Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Study of Swarm Intelligence Metaheuristics in UKF-Based Neural Training Applied to the Identification and Control of Robotic Manipulator
Next Article in Special Issue
From Data to Human-Readable Requirements: Advancing Requirements Elicitation through Language-Transformer-Enhanced Opportunity Mining
Previous Article in Journal
Using Epidemiological Models to Predict the Spread of Information on Twitter
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Algorithm for the Fisher Information Matrix of a VARMAX Process
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Testing a New “Decrypted” Algorithm for Plantower Sensors Measuring PM2.5: Comparison with an Alternative Algorithm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, USA
Retired.
Algorithms 2023, 16(8), 392; https://doi.org/10.3390/a16080392
Submission received: 23 July 2023 / Revised: 11 August 2023 / Accepted: 14 August 2023 / Published: 17 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Algorithms for Multidisciplinary Applications)

Abstract

Recently, a hypothesis providing a detailed equation for the Plantower CF_1 algorithm for PM2.5 has been published. The hypothesis was originally validated using eight independent Plantower sensors in four PurpleAir PA-II monitors providing PM2.5 estimates from a single site in 2020. If true, the hypothesis makes important predictions regarding PM2.5 measurements using CF_1. Therefore, we test the hypothesis using 18 Plantower sensors from four datasets from two sites in later years (2021–2023). The four general models from these datasets agreed to within 10% with the original model. A competing algorithm known as “pm2.5 alt” has been published and is freely available on the PurpleAir API site. The accuracy, precision, and limit of detection for the two algorithms are compared. The CF_1 algorithm overestimates PM2.5 by about 60–70% compared to two calibrated PurpleAir monitors using the pm2.5 alt algorithm. A requirement that the two sensors in a single monitor agree to within 20% was met by 85–99% of the data using the pm2.5 alt algorithm, but by only 22–74% of the data using the CF_1 algorithm. The limit of detection (LOD) of the CF_1 algorithm was about 10 times the LOD of the pm2.5 alt algorithm, resulting in 71% of the CF_1 data falling below the LOD, compared to 1 % for the pm2.5 alt algorithm.
Keywords: algorithm; low-cost monitors; calibration; precision; accuracy; PM2.5; Plantower; PurpleAir; pm2.5 alt; CF_1 algorithm; low-cost monitors; calibration; precision; accuracy; PM2.5; Plantower; PurpleAir; pm2.5 alt; CF_1
Graphical Abstract

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wallace, L. Testing a New “Decrypted” Algorithm for Plantower Sensors Measuring PM2.5: Comparison with an Alternative Algorithm. Algorithms 2023, 16, 392. https://doi.org/10.3390/a16080392

AMA Style

Wallace L. Testing a New “Decrypted” Algorithm for Plantower Sensors Measuring PM2.5: Comparison with an Alternative Algorithm. Algorithms. 2023; 16(8):392. https://doi.org/10.3390/a16080392

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wallace, Lance. 2023. "Testing a New “Decrypted” Algorithm for Plantower Sensors Measuring PM2.5: Comparison with an Alternative Algorithm" Algorithms 16, no. 8: 392. https://doi.org/10.3390/a16080392

APA Style

Wallace, L. (2023). Testing a New “Decrypted” Algorithm for Plantower Sensors Measuring PM2.5: Comparison with an Alternative Algorithm. Algorithms, 16(8), 392. https://doi.org/10.3390/a16080392

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop