a b s t r a c tThe performances of several field calibration methods for low-cost sensors, including linear/multi linear regression and supervised learning techniques are compared. A cluster of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen monoxide, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide sensors was operated. The sensors were either of metal oxide or electrochemical type or based on miniaturized infra-red cell. For each method, a twoweek calibration was carried out at a semi-rural site against reference measurements. Subsequently, the accuracy of the predicted values was evaluated for about five months using a few indicators and techniques: orthogonal regression, target diagram, measurement uncertainty and drifts over time of sensor predictions. The study assessed if the sensors were could reach the Data Quality Objective (DQOs) of the European Air Quality Directive for indicative methods (between 25 and 30% of uncertainty for O 3 and NO 2 ). In this study it appears that O 3 may be calibrated using simple regression techniques while for NO 2 a better agreement between sensors and reference measurements was reached using supervised learning techniques. The hourly O 3 DQO was met while it was unlikely that NO 2 hourly one could be met. This was likely caused by the low NO 2 levels correlated with high O 3 levels that are typical of semi-rural site where the measurements of this study took place.
A growing number of companies have started commercializing low-cost sensors (LCS) that are said to be able to monitor air pollution in outdoor air. The benefit of the use of LCS is the increased spatial coverage when monitoring air quality in cities and remote locations. Today, there are hundreds of LCS commercially available on the market with costs ranging from several hundred to several thousand euro. At the same time, the scientific literature currently reports independent evaluation of the performance of LCS against reference measurements for about 110 LCS. These studies report that LCS are unstable and often affected by atmospheric conditions—cross-sensitivities from interfering compounds that may change LCS performance depending on site location. In this work, quantitative data regarding the performance of LCS against reference measurement are presented. This information was gathered from published reports and relevant testing laboratories. Other information was drawn from peer-reviewed journals that tested different types of LCS in research studies. Relevant metrics about the comparison of LCS systems against reference systems highlighted the most cost-effective LCS that could be used to monitor air quality pollutants with a good level of agreement represented by a coefficient of determination R2 > 0.75 and slope close to 1.0. This review highlights the possibility to have versatile LCS able to operate with multiple pollutants and preferably with transparent LCS data treatment.
This article presents a literature review of sensors for the monitoring of benzene in ambient air and other volatile organic compounds. Combined with information provided by stakeholders, manufacturers and literature, the review considers commercially available sensors, including PID-based sensors, semiconductor (resistive gas sensors) and portable on-line measuring devices as for example sensor arrays. The bibliographic collection includes the following topics: sensor description, field of application at fixed sites, indoor and ambient air monitoring, range of concentration levels and limit of detection in air, model descriptions of the phenomena involved in the sensor detection process, gaseous interference selectivity of sensors in complex VOC matrix, validation data in lab experiments and under field conditions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.