Logo image
Back
Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter

Sinan Sousan, Kirsten Koehler, Laura Hallett and Thomas M Peters
Journal of aerosol science, Vol.107, pp.123-133
05/2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.013
PMCID: PMC5580935
PMID: 28871212
url
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.013View
Open Access

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 8500µg/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. •Three new, inexpensive consumer aerosol monitors (Foobot, Speck, and AirBeam) were evaluated for use in occupational settings.•The Foobot responded linearly to different aerosol types over a wide range of concentrations.•The Speck and AirBeam performed poorly for concentrations greater than 200µg/m3, which commonly occur in the workplace.
 Low-cost monitors Occupational monitoring Foobot Speck PM2.5 Environmental monitoring AirBeam

Details

Metrics

22 Record Views
102 Times Cited - Web of Science
Logo image