Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Field performance of a low-cost sensor in the monitoring of particulate matter in Santiago, Chile
Centro Mario Molina Chile, Chile.
Centro Mario Molina Chile, Chile.
Centro Mario Molina Chile, Chile.
Centro Mario Molina Chile, Chile.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, ISSN 0167-6369, E-ISSN 1573-2959, Vol. 192, no 3, article id 171Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Integration of low-cost air quality sensors with the internet of things (IoT) has become a feasible approach towards the development of smart cities. Several studies have assessed the performance of low-cost air quality sensors by comparing their measurements with reference instruments. We examined the performance of a low-cost IoT particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) sensor in the urban environment of Santiago, Chile. The prototype was assembled from a PM10–PM2.5 sensor (SDS011), a temperature and relative humidity sensor (BME280) and an IoT board (ESP8266/Node MCU). Field tests were conducted at three regulatory monitoring stations during the 2018 austral winter and spring seasons. The sensors at each site were operated in parallel with continuous reference air quality monitors (BAM 1020 and TEOM 1400) and a filter-based sampler (Partisol 2000i). Variability between sensor units (n = 7) and the correlation between the sensor and reference instruments were examined. Moderate inter-unit variability was observed between sensors for PM2.5 (normalized root-mean-square error 9–24%) and PM10 (10–37%). The correlations between the 1-h average concentrations reported by the sensors and continuous monitors were higher for PM2.5 (R2 0.47–0.86) than PM10 (0.24–0.56). The correlations (R2) between the 24-h PM2.5 averages from the sensors and reference instruments were 0.63–0.87 for continuous monitoring and 0.69–0.93 for filter-based samplers. Correlation analysis revealed that sensors tended to overestimate PM concentrations in high relative humidity (RH > 75%) and underestimate when RH was below 50%. Overall, the prototype evaluated exhibited adequate performance and may be potentially suitable for monitoring daily PM2.5 averages after correcting for RH. 

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer , 2020. Vol. 192, no 3, article id 171
Keywords [en]
Citizen science, Relative humidity, Reproducibility, SDS011, Air quality, Atmospheric humidity, Costs, Mean square error, Particles (particulate matter), High relative humidities, Internet of thing (IOT), Reference instruments, Reproducibilities, Root mean square errors, Temperature and relative humidity, Internet of things
National Category
Natural Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ri:diva-43941DOI: 10.1007/s10661-020-8118-4Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85079236766OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ri-43941DiVA, id: diva2:1395714
Note

Funding details: Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, MOE; Funding text 1: We acknowledge the Ministry of the Environment of the Government of Chile for their willingness to provide space in the air quality monitoring stations. We also thank Mr. Alexis Sanchez Toledo for providing information on gravimetric analyses.

Available from: 2020-02-24 Created: 2020-02-24 Last updated: 2020-02-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus
By organisation
Smart Hardware
In the same journal
Environmental Monitoring & Assessment
Natural Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 7 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
v. 2.35.9