Evaluation of Performance of Inexpensive Laser Based PM2.5 Sensor Monitors for Typical Indoor and Outdoor Hotspots of South Korea
Source abstract
Abstract
Inexpensive (<$300) real-time particulate matter monitors (IRMs), using laser as a light source, have been introduced for use with a Wi-Fi function enabling networking with a smartphone. However, the information of measurement error of these inexpensive but convenient IRMs are still limited. Using ESCORTAIR (ESCORT, Seoul, Korea) and PurpleAir (PA) (PurpleAir U.S.A.), we evaluated the performance of these two devices compared with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Equivalent Monitoring (FEM) devices, that is, GRIMM180 (GRIMM Aerosol, Germany) for the indoor measurement of pork panfrying or secondhand tobacco smoking (SHS) and Beta-ray attenuation monitor (BAM) (MetOne, Grants Pass, OR) for outdoor measurement at the national particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring site near an urban traffic hotspot in Daejeon, South Korea, respectively. The PM2.5 concentrations measured by ESCORTAIR and PA were strongly correlated to FEM (r = 0.97 and 0.97 from indoor pan frying; 0.92 and 0.86 from indoor SHS; 0.85 and 0.88 from outdoor urban traffic hotspot). The two IRMs showed that PM2.5 mass concentrations were increased with increased outdoor relative humidity (RH) levels. However, after applying correction factors for RH, the Median (Interquartile range) of difference compared to FEM was (14.5 (6.1~23.5) %) for PA and 16.3 (8.5–28.0) % for ESCORTAIR, supporting their usage in the home or near urban hotspots.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting · Air Quality and Health Impacts · Vehicle emissions and performance
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Soonchunhyang University, Asan 31538, Korea
Funding
Korea Environmental Industry & Technology Institute
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. Orellano, P., Quaranta, N., Reynoso, J., Balbi, B., and Vasquez, J. (2017). Effect of outdoor air pollution on asthma exacerbations in children and adults: Systematic review and multilevel meta analysis. PLoS ONE, 12.10.1371/journal.pone.0174050 ↗
2. Air pollution, PM2.5 composition, source factors, and respiratory symptoms in asthmatic and nonasthmatic children in Santiago, Chile10.1016/j.envint.2017.01.021 ↗
3. Development of an in~home, real-time air pollutant sensor platform and implications for community use10.1016/j.envpol.2018.10.064 ↗
4. Genikomsakis, K.N., Galatoulas, N., Dallas, P.I., Ibarra, L.M.C., Margaritis, D., and Ioakimidis, C.S. (2018). Development and On Field Testing of Low Cost Portable System for Monitoring PM2.5 Concentrations. Sensors, 18.10.3390/s18041056 ↗
5. Shao, W., Zhang, H., and Zhou, H. (2017). Fine Particle Sensor Based on Multi Angle Light Scattering and Data Fusion. Sensors, 17.10.3390/s17051033 ↗
6. Particulate matter pollution in the coal producing regions of the Appalachian Mountains: Integrated ground based measurements and satellite analysis10.1080/10962247.2016.1245686 ↗
7. Characterizing the performance of two optical particle counters (Grimm OPC1.108 and OPC1.109) under urban aerosol conditions10.1016/j.jaerosci.2010.07.007 ↗
8. Evaluation of the Alphasense Optical Particle Counter (OPC N2) and the Grimm Portable Aerosol Spectrometer (PAS 1.108)10.1080/02786826.2016.1232859 ↗
9. Determining PM2.5 calibration curves for a low cost particle monitor: Common indoor residential aerosols10.1039/C5EM00365B ↗
10. Photometrically measured continuous personal PM(2.5) exposure: Levels and correlation to a gravimetric method10.1038/sj.jea.7500218 ↗
11. Photometer response determination based on aerosol physical characteristics10.1080/15428110208984743 ↗
12. Baron, P.A. (2019, March 25). Aerosol Photometers for Respirable Dust Measurements, NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003–154/pdfs/chapter~g.pdf.
13. Ambient and laboratory evaluation of a low cost particulate matter sensor10.1016/j.envpol.2016.12.039 ↗
14. Using a new, low cost air quality sensor to quantify second hand smoke (SHS) levels in homes10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051188 ↗
15. A small, lightweight multipollutant sensor system for ground mobile and aerial emission sampling from open area sources10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.029 ↗
16. Comparison of methods for converting Dylos particle number concentrations to PM2.5 mass concentrations10.1111/ina.12546 ↗
17. Williams, R., Vasu Kilaru, E., Snyder, A., Kaufman, T., Dye, A., Rutter, A., Russell, A., and Hafner, H. (2014). Air Sensor Guidebook.
18. National Institute of Environmental Research (NIER) (2016). 2015 Annual Report of Intensive air Quality Monitoring Station, NIER GP2016–160, NIER.
19. Difference in Chemical Composition of PM2.5 and Investigation of its Causing Factors between 2013 and 2015 in Air Pollution Intensive Monitoring Stations10.5572/KOSAE.2018.34.1.016 ↗
20. Lee, S., Yu, S., and Kim, S. (2017). Evaluation of Potential Average Daily Doses (ADDs) of PM2.5 for Homemakers Conducting Pan Frying Inside Ordinary Homes under Four Ventilation Conditions. Int J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 14.10.3390/ijerph14010078 ↗
21. Rosner, B. (2000). Hypothesis Testing, Fundamentals of Biostatistics, Duxbury. Chapter 7.
22. Characterization of PM2.5 and PM10 in the South Coast Air Basin of southern California: Part 1 Spatial variations10.1080/10473289.2000.10464242 ↗
23. Characterization of PM2.5 and PM10 in the South Coast Air Basin of southern California: Part. 2 Temporal variations10.1080/10473289.2000.10464244 ↗
24. Personal exposure to PM2.5 among high school students in Milan and background measurements: The EuroLifeNet study10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.05.026 ↗
25. Determination of response of real-time SidePak AM510 monitor to secondhand smoke, other common indoor aerosols, and outdoor aerosol10.1039/c0em00732c ↗
26. Evaluation of a portable nephelometer against the Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance method for monitoring PM(2.5)10.1039/c2em30099k ↗
27. Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric method when measuring particulate matter in a residential building10.1080/10962247.2016.1201022 ↗
28. Comparison of short term variations (15 min averages) in outdoor and indoor PM2.5 concentrations10.1080/10473289.2000.10464160 ↗
29. Validation of continuous particle monitors for personal, indoor, and outdoor exposures10.1038/jes.2010.15 ↗
30. Shi, J., Chen, F., Cai, Y., Fan, S., Cai, J., Chen, R., Kan, H., Lu, Y., and Zhao, Z. (2017). Validation of a light scattering PM2.5 sensor monitor based on the long term gravimetric measurements in field tests. PLoS ONE, 12.10.1371/journal.pone.0185700 ↗
31. Comparison of the Grimm 1.108 and 1.109 portable aerosol spectrometer to the TSI 3321 aerodynamic particle sizer for dry particles
32. Design and Optimization of a Compact Low Cost Optical Particle Sizer10.1016/j.jaerosci.2018.01.003 ↗
33. A low cost particle counter as a realtime fine particle mass monitor10.1039/C2EM30568B ↗
34. Optimum cutoff value of urinary cotinine distinguishing South Korean adult smokers from nonsmokers using data from the KNHANES (2008–2010)10.1093/ntr/ntt027 ↗