Next Article in Journal
Efficient Star Identification Using a Neural Network
Previous Article in Journal
Ultrasonic Sensor Fusion Inverse Algorithm for Visually Impaired Aiding Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparing Airborne Particulate Matter Intake Dose Assessment Models Using Low-Cost Portable Sensor Data
Open AccessArticle

Wildfire Smoke Adjustment Factors for Low-Cost and Professional PM2.5 Monitors with Optical Sensors

Indoor Environment Group and Residential Building Systems Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2020, 20(13), 3683; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20133683
Received: 27 May 2020 / Revised: 25 June 2020 / Accepted: 28 June 2020 / Published: 30 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring)
Air quality monitors using low-cost optical PM2.5 sensors can track the dispersion of wildfire smoke; but quantitative hazard assessment requires a smoke-specific adjustment factor (AF). This study determined AFs for three professional-grade devices and four monitors with low-cost sensors based on measurements inside a well-ventilated lab impacted by the 2018 Camp Fire in California (USA). Using the Thermo TEOM-FDMS as reference, AFs of professional monitors were 0.85 for Grimm mini wide-range aerosol spectrometer, 0.25 for TSI DustTrak, and 0.53 for Thermo pDR1500; AFs for low-cost monitors were 0.59 for AirVisual Pro, 0.48 for PurpleAir Indoor, 0.46 for Air Quality Egg, and 0.60 for eLichens Indoor Air Quality Pro Station. We also compared public data from 53 PurpleAir PA-II monitors to 12 nearby regulatory monitoring stations impacted by Camp Fire smoke and devices near stations impacted by the Carr and Mendocino Complex Fires in California and the Pole Creek Fire in Utah. Camp Fire AFs varied by day and location, with median (interquartile) of 0.48 (0.44–0.53). Adjusted PA-II 4-h average data were generally within ±20% of PM2.5 reported by the monitoring stations. Adjustment improved the accuracy of Air Quality Index (AQI) hazard level reporting, e.g., from 14% to 84% correct in Sacramento during the Camp Fire. View Full-Text
Keywords: fine particles; air pollutant exposure; air quality monitoring; climate change impacts; health hazard assessment; respiratory health fine particles; air pollutant exposure; air quality monitoring; climate change impacts; health hazard assessment; respiratory health
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Delp, W.W.; Singer, B.C. Wildfire Smoke Adjustment Factors for Low-Cost and Professional PM2.5 Monitors with Optical Sensors. Sensors 2020, 20, 3683.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop