Laboratory evaluation of low-cost PurpleAir PM monitors and in-field correction using co-located portable filter samplers
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

For very narrow results

When looking for a specific result

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Dates

to

Document Data
Library
People
Clear All
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Laboratory evaluation of low-cost PurpleAir PM monitors and in-field correction using co-located portable filter samplers

Filetype[PDF-1.25 MB]



Details:

  • Journal Title:
    Atmospheric Environment
  • Personal Author:
  • Description:
    Low-cost aerosol monitors can provide more spatially- and temporally-resolved data on ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations than are available from regulatory monitoring networks; however, concentrations reported by low-cost monitors are sometimes inaccurate. We investigated laboratory- and field-based approaches for calibrating low-cost PurpleAir monitors. First, we investigated the linearity of the PurpleAir response to NIST Urban PM and derived a laboratory-based gravimetric correction factor. Then, we co-located PurpleAirs with portable filter samplers at 15 outdoor sites spanning 3 × 3-km in Fort Collins, CO, USA. We evaluated whether PM2.5 correction factors calculated using ambient relative humidity data improved the accuracy of PurpleAir monitors (relative to reference filter samplers operated at 16.7 L min−1). We also (1) evaluated gravimetric correction factors derived from periodic co-locations with portable filter samplers and (2) compared PM2.5 concentrations measured using portable and reference filter samplers. Both before and after field deployment, a linear model relating NIST Urban PM concentrations reported by a tapered element oscillating microbalance and PurpleAir monitors (“PM2.5 ATM”) had R2 = 99%; however, an F-test identified a significant lack of fit between the model and the data. The laboratory-based correction did not translate to the field. Over a 35-day period, time-averaged ambient PM2.5 concentrations and RHs measured during 72- or 48-h filter samples ranged from 1.5 to 8.3 μg m−3 and 47%–77%, respectively. Corrections calculated using ambient RH data increased the fraction of time-averaged PurpleAir PM2.5 concentrations that were within 20% of the reference concentration from 24% (for uncorrected measurements) to 66%. Corrections derived from monthly, weekly, and concurrent in-field co-locations with portable filter samplers increased the fraction of time-averaged PurpleAir PM2.5 concentrations that were within 20% of the reference to 46%, 54%, and 72%. PM2.5 concentrations measured using portable filter samplers were within 20% of the reference for 69% of samples.
  • Keywords:
  • Source:
    Atmospheric Environment, 220
  • DOI:
  • Document Type:
  • Funding:
  • Rights Information:
    Accepted Manuscript
  • Compliance:
    Submitted
  • Main Document Checksum:
  • Download URL:
  • File Type:

You May Also Like

Checkout today's featured content at repository.library.noaa.gov

Version 3.27.1