Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter

Sinan Sousan, Kirsten A Koehler, Laura Hallett, Thomas M. Peters

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings. In a laboratory study, PM2.5 measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from reference instruments for three aerosols (salt, welding fume, and Arizona road dust, ARD) at concentrations up to 8500 µg/m3. Three of each type of CAM were included to estimate precision. Compared to reference instruments, mass concentrations measured with the Foobot (r-value = 0.99) and medium-cost photometer (r-value=0.99) show strong correlation, whereas those from the Speck (r-value range 0.91-0.99) and AirBeam (0.7–0.96) were less correlated. The Foobot bias was (−12%) for ARD and measurements were similar to the medium-cost instrument. Foobot bias was (<−46%) for salt and welding fume aerosols. Speck bias was at 18% for ARD and −86% for welding fume. AirBeam bias was (−36%) for salt and (−83%) for welding fume. All three photometers had a bias (<−82%) for welding fume. Precision was excellent for the Foobot (coefficient of variation range: 5–8%) and AirBeam (2–9%), but poorer for the Speck (8–25%). These findings suggest that the Foobot, with a linear response to different aerosol types and good precision, can provide reasonable estimates of PM2.5 in the workplace after site-specific calibration to account for particle size and composition.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)123-133
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Aerosol Science
Volume107
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2017

Fingerprint

Particulate Matter
Aerosols
particulate matter
Fumes
aerosol
welding
Welding
Photometers
photometer
Salts
salt
cost
Costs
evaluation
workplace
Dust
Particle size
particle size
fume
Calibration

Keywords

  • AirBeam
  • Environmental monitoring
  • Foobot
  • Low-cost monitors
  • Occupational monitoring
  • PM
  • Speck

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Materials Science(all)
  • Pollution

Cite this

Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter. / Sousan, Sinan; Koehler, Kirsten A; Hallett, Laura; Peters, Thomas M.

In: Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol. 107, 01.05.2017, p. 123-133.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sousan, Sinan ; Koehler, Kirsten A ; Hallett, Laura ; Peters, Thomas M. / Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter. In: Journal of Aerosol Science. 2017 ; Vol. 107. pp. 123-133.
@article{9fec638176ed4a3686b53a17f4b79475,
title = "Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter",
abstract = "Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings. In a laboratory study, PM2.5 measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from reference instruments for three aerosols (salt, welding fume, and Arizona road dust, ARD) at concentrations up to 8500 µg/m3. Three of each type of CAM were included to estimate precision. Compared to reference instruments, mass concentrations measured with the Foobot (r-value = 0.99) and medium-cost photometer (r-value=0.99) show strong correlation, whereas those from the Speck (r-value range 0.91-0.99) and AirBeam (0.7–0.96) were less correlated. The Foobot bias was (−12{\%}) for ARD and measurements were similar to the medium-cost instrument. Foobot bias was (<−46{\%}) for salt and welding fume aerosols. Speck bias was at 18{\%} for ARD and −86{\%} for welding fume. AirBeam bias was (−36{\%}) for salt and (−83{\%}) for welding fume. All three photometers had a bias (<−82{\%}) for welding fume. Precision was excellent for the Foobot (coefficient of variation range: 5–8{\%}) and AirBeam (2–9{\%}), but poorer for the Speck (8–25{\%}). These findings suggest that the Foobot, with a linear response to different aerosol types and good precision, can provide reasonable estimates of PM2.5 in the workplace after site-specific calibration to account for particle size and composition.",
keywords = "AirBeam, Environmental monitoring, Foobot, Low-cost monitors, Occupational monitoring, PM, Speck",
author = "Sinan Sousan and Koehler, {Kirsten A} and Laura Hallett and Peters, {Thomas M.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "107",
pages = "123--133",
journal = "Journal of Aerosol Science",
issn = "0021-8502",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter

AU - Sousan, Sinan

AU - Koehler, Kirsten A

AU - Hallett, Laura

AU - Peters, Thomas M.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings. In a laboratory study, PM2.5 measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from reference instruments for three aerosols (salt, welding fume, and Arizona road dust, ARD) at concentrations up to 8500 µg/m3. Three of each type of CAM were included to estimate precision. Compared to reference instruments, mass concentrations measured with the Foobot (r-value = 0.99) and medium-cost photometer (r-value=0.99) show strong correlation, whereas those from the Speck (r-value range 0.91-0.99) and AirBeam (0.7–0.96) were less correlated. The Foobot bias was (−12%) for ARD and measurements were similar to the medium-cost instrument. Foobot bias was (<−46%) for salt and welding fume aerosols. Speck bias was at 18% for ARD and −86% for welding fume. AirBeam bias was (−36%) for salt and (−83%) for welding fume. All three photometers had a bias (<−82%) for welding fume. Precision was excellent for the Foobot (coefficient of variation range: 5–8%) and AirBeam (2–9%), but poorer for the Speck (8–25%). These findings suggest that the Foobot, with a linear response to different aerosol types and good precision, can provide reasonable estimates of PM2.5 in the workplace after site-specific calibration to account for particle size and composition.

AB - Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings. In a laboratory study, PM2.5 measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from reference instruments for three aerosols (salt, welding fume, and Arizona road dust, ARD) at concentrations up to 8500 µg/m3. Three of each type of CAM were included to estimate precision. Compared to reference instruments, mass concentrations measured with the Foobot (r-value = 0.99) and medium-cost photometer (r-value=0.99) show strong correlation, whereas those from the Speck (r-value range 0.91-0.99) and AirBeam (0.7–0.96) were less correlated. The Foobot bias was (−12%) for ARD and measurements were similar to the medium-cost instrument. Foobot bias was (<−46%) for salt and welding fume aerosols. Speck bias was at 18% for ARD and −86% for welding fume. AirBeam bias was (−36%) for salt and (−83%) for welding fume. All three photometers had a bias (<−82%) for welding fume. Precision was excellent for the Foobot (coefficient of variation range: 5–8%) and AirBeam (2–9%), but poorer for the Speck (8–25%). These findings suggest that the Foobot, with a linear response to different aerosol types and good precision, can provide reasonable estimates of PM2.5 in the workplace after site-specific calibration to account for particle size and composition.

KW - AirBeam

KW - Environmental monitoring

KW - Foobot

KW - Low-cost monitors

KW - Occupational monitoring

KW - PM

KW - Speck

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014118770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014118770&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.013

DO - 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 28871212

AN - SCOPUS:85014118770

VL - 107

SP - 123

EP - 133

JO - Journal of Aerosol Science

JF - Journal of Aerosol Science

SN - 0021-8502

ER -