The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring

Advances in embedded systems and low-cost gas sensors are enabling a new wave of low-cost air quality monitoring tools. Our team has been engaged in the development of low-cost, wearable, air quality monitors (M-Pods) using the Arduino platform. These M-Pods house two types of sensors – commercially...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: R. Piedrahita, Y. Xiang, N. Masson, J. Ortega, A. Collier, Y. Jiang, K. Li, R. P. Dick, Q. Lv, M. Hannigan, L. Shang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2014-10-01
Series:Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
Online Access:http://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3325/2014/amt-7-3325-2014.pdf
id doaj-74cc46a4d283491cbab3adeb548694e4
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author R. Piedrahita
Y. Xiang
N. Masson
J. Ortega
A. Collier
Y. Jiang
K. Li
R. P. Dick
Q. Lv
M. Hannigan
L. Shang
spellingShingle R. Piedrahita
Y. Xiang
N. Masson
J. Ortega
A. Collier
Y. Jiang
K. Li
R. P. Dick
Q. Lv
M. Hannigan
L. Shang
The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring
Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
author_facet R. Piedrahita
Y. Xiang
N. Masson
J. Ortega
A. Collier
Y. Jiang
K. Li
R. P. Dick
Q. Lv
M. Hannigan
L. Shang
author_sort R. Piedrahita
title The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring
title_short The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring
title_full The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring
title_fullStr The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring
title_full_unstemmed The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring
title_sort next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoring
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
issn 1867-1381
1867-8548
publishDate 2014-10-01
description Advances in embedded systems and low-cost gas sensors are enabling a new wave of low-cost air quality monitoring tools. Our team has been engaged in the development of low-cost, wearable, air quality monitors (M-Pods) using the Arduino platform. These M-Pods house two types of sensors – commercially available metal oxide semiconductor (MOx) sensors used to measure CO, O<sub>3</sub>, NO<sub>2</sub>, and total VOCs, and NDIR sensors used to measure CO<sub>2</sub>. The MOx sensors are low in cost and show high sensitivity near ambient levels; however they display non-linear output signals and have cross-sensitivity effects. Thus, a quantification system was developed to convert the MOx sensor signals into concentrations. <br><br> We conducted two types of validation studies – first, deployments at a regulatory monitoring station in Denver, Colorado, and second, a user study. In the two deployments (at the regulatory monitoring station), M-Pod concentrations were determined using collocation calibrations and laboratory calibration techniques. M-Pods were placed near regulatory monitors to derive calibration function coefficients using the regulatory monitors as the standard. The form of the calibration function was derived based on laboratory experiments. We discuss various techniques used to estimate measurement uncertainties. <br><br> The deployments revealed that collocation calibrations provide more accurate concentration estimates than laboratory calibrations. During collocation calibrations, median standard errors ranged between 4.0–6.1 ppb for O<sub>3</sub>, 6.4–8.4 ppb for NO<sub>2</sub>, 0.28–0.44 ppm for CO, and 16.8 ppm for CO<sub>2</sub>. Median signal to noise (S / N) ratios for the M-Pod sensors were higher than the regulatory instruments: for NO<sub>2</sub>, 3.6 compared to 23.4; for O<sub>3</sub>, 1.4 compared to 1.6; for CO, 1.1 compared to 10.0; and for CO<sub>2</sub>, 42.2 compared to 300–500. By contrast, lab calibrations added bias and made it difficult to cover the necessary range of environmental conditions to obtain a good calibration. <br><br> A separate user study was also conducted to assess uncertainty estimates and sensor variability. In this study, 9 M-Pods were calibrated via collocation multiple times over 4 weeks, and sensor drift was analyzed, with the result being a calibration function that included baseline drift. Three pairs of M-Pods were deployed, while users individually carried the other three. <br><br> The user study suggested that inter-M-Pod variability between paired units was on the same order as calibration uncertainty; however, it is difficult to make conclusions about the actual personal exposure levels due to the level of user engagement. The user study provided real-world sensor drift data, showing limited CO drift (under −0.05 ppm day<sup>−1</sup>), and higher for O<sub>3</sub> (−2.6 to 2.0 ppb day<sup>−1</sup>), NO<sub>2</sub> (−1.56 to 0.51 ppb day<sup>−1</sup>), and CO<sub>2</sub> (−4.2 to 3.1 ppm day<sup>−1</sup>). Overall, the user study confirmed the utility of the M-Pod as a low-cost tool to assess personal exposure.
