An In-Field Assessment of the P.ALP Device in Four Different Real Working Conditions: A Performance Evaluation in Particulate Matter Monitoring
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background and Problem Statement
1.2. Aim of the Study
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Instrumentation and Setup
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. LOD and LOQ
2.4. Data Treatment and Statistical Analysis
- Tier I: Education and Information (−0.5 < MNB < 0.5 and CV < 0.5);
- Tier II: Hotspot Identification and Characterization (−0.3 < MNB < 0.3 and CV < 0.3);
- Tier III: Supplemental Monitoring (−0.2 < MNB < 0.2 and CV < 0.2);
- Tier IV: Personal Exposure (−0.3 < MNB < 0.3 and CV < 0.3);
- Tier V: Regulatory Monitoring (−0.1 < MNB < 0.1 and CV < 0.1).
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Precision
3.3. Accuracy
3.4. Application Field Based on US EPA Guidelines
3.5. Error Trends
4. Discussion
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Precision
4.3. Accuracy
4.4. US EPA Guidelines
4.5. Error Trends
4.6. Overall Discussion on P.ALP Performance
- (I)
- The precision between the four devices is good, and this performance does not change significantly when considering different concentration ranges and microenvironments.
- (II)
- Concerning accuracy, the four prototypes are always comparable, but not mutually predictable, with the reference instrument (Aerocet). However, the P.ALP’s accuracy varies significantly among different CRs and microenvironments.
- (III)
- Considering the whole dataset obtained from different testing conditions, the P.ALP is not suitable to be placed in one of the applicability tiers suggested by the US EPA. Nevertheless, after splitting the database based on CR and microenvironment, the P.ALP shows good performance, especially when investigating low and medium concentration ranges that characterize the tested office and outdoor microenvironments.
- (IV)
- When dealing with extremely low concentrations of PM2.5, it was not possible to evaluate the P.ALP’s performance; conversely, at very high PM2.5 concentrations (occupational microenvironment), an overestimation trend was highlighted.
- (V)
- It must be noted that all of the data presented in this study refer to raw measurements of the P.ALPs and, of course, it is possible to adopt correction or calibration factors to improve the accuracy of these devices.
4.7. Strengths and Limitations of This Study
4.8. Future Developments
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kurniawati, S.; Yatu, W.; Syahtri, N. Evaluation of Low-Cost Sensors for PM 2.5 Monitoring: Performance, Reliability, and Implications for Air Quality Assessment. Res. Sq. 2023, 1, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Hopke, P.K.; Dai, Q.; Li, L.; Feng, Y. Global Review of Recent Source Apportionments for Airborne Particulate Matter. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clements, A.; Duvall, R.; Greene, D.; Dye, T. The Enhanced Air Sensor Guidebook; EPA/600/R-22/213; US EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
- Cohen, A.J.; Ross Anderson, H.; Ostro, B.; Pandey, K.D.; Krzyzanowski, M.; Künzli, N.; Gutschmidt, K.; Pope, A.; Romieu, I.; Samet, J.M.; et al. The Global Burden of Disease Due to Outdoor Air Pollution. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 2005, 68, 1301–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Poppel, M.; Schneider, P.; Peters, J.; Yatkin, S.; Gerboles, M.; Matheeussen, C.; Bartonova, A.; Davila, S.; Signorini, M.; Vogt, M.; et al. SensEURCity: A Multi-City Air Quality Dataset Collected for 2020/2021 Using Open Low-Cost Sensor Systems. Sci. Data 2023, 10, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendez, E.; Temby, O.; Wladyka, D.; Sepielak, K.; Raysoni, A.U. Using Low-Cost Sensors to Assess PM2.5 Concentrations at Four South Texan Cities on the U.S.—Mexico Border. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, P.; Castell, N.; Vogt, M.; Dauge, F.R.; Lahoz, W.A.; Bartonova, A. Mapping Urban Air Quality in near Real-Time Using Observations from Low-Cost Sensors and Model Information. Environ. Int. 2017, 106, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zikova, N.; Masiol, M.; Chalupa, D.C.; Rich, D.Q.; Ferro, A.R.; Hopke, P.K. Estimating Hourly Concentrations of PM2.5 across a Metropolitan Area Using Low-Cost Particle Monitors. Sensors 2017, 17, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fanti, G.; Spinazzè, A.; Borghi, F.; Rovelli, S.; Campagnolo, D.; Keller, M.; Borghi, A.; Cattaneo, A.; Cauda, E.; Cavallo, D.M. Evolution and Applications of Recent Sensing Technology for Occupational Risk Assessment: A Rapid Review of the Literature. Sensors 2022, 22, 4841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fanti, G.; Borghi, F.; Spinazzè, A.; Rovelli, S.; Campagnolo, D.; Keller, M.; Cattaneo, A.; Cauda, E.; Cavallo, D.M. Features and Practicability of the Next-Generation Sensors and Monitors for Exposure Assessment to Airborne Pollutants: A Systematic Review. Sensors 2021, 21, 4513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ródenas García, M.; Spinazzé, A.; Branco, P.T.B.S.; Borghi, F.; Villena, G.; Cattaneo, A.; Di Gilio, A.; Mihucz, V.G.; Gómez Álvarez, E.; Lopes, S.I.; et al. Review of Low-Cost Sensors for Indoor Air Quality: Features and Applications. Appl. Spectrosc. Rev. 2022, 57, 747–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volkwein, J.C.; Vinson, R.P.; Page, S.J.; McWilliams, L.J.; Joy, G.J.; Mischler, S.E.; Tuchman, D.P. Laboratory and Field Performance of a Continuously Measuring Personal Respirable Dust Monitor; Report of Investigations 9669, DHHS (NIOSH). Publication No. 2006-145; NIOSH-Publications Dissemination: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2006.
