Welcome to CDC stacks | Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter - 47997 | CDC Public Access
Stacks Logo
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.
 
 
Help
Clear All Simple Search
Advanced Search
Evaluation of consumer monitors to measure particulate matter
  • Published Date:
    May 2017
  • Source:
    Aerosol Sci Technol. 107:123-133.


Public Access Version Available on: May 01, 2018 information icon
Please check back on the date listed above.
Details:
  • Pubmed ID:
    28871212
  • Pubmed Central ID:
    PMC5580935
  • Description:
    Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings. In a laboratory study, PM2.5 measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from reference instruments for three aerosols (salt, welding fume, and Arizona road dust, ARD) at concentrations up to 8500 μg/m(3). Three of each type of CAM were included to estimate precision. Compared to reference instruments, mass concentrations measured with the Foobot (r-value = 0.99) and medium-cost photometer (r-value = 0.99) show strong correlation, whereas those from the Speck (r-value range 0.88 - 0.99) and AirBeam (0.7 - 0.96) were less correlated. The Foobot bias was (-12%) for ARD and measurements were similar to the medium-cost instrument. Foobot bias was (< -46%) for salt and welding fume aerosols. Speck bias was at 18% salt for ARD and -86% for welding fume. AirBeam bias was (-36%) for salt and (-83%) for welding fume. All three photometers had a bias (< -82%) for welding fume. Precision was excellent for the Foobot (coefficient of variation range: 5% to 8%) and AirBeam (2% to 9%), but poorer for the Speck (8% to 25%). These findings suggest that the Foobot, with a linear response to different aerosol types and good precision, can provide reasonable estimates of PM2.5 in the workplace after site-specific calibration to account for particle size and composition.

  • Document Type:
  • Collection(s):
  • Funding:
    R01 OH010533/OH/NIOSH CDC HHS/United States
  • Supporting Files:
    No Additional Files
No Related Documents.
You May Also Like: