Cargando…

Calibrations of Low-Cost Air Pollution Monitoring Sensors for CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2)

Pollutant gases, such as CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2) affect human health, and low-cost sensors are an important complement to regulatory-grade instruments in pollutant monitoring. Previous studies focused on one or several species, while comprehensive assessments of multiple sensors remain limited. W...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Han, Pengfei, Mei, Han, Liu, Di, Zeng, Ning, Tang, Xiao, Wang, Yinghong, Pan, Yuepeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7795951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33401737
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21010256
_version_ 1783634566022430720
author Han, Pengfei
Mei, Han
Liu, Di
Zeng, Ning
Tang, Xiao
Wang, Yinghong
Pan, Yuepeng
author_facet Han, Pengfei
Mei, Han
Liu, Di
Zeng, Ning
Tang, Xiao
Wang, Yinghong
Pan, Yuepeng
author_sort Han, Pengfei
collection PubMed
description Pollutant gases, such as CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2) affect human health, and low-cost sensors are an important complement to regulatory-grade instruments in pollutant monitoring. Previous studies focused on one or several species, while comprehensive assessments of multiple sensors remain limited. We conducted a 12-month field evaluation of four Alphasense sensors in Beijing and used single linear regression (SLR), multiple linear regression (MLR), random forest regressor (RFR), and neural network (long short-term memory (LSTM)) methods to calibrate and validate the measurements with nearby reference measurements from national monitoring stations. For performances, CO > O(3) > NO(2) > SO(2) for the coefficient of determination (R(2)) and root mean square error (RMSE). The MLR did not increase the R(2) after considering the temperature and relative humidity influences compared with the SLR (with R(2) remaining at approximately 0.6 for O(3) and 0.4 for NO(2)). However, the RFR and LSTM models significantly increased the O(3), NO(2), and SO(2) performances, with the R(2) increasing from 0.3–0.5 to >0.7 for O(3) and NO(2), and the RMSE decreasing from 20.4 to 13.2 ppb for NO(2). For the SLR, there were relatively larger biases, while the LSTMs maintained a close mean relative bias of approximately zero (e.g., <5% for O(3) and NO(2)), indicating that these sensors combined with the LSTMs are suitable for hot spot detection. We highlight that the performance of LSTM is better than that of random forest and linear methods. This study assessed four electrochemical air quality sensors and different calibration models, and the methodology and results can benefit assessments of other low-cost sensors.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7795951
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77959512021-01-10 Calibrations of Low-Cost Air Pollution Monitoring Sensors for CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2) Han, Pengfei Mei, Han Liu, Di Zeng, Ning Tang, Xiao Wang, Yinghong Pan, Yuepeng Sensors (Basel) Article Pollutant gases, such as CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2) affect human health, and low-cost sensors are an important complement to regulatory-grade instruments in pollutant monitoring. Previous studies focused on one or several species, while comprehensive assessments of multiple sensors remain limited. We conducted a 12-month field evaluation of four Alphasense sensors in Beijing and used single linear regression (SLR), multiple linear regression (MLR), random forest regressor (RFR), and neural network (long short-term memory (LSTM)) methods to calibrate and validate the measurements with nearby reference measurements from national monitoring stations. For performances, CO > O(3) > NO(2) > SO(2) for the coefficient of determination (R(2)) and root mean square error (RMSE). The MLR did not increase the R(2) after considering the temperature and relative humidity influences compared with the SLR (with R(2) remaining at approximately 0.6 for O(3) and 0.4 for NO(2)). However, the RFR and LSTM models significantly increased the O(3), NO(2), and SO(2) performances, with the R(2) increasing from 0.3–0.5 to >0.7 for O(3) and NO(2), and the RMSE decreasing from 20.4 to 13.2 ppb for NO(2). For the SLR, there were relatively larger biases, while the LSTMs maintained a close mean relative bias of approximately zero (e.g., <5% for O(3) and NO(2)), indicating that these sensors combined with the LSTMs are suitable for hot spot detection. We highlight that the performance of LSTM is better than that of random forest and linear methods. This study assessed four electrochemical air quality sensors and different calibration models, and the methodology and results can benefit assessments of other low-cost sensors. MDPI 2021-01-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7795951/ /pubmed/33401737 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21010256 Text en © 2021 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Han, Pengfei
Mei, Han
Liu, Di
Zeng, Ning
Tang, Xiao
Wang, Yinghong
Pan, Yuepeng
Calibrations of Low-Cost Air Pollution Monitoring Sensors for CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2)
title Calibrations of Low-Cost Air Pollution Monitoring Sensors for CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2)
title_full Calibrations of Low-Cost Air Pollution Monitoring Sensors for CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2)
title_fullStr Calibrations of Low-Cost Air Pollution Monitoring Sensors for CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2)
title_full_unstemmed Calibrations of Low-Cost Air Pollution Monitoring Sensors for CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2)
title_short Calibrations of Low-Cost Air Pollution Monitoring Sensors for CO, NO(2), O(3), and SO(2)
title_sort calibrations of low-cost air pollution monitoring sensors for co, no(2), o(3), and so(2)
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7795951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33401737
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21010256
work_keys_str_mv AT hanpengfei calibrationsoflowcostairpollutionmonitoringsensorsforcono2o3andso2
AT meihan calibrationsoflowcostairpollutionmonitoringsensorsforcono2o3andso2
AT liudi calibrationsoflowcostairpollutionmonitoringsensorsforcono2o3andso2
AT zengning calibrationsoflowcostairpollutionmonitoringsensorsforcono2o3andso2
AT tangxiao calibrationsoflowcostairpollutionmonitoringsensorsforcono2o3andso2
AT wangyinghong calibrationsoflowcostairpollutionmonitoringsensorsforcono2o3andso2
AT panyuepeng calibrationsoflowcostairpollutionmonitoringsensorsforcono2o3andso2