url http://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3325/2014/amt-7-3325-2014.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT rpiedrahita thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT yxiang thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT nmasson thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT jortega thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT acollier thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT yjiang thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT kli thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT rpdick thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT qlv thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT mhannigan thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT lshang thenextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT rpiedrahita nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT yxiang nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT nmasson nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT jortega nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT acollier nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT yjiang nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT kli nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT rpdick nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT qlv nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT mhannigan nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
AT lshang nextgenerationoflowcostpersonalairqualitysensorsforquantitativeexposuremonitoring
_version_ 1725647414729113600
spelling doaj-74cc46a4d283491cbab3adeb548694e42020-11-24T22:58:21ZengCopernicus PublicationsAtmospheric Measurement Techniques1867-13811867-85482014-10-017103325333610.5194/amt-7-3325-2014The next generation of low-cost personal air quality sensors for quantitative exposure monitoringR. Piedrahita0Y. Xiang1N. Masson2J. Ortega3A. Collier4Y. Jiang5K. Li6R. P. Dick7Q. Lv8M. Hannigan9L. Shang10University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 427 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAUniversity of Michigan, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2417-E EECS, 1301 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USAUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 427 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 427 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 427 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Department of Computer Science, 1045 Regent Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Department of Electrical Engineering, 425 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAUniversity of Michigan, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2417-E EECS, 1301 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USAUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Department of Computer Science, 1045 Regent Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Department of Mechanical Engineering, 427 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAUniversity of Colorado Boulder, Department of Electrical Engineering, 425 UCB, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USAAdvances in embedded systems and low-cost gas sensors are enabling a new wave of low-cost air quality monitoring tools. Our team has been engaged in the development of low-cost, wearable, air quality monitors (M-Pods) using the Arduino platform. These M-Pods house two types of sensors – commercially available metal oxide semiconductor (MOx) sensors used to measure CO, O<sub>3</sub>, NO<sub>2</sub>, and total VOCs, and NDIR sensors used to measure CO<sub>2</sub>. The MOx sensors are low in cost and show high sensitivity near ambient levels; however they display non-linear output signals and have cross-sensitivity effects. Thus, a quantification system was developed to convert the MOx sensor signals into concentrations. <br><br> We conducted two types of validation studies – first, deployments at a regulatory monitoring station in Denver, Colorado, and second, a user study. In the two deployments (at the regulatory monitoring station), M-Pod concentrations were determined using collocation calibrations and laboratory calibration techniques. M-Pods were placed near regulatory monitors to derive calibration function coefficients using the regulatory monitors as the standard. The form of the calibration function was derived based on laboratory experiments. We discuss various techniques used to estimate measurement uncertainties. <br><br> The deployments revealed that collocation calibrations provide more accurate concentration estimates than laboratory calibrations. During collocation calibrations, median standard errors ranged between 4.0–6.1 ppb for O<sub>3</sub>, 6.4–8.4 ppb for NO<sub>2</sub>, 0.28–0.44 ppm for CO, and 16.8 ppm for CO<sub>2</sub>. Median signal to noise (S / N) ratios for the M-Pod sensors were higher than the regulatory instruments: for NO<sub>2</sub>, 3.6 compared to 23.4; for O<sub>3</sub>, 1.4 compared to 1.6; for CO, 1.1 compared to 10.0; and for CO<sub>2</sub>, 42.2 compared to 300–500. By contrast, lab calibrations added bias and made it difficult to cover the necessary range of environmental conditions to obtain a good calibration. <br><br> A separate user study was also conducted to assess uncertainty estimates and sensor variability. In this study, 9 M-Pods were calibrated via collocation multiple times over 4 weeks, and sensor drift was analyzed, with the result being a calibration function that included baseline drift. Three pairs of M-Pods were deployed, while users individually carried the other three. <br><br> The user study suggested that inter-M-Pod variability between paired units was on the same order as calibration uncertainty; however, it is difficult to make conclusions about the actual personal exposure levels due to the level of user engagement. The user study provided real-world sensor drift data, showing limited CO drift (under −0.05 ppm day<sup>−1</sup>), and higher for O<sub>3</sub> (−2.6 to 2.0 ppb day<sup>−1</sup>), NO<sub>2</sub> (−1.56 to 0.51 ppb day<sup>−1</sup>), and CO<sub>2</sub> (−4.2 to 3.1 ppm day<sup>−1</sup>). Overall, the user study confirmed the utility of the M-Pod as a low-cost tool to assess personal exposure.http://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/7/3325/2014/amt-7-3325-2014.pdf