气候变化领域集成服务门户(CCPortal): Laboratory evaluation of low-cost PurpleAir PM monitors and in-field correction using co-located portable filter samplers

CCPortal

DOI	10.1016/j.atmosenv.2019.117067
	Laboratory evaluation of low-cost PurpleAir PM monitors and in-field correction using co-located portable filter samplers
	Tryner J.; L'Orange C.; Mehaffy J.; Miller-Lionberg D.; Hofstetter J.C.; Wilson A.; Volckens J.
发表日期	2020
ISSN	1352-2310
卷号	220
英文摘要	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. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd
关键词	Air pollution Air quality Particulate matter Plantower Ultrasonic personal aerosol sampler UPAS
语种	英语
scopus关键词	Aerosols; Air pollution; Air quality; Costs; Laboratories; Aerosol sampler; Fine particulate matter (PM2.5); Laboratory evaluation; Particulate Matter; Plantower; Reference concentration; Tapered element oscillating microbalances; UPAS; Particles (particulate matter); aerosol; air quality; atmospheric pollution; concentration (composition); correction; filter; interlaboratory comparison; laboratory method; particulate matter; relative humidity; sample preparation; sampler; aerosol; air monitoring; air pollution; air sampling; Article; concentration (parameter); controlled study; environmental parameters; gravimetry; humidity; measurement accuracy; particulate matter; priority journal; salt lake; statistical model; tapered element oscillating microbalance; United States; urban area; weather; Colorado; Fort Collins; United States
来源期刊	ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/249507
作者单位	Department of Mechanical Engineering, Colorado State University, 1374 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, United States; Access Sensor Technologies, 2401 Research Blvd, Suite 107, Fort Collins, CO 80526, United States; Department of Statistics, Colorado State University, 1801 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, United States
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Tryner J.,L'Orange C.,Mehaffy J.,et al. Laboratory evaluation of low-cost PurpleAir PM monitors and in-field correction using co-located portable filter samplers[J],2020,220.
APA	Tryner J..,L'Orange C..,Mehaffy J..,Miller-Lionberg D..,Hofstetter J.C..,...&Volckens J..(2020).Laboratory evaluation of low-cost PurpleAir PM monitors and in-field correction using co-located portable filter samplers.ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT,220.
MLA	Tryner J.,et al."Laboratory evaluation of low-cost PurpleAir PM monitors and in-field correction using co-located portable filter samplers".ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT 220(2020).