Inter-comparison of low-cost sensors for measuring the mass concentration of occupational aerosols

Low-cost sensors are effective for measuring the mass concentration of ambient aerosols and second-hand smoke in homes, but their use at concentrations relevant to occupational settings has not been demonstrated. We measured the concentrations of four aerosols (salt, Arizona road dust, welding fume,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Aerosol science and technology 2016-05, Vol.50 (5), p.462-473
Main Authors: Sousan, Sinan, Koehler, Kirsten, Thomas, Geb, Park, Jae Hong, Hillman, Michael, Halterman, Andrew, Peters, Thomas M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aerosols
Calibration
Estimating
Mathematical analysis
Occupational
Occupational hazards
Occupational safety
Photometers
Raw
Sensors
Tiina Reponen
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Low-cost sensors are effective for measuring the mass concentration of ambient aerosols and second-hand smoke in homes, but their use at concentrations relevant to occupational settings has not been demonstrated. We measured the concentrations of four aerosols (salt, Arizona road dust, welding fume, and diesel exhaust) with three types of low-cost sensors (a DC1700 from Dylos and two commodity sensors from Sharp), an aerosol photometer, and reference instruments at concentrations up to 6500 µg/m 3 . Raw output was used to assess sensor precision and develop equations to compute mass concentrations. EPA and NIOSH protocols were used to assess the mass concentrations estimated with low-cost sensors compared to reference instruments. The detection efficiency of the DC1700 ranged from 0.04% at 0.1 µm to 108% at 5 µm, as expected, although misclassification of fine and coarse particles was observed. The raw output of the DC1700 had higher precision (lower coefficient of variation, CV = 7.4%) than that of the two sharp devices (CV = 25% and 17%), a finding attributed to differences in manufacturer calibration. Aerosol type strongly influenced sensor response, indicating the need for on-site calibration to convert sensor output to mass concentration. Once calibrated, however, the mass concentration estimated with low-cost sensors was highly correlated with that of reference instruments (R 2 = 0.99). These results suggest that the DC1700 and Sharp sensors are useful in estimating aerosol mass concentration for aerosols at concentrations relevant to the workplace. © 2016 American Association for Aerosol Research
ISSN:0278-6826
1521-7388
DOI:10.1080/02786826.2016.1162901