Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown
This study shows the results of air monitoring in high- and low-occupancy rooms using two combinations of sensors, AeroTrak8220(TSI)/OPC-N3 (AlphaSense, Great Notley, UK) and OPC-N3/PMS5003 (Plantower, Beijing, China), respectively. The tests were conducted in a flat in Warsaw during the restriction...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-12-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/24/7290 |
| _version_ | 1827699754883088384 |
|---|---|
| author | Miron Kaliszewski Maksymilian Włodarski Jarosław Młyńczak Krzysztof Kopczyński |
| author_facet | Miron Kaliszewski Maksymilian Włodarski Jarosław Młyńczak Krzysztof Kopczyński |
| author_sort | Miron Kaliszewski |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study shows the results of air monitoring in high- and low-occupancy rooms using two combinations of sensors, AeroTrak8220(TSI)/OPC-N3 (AlphaSense, Great Notley, UK) and OPC-N3/PMS5003 (Plantower, Beijing, China), respectively. The tests were conducted in a flat in Warsaw during the restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The results showed that OPC-N3 underestimates the PN (particle number concentration) by about 2–3 times compared to the AeroTrak8220. Subsequently, the OPC-N3 was compared with another low-cost sensor, the PMS5003. Both devices showed similar efficiency in PN estimation, whereas PM (particulate matter) concentration estimation differed significantly. Moreover, the relationship among the PM<sub>1</sub>–PM<sub>2.5</sub>–PM<sub>10</sub> readings obtained with the PMS5003 appeared improbably linear regarding the natural indoor conditions. The correlation of PM concentrations obtained with the PMS5003 suggests an oversimplified calculation method of PM. The studies also demonstrated that PM<sub>1</sub>, PM<sub>2.5</sub>, and PM<sub>10</sub> concentrations in the high- to low-occupancy rooms were about 3, 2, and 1.5 times, respectively. On the other hand, the use of an air purifier considerably reduced the PM concentrations to similar levels in both rooms. All the sensors showed that frying and toast-making were the major sources of particulate matter, about 10 times higher compared to average levels. Considerably lower particle levels were measured in the low-occupancy room. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T13:57:14Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-80feef53f284408bbd53b91b5700f053 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1424-8220 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T13:57:14Z |
| publishDate | 2020-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sensors |
| spelling | doaj.art-80feef53f284408bbd53b91b5700f0532023-11-21T01:30:18ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202020-12-012024729010.3390/s20247290Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 LockdownMiron Kaliszewski0Maksymilian Włodarski1Jarosław Młyńczak2Krzysztof Kopczyński3Institute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology, Gen. S. Kaliskiego 2, 00-908 Warsaw, PolandInstitute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology, Gen. S. Kaliskiego 2, 00-908 Warsaw, PolandInstitute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology, Gen. S. Kaliskiego 2, 00-908 Warsaw, PolandInstitute of Optoelectronics, Military University of Technology, Gen. S. Kaliskiego 2, 00-908 Warsaw, PolandThis study shows the results of air monitoring in high- and low-occupancy rooms using two combinations of sensors, AeroTrak8220(TSI)/OPC-N3 (AlphaSense, Great Notley, UK) and OPC-N3/PMS5003 (Plantower, Beijing, China), respectively. The tests were conducted in a flat in Warsaw during the restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 lockdown. The results showed that OPC-N3 underestimates the PN (particle number concentration) by about 2–3 times compared to the AeroTrak8220. Subsequently, the OPC-N3 was compared with another low-cost sensor, the PMS5003. Both devices showed similar efficiency in PN estimation, whereas PM (particulate matter) concentration estimation differed significantly. Moreover, the relationship among the PM<sub>1</sub>–PM<sub>2.5</sub>–PM<sub>10</sub> readings obtained with the PMS5003 appeared improbably linear regarding the natural indoor conditions. The correlation of PM concentrations obtained with the PMS5003 suggests an oversimplified calculation method of PM. The studies also demonstrated that PM<sub>1</sub>, PM<sub>2.5</sub>, and PM<sub>10</sub> concentrations in the high- to low-occupancy rooms were about 3, 2, and 1.5 times, respectively. On the other hand, the use of an air purifier considerably reduced the PM concentrations to similar levels in both rooms. All the sensors showed that frying and toast-making were the major sources of particulate matter, about 10 times higher compared to average levels. Considerably lower particle levels were measured in the low-occupancy room.https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/24/7290indoor airlow-cost particle sensorshuman activityaerosol sourcesPM |
| spellingShingle | Miron Kaliszewski Maksymilian Włodarski Jarosław Młyńczak Krzysztof Kopczyński Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown Sensors indoor air low-cost particle sensors human activity aerosol sources PM |
| title | Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown |
| title_full | Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown |
| title_short | Comparison of Low-Cost Particulate Matter Sensors for Indoor Air Monitoring during COVID-19 Lockdown |
| title_sort | comparison of low cost particulate matter sensors for indoor air monitoring during covid 19 lockdown |
| topic | indoor air low-cost particle sensors human activity aerosol sources PM |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/24/7290 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mironkaliszewski comparisonoflowcostparticulatemattersensorsforindoorairmonitoringduringcovid19lockdown AT maksymilianwłodarski comparisonoflowcostparticulatemattersensorsforindoorairmonitoringduringcovid19lockdown AT jarosławmłynczak comparisonoflowcostparticulatemattersensorsforindoorairmonitoringduringcovid19lockdown AT krzysztofkopczynski comparisonoflowcostparticulatemattersensorsforindoorairmonitoringduringcovid19lockdown |