575–3588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gao, R.S.; Telg, H.; McLaughlin, R.J.; Ciciora, S.J.; Watts, L.A.; Richardson, M.S.; Schwarz, J.P.; Perring, A.E.; Thornberry, T.D.; Rollins, A.W.; et al. A Light-Weight, High-Sensitivity Particle Spectrometer for PM2.5 Aerosol Measurements. Aerosol Science and Technology 2016, 50, 88–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Barker, P.A.; Allen, G.; Flynn, M.; Riddick, S.; Pitt, J.R. Measurement of Recreational N2O Emissions from an Urban Environment in Manchester, UK. Urban Climate 2022, 46, 101282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dales, R.; Liu, L.; Wheeler, A.J.; Gilbert, N.L. Quality of Indoor Residential Air and Health. CMAJ 2008, 179, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Levy Zamora, M.; Xiong, F.; Gentner, D.; Kerkez, B.; Kohrman-Glaser, J.; Koehler, K. Field and Laboratory Evaluations of the Low-Cost Plantower Particulate Matter Sensor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 838–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 83330 g001
Figure 1. Time series of POPS and ARISense devices (reference) and three PLF tools for (A) PM2.5, (B) PM10, and (C) NO2 concentrations carried out over a three-week period at the indoor monitoring site. ---- : Red dash line represents the WHO limited value (45 µg/m3 for 24 h mean PM10), (15 µg/m3 for 24 h mean PM2.5), (25 µg/m3 [13.3 ppb] for 24 h mean NO2). ---- : Green dash line represents the WHO limit value (15 µg/m3 for annual mean PM10), (5 µg/m3 for annual mean PM2.5), (10 µg/m3 [5.314 ppb] for annual mean NO2). The Guy Fawkes event is colored with a blue line. The PLF2 was chosen because it best captures the characteristics of the other plumes. PLF11 and PLF12 were selected as the best-performing sensors.
Figure 1. Time series of POPS and ARISense devices (reference) and three PLF tools for (A) PM2.5, (B) PM10, and (C) NO2 concentrations carried out over a three-week period at the indoor monitoring site. ---- : Red dash line represents the WHO limited value (45 µg/m3 for 24 h mean PM10), (15 µg/m3 for 24 h mean PM2.5), (25 µg/m3 [13.3 ppb] for 24 h mean NO2). ---- : Green dash line represents the WHO limit value (15 µg/m3 for annual mean PM10), (5 µg/m3 for annual mean PM2.5), (10 µg/m3 [5.314 ppb] for annual mean NO2). The Guy Fawkes event is colored with a blue line. The PLF2 was chosen because it best captures the characteristics of the other plumes. PLF11 and PLF12 were selected as the best-performing sensors.
Preprints 83330 g001
Preprints 83330 g002
Figure 2. Regression plots for PLFs and POPS reference device for the 1-min PM2.5 concentrations carried out over a three-week period at the indoor monitoring location. X-axis represents POPs reference instrument; Y-axis represents PLFs tools; ----: Blue line represents the linear regression fit line between the measured PM2.5 concentrations from PLFs and POPS; ----: Black line represents the 1:1 line. The equation for the linear regression is (Y = bX + a); R2 = coefficient of determination.
Figure 2. Regression plots for PLFs and POPS reference device for the 1-min PM2.5 concentrations carried out over a three-week period at the indoor monitoring location. X-axis represents POPs reference instrument; Y-axis represents PLFs tools; ----: Blue line represents the linear regression fit line between the measured PM2.5 concentrations from PLFs and POPS; ----: Black line represents the 1:1 line. The equation for the linear regression is (Y = bX + a); R2 = coefficient of determination.
Preprints 83330 g002
Preprints 83330 g003
Figure 3. Regression plots for PLFs and ARISense reference device for the 1-min PM10 concentrations carried out over a three-week period at the indoor monitoring location. X-axis represents ARISense reference instrument; Y-axis represents PLFs tools; ----: Blue line represents the linear regression fit line between the measured PM10 concentrations from PLFs and ARISense; ----: Black line represents the 1:1 line. The equation for the linear regression is (Y = bX + a); R2 = coefficient of determination.
Figure 3. Regression plots for PLFs and ARISense reference device for the 1-min PM10 concentrations carried out over a three-week period at the indoor monitoring location. X-axis represents ARISense reference instrument; Y-axis represents PLFs tools; ----: Blue line represents the linear regression fit line between the measured PM10 concentrations from PLFs and ARISense; ----: Black line represents the 1:1 line. The equation for the linear regression is (Y = bX + a); R2 = coefficient of determination.
Preprints 83330 g003
Table 1. Performance of the PLFs against the references POPS and ARISense in 1-min PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 concentrations, carried out over a three-week period at the indoor monitoring location.
