- 期刊
- OpenAccess
Performance of Four Consumer-grade Air Pollution Measurement Devices in Different Residences
摘要
There has been a proliferation of inexpensive consumer-grade devices for monitoring air pollutants, including PM_(2.5) and certain gasses. This study compared the performance of four consumer-grade devices--the Air Quality Egg 2 (AQE2), BlueAir Aware, Foobot, and Speck--that utilize optical sensors to measure the PM_(2.5) concentration. The devices were collocated and operated for 7 days in each of three residences, and the PM_(2.5) mass concentrations were compared with those measured by established optical sensing devices, viz., the personal DataRAM and DustTrak DRX, as well as the filter-based Personal Modular Impactor (PMI). Overall, the Foobot and BlueAir displayed the strongest correlations with the direct-reading reference instruments for both the hourly and daily PM_(2.5) mass concentrations. Comparing the 1-hour averages obtained with the DustTrak DRX for all of the residences with those obtained with the Foobot, BlueAir, AQE2, and Speck, the Pearson's correlation coefficients (R's) were 0.80, 0.88, -0.028, and 0.60, respectively. Overall, the strength of the correlation depended on the specific residence, likely due to the differences in aerosol composition. The correlations with the PMI measurements were moderate, with R values of 0.44 and 0.56 for the BlueAir and Foobot, respectively. The correlation coefficients for the daily values obtained with the AQE2 and Speck were -0.59 and 0.70 compared to the PMI. According to a paired t-test, the average 24-h PM_(2.5) concentration data obtained using the consumer-grade monitors were statistically different (p ＞ 0.05) from the mass values measured by the gravimetric filters. Overall, this study demonstrates the ability of consumer-grade air pollution monitors to report PM_(2.5) trends accurately; however, for accurate mass concentration measurements, these monitors must be calibrated for a particular location and application. Further testing is needed to determine their suitability for long-term indoor field studies.
延伸閱讀
- 鄧詠竹、曾子容、詹大千（2018）。The impact of health information dissemination on public awareness of air pollution risk。台灣公共衛生雜誌，37(4)，435-452。https://doi.org/10.6288/TJPH.201808_37(4).107009
- Lang, J. L., Cheng, S. Y., Li, J. B., Chen, D. S., Zhou, Y., Wei, X., Han, L. H., & Wang, H. Y. (2013). A Monitoring and Modeling Study to Investigate Regional Transport and Characteristics of PM2.5 Pollution. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 13(3), 943-956. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=16808584-201306-201305070002-201305070002-943-956
- 高于珺、馬瀰嘉（2020）。Establish New Air Pollution Indicators Using Temperature, Humidity and Wind Speed。智慧科技與應用統計學報，17(2)，40-59。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=1812433x-202001-202001310018-202001310018-40-59
- Ashworth, D. C., Fuller, G. W., Toledano, M. B., Font, A., Elliott, P., Hansell, A. L., & Hoogh, K. D. (2013). Comparative Assessment of Particulate Air Pollution Exposure from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator Emissions. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2013(), 292-304. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/560342
- Azid, A., Juahir, H., Ezani, E., Toriman, M. E., Endut, A., Rahman, M. N. A., Yunus, K., Kamarudin, M. K. A., Hasnam, C. N. C., Saudi, A. S. M., & Umar, R. (2015). Identification Source of Variation on Regional Impact of Air Quality Pattern Using Chemometric. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 15(4), 1545-1558. https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2014.04.0073