- Patts, J.R.; Tuchman, D.P.; Rubinstein, E.N.; Cauda, E.G.; Cecala, A.B. Performance Comparison of Real-Time Light Scattering Dust Monitors Across Dust Types and Humidity Levels. Min. Metall. Explor. 2019, 36, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kogut, J.; Tomb, T.F.; Parobeck, P.S.; Gero, A.J.; Supper, K.L. Measurement Precision with the Coal Mine Dust Personal Sampler. Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 1997, 12, 999–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sayahi, T.; Butterfield, A.; Kelly, K.E. Long-Term Field Evaluation of the Plantower PMS Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors. Environ. Pollut. 2019, 245, 932–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, R.; Kaufman, A.; Hanley, T.; Rice, J.; Garvey, S. Evaluation of Field-Deployed Low Cost PM Sensors; EPA/600/R-14/464, 2014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 1–76.
- Cauda, E.; Hoover, M.D. Right Sensors Used Right: A Life-Cycle Approach for Real-Time Monitors and Direct Reading Methodologies and Data. A Call to Action for Customers, Creators, Curators, and Analysts. ||Blogs|CDC. Available online: https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2019/05/16/right-sensors-used-right/ (accessed on 12 April 2021).
- Fanti, G.; Borghi, F.; Cauda, E.; Wolfe, C.; Patts, J. Conceptualization and Construction of a Low-Cost and Self-Made Device for Monitoring of Particulate Matter: A Step-by-Step Guide. Ital. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2023; preprints. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spinazzè, A.; Fanti, G.; Borghi, F.; Del Buono, L.; Campagnolo, D.; Rovelli, S.; Cattaneo, A.; Cavallo, D.M. Field Comparison of Instruments for Exposure Assessment of Airborne Ultrafine Particles and Particulate Matter. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 154, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borghi, F.; Spinazzè, A.; Campagnolo, D.; Rovelli, S.; Cattaneo, A.; Cavallo, D.M. Precision and Accuracy of a Direct-Reading Miniaturized Monitor in PM2.5 Exposure Assessment. Sensors 2018, 18, 3089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borghi, F.; Fanti, G.; Cattaneo, A.; Campagnolo, D.; Rovelli, S.; Keller, M.; Spinazzè, A.; Cavallo, D.M. Estimation of the Inhaled Dose of Airborne Pollutants during Commuting: Case Study and Application for the General Population. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fanti, G.; Wolfe, C.; Borghi, F.; Campagnolo, D.; Patts, J.; Cattaneo, A.; Spinazzè, A.; Cavallo, D.M.; Cauda, E. In-Lab Testing of a Self-Made Multiparameter Prototype based on Low-Cost Dust sensors using a Marple Chamber. In Proceedings of the 39° National Congress of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, Arenzano, Italy, 14–16 June 2023; pp. 186–188, ISBN 978-88-86293-44-0. [Google Scholar]
- Watson, J.; Chow, J.C.; Moosmuller, H.; Green, M.; Frank, N.; Pitvhford, M. Guidance for Using Continuous Monitors in PM 2.5 Monitoring Networks; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
- Marple, V.A.; Rubow, K.L.; Turner, W.; Spengler, J.D. Low Flow Rate Sharp Cut Impactors for Indoor Air Sampling: Design And Calibration. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1987, 37, 1303–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Munari, E.; Allegrini, I.; Bardizza, N.; Carfagno, N.; Di Carlo, N.; Gaeta, A.; Lanzani, G.; Malaguti, M.; Marson, G.; Melegari, C.; et al. Linee Guida per La Predisposizione Delle Reti Di Monitoraggio Della Qualità Dell’aria in Italia; APAT-Agenzia per la Protezione dell’Ambiente e per i servizi Tecnici, Centro Tematico Nazionale—Atmosfera Clima Emission: Roma, Italy, 2004; p. 34. [Google Scholar]
- Marple, V.A.; Rubow, K.L. An Aerosol Chamber for Instrument Evaluation and Calibration. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1983, 44, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, H.; Specker, H. Bewertung Und Vergleich von Analysenverfahren. Fresenius’ Z. Anal. Chem. 1956, 149, 46–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wenzl, T.; Haedrich, J.; Schaechtele, A.; Robouch, P.; Stroka, J. Guidance Document on the Estimation of LOD and LOQ for Measurements in the Field of Contaminants in Feed and Food; EUR 28099 EN; European Union Reference Laboratory. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016; Volume 52, ISBN 978-92-79-61768-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.; Aye, L.; Ngo, T.D.; Zhou, J. Performance Evaluation of Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 818, 151769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Statistical Methods for Assessing Agreement between Two Methods of Clinical Measurement. Lancet 1986, 1, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koistinen, K.J.; Edwards, R.D.; Mathys, P.; Ruuskanen, J.; Künzli, N.; Jantunen, M.J. Sources of Fine Particulate Matter in Personal Exposures and Residential Indoor, Residential Outdoor and Workplace Microenvironments in the Helsinki Phase of the EXPOLIS Study Author (s): Kimmo J Koistinen, Rufus D Edwards, Patrick Mathys, Juhani Ru. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 2004, 30, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Han, J.; Liu, X.; Chen, D.; Jiang, M. Influence of Relative Humidity on Real-Time Measurements of Particulate Matter Concentration via Light Scattering. J. Aerosol Sci. 2020, 139, 105462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouimette, J.R.; Malm, W.C.; Schichtel, B.A.; Sheridan, P.J.; Andrews, E.; Ogren, J.A.; Arnott, W.P. Evaluating the PurpleAir Monitor as an Aerosol Light Scattering Instrument. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 2022, 15, 655–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Testing Day | ME | Duration [min] | PM2.5 [µg/m3] | RH [%] | T [°C] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Min. | Mean | Max. | Min. | Max. | Mean | |||
1 | Office | 480 | 3.4 | 6.3 | 9.1 | 28.1 | 30.4 | 22.7 |
2 | 480 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 3.9 | 18.9 | 23.7 | 21.4 | |
3 | 480 | 2.1 | 4.4 | 6.8 | 27.1 | 29.3 | 22.6 | |
4 | 480 | 4.9 | 6.7 | 8.9 | 32.3 | 37.0 | 22.8 | |
5 | 480 | 1.9 | 3.9 | 18 | 32.4 | 34.6 | 22.7 | |
6 | Home | 480 | 5.6 | 9.7 | 15 | 45.0 | 54.6 | 21.7 |
7 | 480 | 16 | 23 | 44 | 49.4 | 54.4 | 21.3 | |
8 | 480 | 1.3 | 3.4 | 10 | 38.8 | 45.2 | 21.8 | |
9 | 480 | 7.1 | 10 | 20 | 42.8 | 47.3 | 21.9 | |
10 | 480 | 0.8 | 3.5 | 9.1 | 18.2 | 43.3 | 21.3 | |
11 | Outdoor | 480 | 8.4 | 13 | 19 | 23.0 | 43.2 | 10.2 |
12 | 480 | 26 | 33 | 46 | 23.2 | 44.1 | 18.1 | |
13 | 480 | 25 | 31 | 46 | 21.1 | 46.0 | 15.2 | |
14 | 480 | 29 | 40 | 59 | 16.3 | 68.8 | 16.4 | |
15 | 480 | 23 | 31 | 39 | 44.9 | 58.3 | 9.8 | |
16 | Occupational | 480 | 307 | 502 | 622 | 35.4 | 38.5 | 19.7 |
17 | 360 | 170 | 383 | 566 | 38.4 | 46.4 | 18.1 | |
18 | 360 | 71 | 297 | 437 | 22.4 | 32.3 | 17.9 | |
19 | 360 | 73 | 301 | 481 | 19.1 | 29.3 | 19.7 | |
20 | 360 | 62 | 291 | 364 | 31.1 | 33.8 | 20.2 |
PM2.5—(µg/m3) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Device | Valid N | Min. | Mean | Median | Max. | S.D. |
Aerocet | 9021 | 0.3 | 88 | 14 | 622 | 153 |
P.ALP_0 | 6584 | 2.2 | 198 | 41 | 982 | 289 |
P.ALP_1 | 5323 | 2.2 | 237 | 49 | 918 | 297 |
P.ALP_2 | 6614 | 2.2 | 198 | 42 | 929 | 293 |
P.ALP_3 | 4410 | 2.2 | 137 | 27 | 807 | 228 |
Devices Compared | Regression Model | Watson et al.’s Criteria [23] | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R | R2 | q | m | SE | C | MP | |
P.ALP_0 vs. P.ALP_1 | 0.999 | 0.994 | 2.239 | 0.973 | 0.201 | Yes | No |
P.ALP_0 vs. P.ALP_2 | 0.999 | 0.999 | −0.351 | 1.013 | 0.176 | Yes | Yes |
P.ALP_0 vs. P.ALP_3 | 0.999 | 0.997 | −3.355 | 0.863 | 0.248 | Yes | No |
P.ALP_1 vs. P.ALP_2 | 1 | 0.999 | −1.398 | 1.039 | 0.150 | Yes | No |
P.ALP_1 vs. P.ALP_3 | 0.999 | 0.998 | −4.074 | 0.880 | 0.245 | Yes | No |
P.ALP_2 vs. P.ALP_3 | 0.999 | 0.998 | −2.998 | 0.852 | 0.187 | Yes | No |
Devices Compared | Regression Model | Watson et al.’s Criteria [23] | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R | R2 | q | m | SE | C | MP | |
P.ALP_0 vs. Aerocet | 0.956 | 0.914 | 3.187 | 1.634 | 1.290 | Yes | Yes |
P.ALP_1 vs. Aerocet | 0.949 | 0.901 | 7.158 | 1.583 | 1.666 | Yes | No |
P.ALP_2 vs. Aerocet | 0.958 | 0.917 | 1.018 | 1.662 | 1.279 | Yes | Yes |
P.ALP_3 vs. Aerocet | 0.960 | 0.921 | −9.789 | 1.562 | 1.173 | Yes | No |
Devices | PM2.5 [µg/m3] | US EPA Criteria | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Valid N | Mean | SD | CV | CVdiff. | MNB | Application Tier | |
P.ALP_0 | 6584 | 198 | 289 | 1.46 | −0.28 | 1.24 | Failed |
P.ALP_1 | 5323 | 237 | 298 | 1.26 | −0.48 | 1.68 | Failed |
P.ALP_2 | 6614 | 199 | 293 | 1.48 | −0.26 | 1.25 | Failed |
P.ALP_3 | 4410 | 138 | 228 | 1.65 | −0.09 | 0.56 | Failed |
Aerocet | 9021 | 88 | 154 | 1.74 | - | - | - |
Devices Compared | PM2.5 Average Error [µg/m3] | PM2.5 Confidence Interval [µg/m3] | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Upper 95% | Lower 95% | |
Aerocet vs. P.ALP_0 | −79 | 137 | 190 | −347 |
Aerocet vs. P.ALP_1 | −92 | 140 | 183 | −367 |
Aerocet vs. P.ALP_2 | −80 | 140 | 195 | −355 |
Aerocet vs. P.ALP_3 | −44 | 102 | 180 | −243 |
ME | Low | Medium | High | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CR | |||||||
Office | Failed | I | II; IV | I | - | - | |
II; IV | I | I | Failed | - | - | ||
Home | - | - | II; IV | II; IV | - | - | |
- | - | I | I | - | - | ||
Outdoor | - | - | I | Failed | I | I | |
- | - | I | III | I | V | ||
Industrial | - | - | - | - | Failed | Failed | |
- | - | - | - | Failed | I |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fanti, G.; Borghi, F.; Campagnolo, D.; Rovelli, S.; Carminati, A.; Zellino, C.; Cattaneo, A.; Cauda, E.; Spinazzè, A.; Cavallo, D.M. An In-Field Assessment of the P.ALP Device in Four Different Real Working Conditions: A Performance Evaluation in Particulate Matter Monitoring. Toxics 2024, 12, 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12040233
Fanti G, Borghi F, Campagnolo D, Rovelli S, Carminati A, Zellino C, Cattaneo A, Cauda E, Spinazzè A, Cavallo DM. An In-Field Assessment of the P.ALP Device in Four Different Real Working Conditions: A Performance Evaluation in Particulate Matter Monitoring. Toxics. 2024; 12(4):233. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12040233
Chicago/Turabian StyleFanti, Giacomo, Francesca Borghi, Davide Campagnolo, Sabrina Rovelli, Alessio Carminati, Carolina Zellino, Andrea Cattaneo, Emanuele Cauda, Andrea Spinazzè, and Domenico Maria Cavallo. 2024. "An In-Field Assessment of the P.ALP Device in Four Different Real Working Conditions: A Performance Evaluation in Particulate Matter Monitoring" Toxics 12, no. 4: 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics12040233