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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |