community air sensor network (cairsense) project: evaluation of low-cost sensor performance in a suburban environment in the southeastern united states
Clicks: 218
ID: 202594
2016
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
218 views
64 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #46 of 183 articles by views in bioorganic & medicinal chemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 183 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Advances in air pollution sensor technology have enabled the development of
small and low-cost systems to measure outdoor air pollution. The deployment
of a large number of sensors across a small geographic area would have
potential benefits to supplement traditional monitoring networks with
additional geographic and temporal measurement resolution, if the data
quality were sufficient. To understand the capability of emerging air sensor
technology, the Community Air Sensor Network (CAIRSENSE) project deployed low-cost, continuous, and commercially available air pollution sensors at a
regulatory air monitoring site and as a local sensor network over a
surrounding ∼ 2 km area in the southeastern United States.
Collocation of sensors measuring oxides of nitrogen, ozone, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide, and particles revealed highly variable performance, both in
terms of comparison to a reference monitor as well as the degree to which
multiple identical sensors produced the same signal. Multiple ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, and carbon monoxide sensors revealed low to very high correlation
with a reference monitor, with Pearson sample correlation coefficient (r)
ranging from 0.39 to 0.97, −0.25 to 0.76, and −0.40 to 0.82, respectively. The
only sulfur dioxide sensor tested revealed no correlation (r < 0.5)
with a reference monitor and erroneously high concentration values. A wide
variety of particulate matter (PM) sensors were tested with variable results
– some sensors had very high agreement (e.g., r = 0.99) between identical
sensors but moderate agreement with a reference PM2.5 monitor
(e.g., r = 0.65). For select sensors that had moderate to strong
correlation with reference monitors (r > 0.5), step-wise multiple
linear regression was performed to determine if ambient temperature, relative
humidity (RH), or age of the sensor in number of sampling days could be used
in a correction algorithm to improve the agreement. Maximum improvement in
agreement with a reference, incorporating all factors, was observed for an
NO2 sensor (multiple correlation coefficient R2adj-orig = 0.57, R2adj-final = 0.81); however, other sensors showed no
apparent improvement in agreement. A four-node sensor network was
successfully able to capture ozone (two nodes) and PM (four nodes) data for an 8-month period of time and show expected diurnal concentration patterns, as
well as potential ozone titration due to nearby traffic emissions. Overall,
this study demonstrates the performance of emerging air quality sensor
technologies in a real-world setting; the variable agreement between sensors
and reference monitors indicates that in situ testing of sensors against
benchmark monitors should be a critical aspect of all field studies.
| Reference Key |
jiao2016atmosphericcommunity
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;W. Jiao;G. Hagler;R. Williams;R. Sharpe;R. Brown;D. Garver;R. Judge;M. Caudill;J. Rickard;M. Davis;L. Weinstock;S. Zimmer-Dauphinee;K. Buckley |
| Journal | bioorganic & medicinal chemistry |
| Year | 2016 |
| DOI |
10.5194/amt-9-5281-2016
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.