4.6 Article

Field Evaluation of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors in Beijing

Journal

SENSORS
Volume 20, Issue 16, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s20164381

Keywords

low-cost particulate matter sensors; field evaluation; impact of air humidity; high PM concentration

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFB0504000]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41505132, 41705113, 41877312]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Numerous particulate matter (PM) sensors with great development potential have emerged. However, whether the current sensors can be used for reliable long-term field monitoring is unclear. This study describes the research and application prospects of low-cost miniaturized sensors in PM(2.5)monitoring. We evaluated five Plantower PMSA003 sensors deployed in Beijing, China, over 7 months (October 2019 to June 2020). The sensors tracked PM2.5 concentrations, which were compared to the measurements at the national control monitoring station of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) at the same location. The correlations of the data from the PMSA003 sensors and MEE reference monitors (R-2= 0.83 similar to 0.90) and among the five sensors (R-2= 0.91 similar to 0.98) indicated a high accuracy and intersensor correlation. However, the sensors tended to underestimate high PM(2.5)concentrations. The relative bias reached -24.82% when the PM(2.5)concentration was >250 mu g/m(3). Conversely, overestimation and high errors were observed during periods of high relative humidity (RH > 60%). The relative bias reached 14.71% at RH > 75%. The PMSA003 sensors performed poorly during sand and dust storms, especially for the ambient PM(10)concentration measurements. Overall, this study identified good correlations between PMSA003 sensors and reference monitors. Extreme field environments impact the data quality of low-cost sensors, and future corrections remain necessary.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available