Next Article in Journal
Feasibility of Social-Network-Based eHealth Intervention on the Improvement of Healthy Habits among Children
Next Article in Special Issue
Wildfire Smoke Adjustment Factors for Low-Cost and Professional PM2.5 Monitors with Optical Sensors
Previous Article in Journal
An Efficient NLOS Errors Mitigation Algorithm for TOA-Based Localization
Open AccessArticle

Comparing Airborne Particulate Matter Intake Dose Assessment Models Using Low-Cost Portable Sensor Data

1
Department of Environmental Sciences, Jožef Stefan Institute, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Jožef Stefan International Postgraduate School, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
3
Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
4
HERACLES Research Centre on the Exposome and Health, Center for Interdisciplinary Research and Innovation, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
5
University School of Advanced Study IUSS, 27100 Pavia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2020, 20(5), 1406; https://doi.org/10.3390/s20051406
Received: 6 February 2020 / Revised: 27 February 2020 / Accepted: 2 March 2020 / Published: 4 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring)
Low-cost sensors can be used to improve the temporal and spatial resolution of an individual’s particulate matter (PM) intake dose assessment. In this work, personal activity monitors were used to measure heart rate (proxy for minute ventilation), and low-cost PM sensors were used to measure concentrations of PM. Intake dose was assessed as a product of PM concentration and minute ventilation, using four models with increasing complexity. The two models that use heart rate as a variable had the most consistent results and showed a good response to variations in PM concentrations and heart rate. On the other hand, the two models using generalized population data of minute ventilation expectably yielded more coarse information on the intake dose. Aggregated weekly intake doses did not vary significantly between the models (6–22%). Propagation of uncertainty was assessed for each model, however, differences in their underlying assumptions made them incomparable. The most complex minute ventilation model, with heart rate as a variable, has shown slightly lower uncertainty than the model using fewer variables. Similarly, among the non-heart rate models, the one using real-time activity data has less uncertainty. Minute ventilation models contribute the most to the overall intake dose model uncertainty, followed closely by the low-cost personal activity monitors. The lack of a common methodology to assess the intake dose and quantifying related uncertainties is evident and should be a subject of further research. View Full-Text
Keywords: dose assessment; particulate matter; minute ventilation; low-cost sensors; uncertainty assessment dose assessment; particulate matter; minute ventilation; low-cost sensors; uncertainty assessment
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Novak, R.; Kocman, D.; Robinson, J.A.; Kanduč, T.; Sarigiannis, D.; Horvat, M. Comparing Airborne Particulate Matter Intake Dose Assessment Models Using Low-Cost Portable Sensor Data. Sensors 2020, 20, 1406. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20051406

AMA Style

Novak R, Kocman D, Robinson JA, Kanduč T, Sarigiannis D, Horvat M. Comparing Airborne Particulate Matter Intake Dose Assessment Models Using Low-Cost Portable Sensor Data. Sensors. 2020; 20(5):1406. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20051406

Chicago/Turabian Style

Novak, Rok; Kocman, David; Robinson, Johanna A.; Kanduč, Tjaša; Sarigiannis, Dimosthenis; Horvat, Milena. 2020. "Comparing Airborne Particulate Matter Intake Dose Assessment Models Using Low-Cost Portable Sensor Data" Sensors 20, no. 5: 1406. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20051406

Find Other Styles
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