Table 1. Performance of the PLFs against the references POPS and ARISense in 1-min PM2.5, PM10, and NO2 concentrations, carried out over a three-week period at the indoor monitoring location.
Device ID PM2.5 PM10 NO2
a b R2 RMSE #data points a b R2 RMSE #data points a b R2 RMSE #data points
PLF 1 1.82 0.28 0.29 4.14 31725 11.07 0.16 0.01 24.01 31725 13.63 -0.02 0.00 13.63 31191
PLF 2 4.16 0.26 0.09 7.62 33665 10.9 0.12 0.01 35.23 33665 16.96 -0.13 0.002 15.79 33047
PLF 3 3.73 0.04 0.004 5.20 31474 7.74 0.02 0.001 23.21 31474 15.03 -0.21 0.01 13.78 30911
PLF 4 2.32 0.37 0.32 5.21 31404 5.74 0.26 0.03 27.36 31404 25.51 -0.62 0.02 28.7 30804
PLF 5 5.66 0.23 0.06 8.82 33572 17.47 0.08 0.001 47.24 33572 20.04 -0.51 0.02 18.80 32957
PLF 6 3.45 0.16 0.16 3.28 31968 13.74 0.10 0.01 20.98 31968 15.11 0.04 0.001 14.84 31520
PLF 8 3.23 0.24 0.11 6.42 30898 6.36 0.21 0.02 30.03 30900 14.15 0.04 0.00 15.57 30512
PLF 9 2.74 0.29 0.18 6.11 32596 5.61 0.17 0.01 26.64 32596 18.8 0.57 0.04 15.59 32003
PLF 10 5.21 0.12 0.008 7.38 29973 20.91 0.35 0.01 31.67 29973 19.38 -0.01 0.00 17.64 29624
PLF 11 0.73 0.4 0.58 3.41 30255 10.71 0.25 0.05 20.26 30255 16.54 -0.18 0.00 22.73 29640
PLF 12 0.98 0.45 0.58 3.68 33775 15.71 0.25 0.03 26.14 33775 20.97 -0.56 0.05 14.02 33172
PLF 13 1.1 0.38 0.45 4.04 32780 10.91 0.24 0.03 24.86 32780 15.36 -0.09 0.001 15.78 32178
PLF 17 5.8 0.36 0.14 8.52 33692 19.74 0.19 0.005 47.5 33692 18.27 -0.32 0.02 13.20 33077
PLF 18 3.71 0.26 0.09 7.67 33415 10.44 0.13 0.003 41.52 33415 17.25 -0.04 0.001 13.05 32799
PLF 19 3.47 0.58 0.63 4.23 32702 29.25 0.35 0.05 27.03 32702 15.42 0.09 0.001 17.81 32162
PLF 20 4.05 0.19 0.07 6.50 27349 14.06 0.10 0.003 39.94 27349 13.59 0.19 0.004 14.55 26978
PLF 21 4.46 0.3 0.10 8.51 33338 14.27 0.11 0.002 42.28 33338 19.83 -0.18 0.004 17.15 32672
RMSE = root mean squared error, calculated as the mean of the residual (difference between predicted measurement and measured result) and take the mean square root; R2 = coefficient of determination, calculated with the measured results as dependent variable and predicted measurement as independent variable; b = the slope of the regression line; a = the intercept.
Table 2. Regression outputs for the PLFs’ performance long-term period measured at the indoor monitoring location.
Table 2. Regression outputs for the PLFs’ performance long-term period measured at the indoor monitoring location.
Device ID 3 weeks sampling period
1-min 1-hour
PM2.5 PM10 NO2 PM2.5 PM10 NO2
R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE
PLF 1 0.3 4.1 0.01 24.0 0.00 13.6 0.001 1.8 0.05 14.5 0.01 13.7
PLF 2 0.1 7.6 0.01 35.2 0.002 15.7 0.001 5.3 0.001 23.1 0.00 14.1
PLF 3 0.00 5.2 0.001 23.2 0.01 13.7 0.03 2.4 0.00 10.0 0.01 12.7
PLF 4 0.18 5.2 0.03 27.3 0.02 28.7 0.04 2.9 0.004 19.0 0.00 26.5
PLF 5 0.06 8.8 0.001 47.2 0.02 18.8 0.005 5.1 0.01 26.7 0.00 24.9
PLF 6 0.16 3.2 0.01 20.9 0.001 14.8 0.17 1.4 0.03 12.9 0.02 15.1
PLF 8 0.11 6.4 0.02 30.0 0.00 15.5 0.001 3.8 0.02 13.7 0.01 15.0
PLF 9 0.18 6.1 0.01 26.6 0.04 15.5 0.06 4.3 0.00 16.4 0.06 17.5
PLF 10 0.01 7.3 0.01 31.6 0.00 17.6 0.004 4.0 0.01 19.5 0.00 16.4
PLF 11 0.58 3.4 0.05 20.2 0.00 22.7 0.23 0.8 0.09 10.4 0.00 16.1
PLF 12 0.58 3.6 0.03 26.1 0.05 14.0 0.43 1.1 0.05 13.1 0.03 14.8
PLF 13 0.51 4.0 0.03 24.8 0.001 15.7 0.01 1.6 0.04 9.8 0.003 16.3
PLF 17 0.14 8.5 0.005 47.5 0.02 13.2 0.06 5.4 0.00 32.0 0.00 13.3
PLF 18 0.09 7.6 0.003 41.5 0.001 13.1 0.01 3.6 0.00 16.9 0.04 11.8
PLF 19 0.63 4.2 0.05 27.0 0.001 17.8 0.69 1.5 0.19 12.3 0.004 12.4
PLF 20 0.07 6.5 0.003 39.9 0.004 14.5 0.02 3.9 0.01 23.9 0.00 14.2
PLF 21 0.1 8.5 0.002 42.2 0.004 17.1 0.00 6.4 0.00 29.1 0.007 15.2
Total PLFs
(average) 		0.22 5.9 0.01 24.0 0.01 16.6 0.10 3.25 0.03 17.8 0.01 15.8
Note: Three weeks is the period from October 20 to November 16, 2020. R2 = coefficient of determination; RMSE = root mean squared error. Grey and blue boxes represent the tools with R2 values > 0.5.
Table 3. Regression outputs for the PLFs’ performance for short-term period measured at the indoor monitoring location.
Table 3. Regression outputs for the PLFs’ performance for short-term period measured at the indoor monitoring location.
Device ID 5 days sampling period
1-min 1-hour
PM2.5 PM10 NO2 PM2.5 PM10 NO2
R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE R2 RMSE
PLF 1 0.56 15.9 0.05 22.7 0.02 13.8 0.66 15.2 0.03 27.0 0.01 13.7
PLF 2 0.35 15.9 0.03 28.8 0.00 16.7 0.54 14.4 0.05 18.9 0.01 16.4
PLF 3 0.00 21.3 0.00 35.2 0.02 17.6 0 20.1 0.001 15.2 0.02 17.2
PLF 4 0.59 14.1 0.25 19.5 0.16 38.5 0.71 13.1 0.11 15.4 0.19 38.1
PLF 5 0.19 17.3 0.00 47.9 0.17 21.9 0.38 15.4 0.00 33.0 0.2 21.2
PLF 6 0.54 18.9 0.02 23.1 0.02 19.8 0.63 18.1 0.00 32.9 0.03 19.6
PLF 8 0.21 19.3 0.01 49.6 0.03 19.7 0.36 17.4 0.00 56.1 0.04 19.5
PLF 9 0.25 16.8 0.004 42.7 0.16 18.7 0.45 15.1 0.00 67.2 0.22 18.1
PLF 10 0.65 9.5 0.01 22.6 0.04 18.2 0.76 9 0.01 25.1 0.07 17.6
PLF 11 0.69 13.9 0.17 15.7 0.02 19.7 0.75 13.2 0.08 16.6 0.03 18.6
PLF 12 0.68 13.1 0.06 21.5 0.22 20.9 0.75 12.3 0.09 18.1 0.27 20.2
PLF 13 0.68 14 0.08 22.0 0.01 17.7 0.75 13.2 0.03 24.3 0.01 17
PLF 17 0.23 16.2 0.01 50.1 0.04 13.8 0.38 13.9 0.002 47.0 0.06 13.3
PLF 18 0.29 16.6 0.01 37.5 0.08 17.2 0.49 15.2 0.06 16.7 0.1 16.8
PLF 19 0.71 11 0.01 28.6 0.00 17.9 0.78 9.8 0.01 28.4 0.00 16.8
PLF 20 0.48 21.1 0.02 28.3 0.03 14.4 0.72 19.8 0.00 39.4 0.03 13.6
PLF 21 0.31 15.8 0.02 39.3 0.06 27.4 0.54 13.9 0.00 38.9 0.08 27.5
Total PLFs
(average) 		0.41 15.9 0.04 31.48 0.06 14.6 0.56 19.6 0.03 30.6 0.08 19.1
Note: Five days is the periods from November 3 to November 7 (including the elevated pollution levels during the “Guy Fawkes Night event”). R2 = coefficient of determination; RMSE = root mean squared error. Grey and blue boxes represent the tools with R2 values > 0.5.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated