Performance of a Low-Cost Sensor (LCS) Network for Long-Term Indoor and Outdoor PM2.5 Measurements at Rural Communities in Beijing, China

Xiaoying Li,Jill Baumgartner,Christopher Barrington Leigh,Collin Brehmer,Sam Harper,Brian E. Robinson,Guofeng Shen,Talia Sternbach,Shu Tao,Xiang Zhang,Yuanxun Zhang,Ellison Carter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/isee.2023.fp-247
2023-01-01
Abstract:BACKGROUND AND AIM: Low-cost sensors have been widely developed and applied globally to measure high temporal and spatial resolution air pollution data for exposure, epidemiology, and environmental justice studies. However, obtaining accurate and precise measures from low-cost sensors is a challenge, especially in developing countries and low-income areas, where high-caliber environmental stations are not available to provide reference data for sensor calibration. METHOD: We set up a low-cost sensor network to measure indoor and outdoor PM2.5 for four consecutive winters in 50 villages in rural Beijing, China. In each village, two sensors were deployed in different locations to measure outdoor PM2.5, and six were randomly deployed in six homes for indoor measurements. Before and after each field campaign, all low-cost sensors were co-located with Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) instruments for 7-10 days to evaluate the performance of sensors. We co-located filter-based PM2.5 samplers with both indoor and outdoor sensors in the field for later calibration. RESULTS: Sensor performance was consistently good over the four years of deployment. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs) of our low-cost sensors relative to FEM PM2.5 were larger than 0.75 with tight confidence, indicating our low-cost sensors performed well in catching hourly variation in ambient PM2.5. Including meteorological information in the linear regression between filter-based PM2.5 and time-weighted average sensor-based PM2.5 concentration did not improve the explanation of data. Calibration factors for indoor and outdoor PM2.5 were different, and varied from 1.11 to 1.14, and from 0.98 to 0.94, respectively, due to the different meteorology and emission sources of indoor and outdoor environments. CONCLUSIONS: It is essential to conduct careful calibration in the field, and our low-cost sensors performed well over multiple years. Due to the different meteorology and emission sources of indoor and outdoor environments, indoor and outdoor sensors should be calibrated separately.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?