TY - JOUR
AU - Meenakshi Kushwaha
AU - V. Sreekanth
AU - Adithi Upadhya
AU - Pratyush Agrawal
AU - Joshua Apte
AU - Julian Marshall
AB - Optical PM2.5 measurements are sensitive to aerosol properties that can vary with space and time. Here, we compared PM2.5 measurements from collocated reference-grade (beta attenuation monitors, BAMs) and optical instruments (two DustTrak II and two DustTrak DRX) over 6 months. We performed inter-model (two different models), intra-model (two units of the same model), and inter-type (two different device types: optical vs. reference-grade) comparisons under ambient conditions. Averaged over our study period, PM2.5 measured concentrations were 46.0 and 45.5 μg m−3 for the two DustTrak II units, 29.8 and 38.4 μg m−3 for DRX units, and 18.3 and 19.0 μg m−3 for BAMs. The normalized root square difference (NRMSD; compares PM2.5 measurements from paired instruments of the same type) was ~ 5% (DustTrak II), ~ 27% (DRX), and ~ 15% (BAM). The normalized root mean square error (NRMSE; compares PM2.5 measurements from optical instruments against a reference instrument) was ~ 165% for DustTrak II, ~ 74% after applying literature-based humidity correction and ~ 27% after applying both the humidity and BAM corrections. Although optical instruments are highly precise in their PM2.5 measurements, they tend to be strongly biased relative to reference-grade devices. We also explored two different methods to compensate for relative humidity bias and found that the results differed by ~ 50% between the two methods. This study highlights the limitations of adopting a literature-derived calibration equation and the need for conducting local model-specific calibration. Moreover, this is one of the few studies to perform an intra-model comparison of collocated reference-grade devices.
IS - 9
N2 - Optical PM2.5 measurements are sensitive to aerosol properties that can vary with space and time. Here, we compared PM2.5 measurements from collocated reference-grade (beta attenuation monitors, BAMs) and optical instruments (two DustTrak II and two DustTrak DRX) over 6 months. We performed inter-model (two different models), intra-model (two units of the same model), and inter-type (two different device types: optical vs. reference-grade) comparisons under ambient conditions. Averaged over our study period, PM2.5 measured concentrations were 46.0 and 45.5 μg m−3 for the two DustTrak II units, 29.8 and 38.4 μg m−3 for DRX units, and 18.3 and 19.0 μg m−3 for BAMs. The normalized root square difference (NRMSD; compares PM2.5 measurements from paired instruments of the same type) was ~ 5% (DustTrak II), ~ 27% (DRX), and ~ 15% (BAM). The normalized root mean square error (NRMSE; compares PM2.5 measurements from optical instruments against a reference instrument) was ~ 165% for DustTrak II, ~ 74% after applying literature-based humidity correction and ~ 27% after applying both the humidity and BAM corrections. Although optical instruments are highly precise in their PM2.5 measurements, they tend to be strongly biased relative to reference-grade devices. We also explored two different methods to compensate for relative humidity bias and found that the results differed by ~ 50% between the two methods. This study highlights the limitations of adopting a literature-derived calibration equation and the need for conducting local model-specific calibration. Moreover, this is one of the few studies to perform an intra-model comparison of collocated reference-grade devices.
PY - 2022
SN - 1573-2959
SP - 610
T2 - Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
TI - Bias in PM2.5 measurements using collocated reference-grade and optical instruments
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-022-10293-4
VL - 194
ER -