Quantifying and improving performance of a low-cost PM sensor used for occupational hygiene applications

Low-cost particulate matter (PM) sensors are useful for measuring exposure to hazardous particles in the workplace but show different levels of structural under- or overestimation (ie bias) and random variation (ie error) for different types of particles. Traditional calibration methods that are based on comparing with reference measurements can improve sensor performance but require substantial quantities of reference measurements, which may be infeasible to collect when sensors are used in many different situations. This study aimed to quantify sensor performance in different occupational situations and compare methods for improving performance without requiring reference measurements. Sensor measurements with paired reference measurements for particle number (n = 253) and mass (n = 33) concentrations were collected for 6 situations, where particles were assumed to consist of primarily cinnamon, flour, quartz, spruce wood, varnish, or welding fumes. Absolute and relative bias and error were calculated for sensor-reported measurements and 4 methods to calculate mass concentrations from particle number counts. Methods included a literature-derived calibration model and 3 physics-based algorithms that included combinations of particle size, density, and shape. For particle number concentrations, the highest relative bias was observed for the smallest size bin (0.3 to 0.5 µm). PM2.5 mass concentrations were underestimated by 72% compared to reference respirable dust measurements. This underestimation was reduced to 4.5% by recalculating mass from particle number concentrations, assuming uniform particle density and shape and attributing size fractions according to the respirable dust convention. Including particle-specific density and shape showed minor additional changes in overall bias (4.4% overestimation) but halved relative bias for 4 situations. Error was comparable for sensor-reported and recalculated mass concentrations (SD ranging from 93% to 106%) but differed between situations. This study addresses challenges in sensor performance in occupational settings. It shows that recalculating mass from particle counts can reduce bias without extensive reference measurements. This practical approach enhances sensor accuracy, aiding in better monitoring and managing hazardous particle exposure, ultimately improving occupational health.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Work Exposures and Health
Published
2026-01-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxag001
Primary Topic
Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Quantifying and improving performance of a low-cost PM sensor used for occupational hygiene applications

Sander Ruiter, Miranda Loh, Eelco Kuijpers, Susan Peters et al.
Annals of Work Exposures and Health
Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
article

Quantifying and improving performance of a low-cost PM sensor used for occupational hygiene applications

Sander Ruiter, Miranda Loh, Eelco Kuijpers, Susan Peters, Anjoeka Pronk
article en

Abstract

Low-cost particulate matter (PM) sensors are useful for measuring exposure to hazardous particles in the workplace but show different levels of structural under- or overestimation (ie bias) and random variation (ie error) for different types of particles. Traditional calibration methods that are based on comparing with reference measurements can improve sensor performance but require substantial quantities of reference measurements, which may be infeasible to collect when sensors are used in many different situations. This study aimed to quantify sensor performance in different occupational situations and compare methods for improving performance without requiring reference measurements. Sensor measurements with paired reference measurements for particle number (n = 253) and mass (n = 33) concentrations were collected for 6 situations, where particles were assumed to consist of primarily cinnamon, flour, quartz, spruce wood, varnish, or welding fumes. Absolute and relative bias and error were calculated for sensor-reported measurements and 4 methods to calculate mass concentrations from particle number counts. Methods included a literature-derived calibration model and 3 physics-based algorithms that included combinations of particle size, density, and shape. For particle number concentrations, the highest relative bias was observed for the smallest size bin (0.3 to 0.5 µm). PM2.5 mass concentrations were underestimated by 72% compared to reference respirable dust measurements. This underestimation was reduced to 4.5% by recalculating mass from particle number concentrations, assuming uniform particle density and shape and attributing size fractions according to the respirable dust convention. Including particle-specific density and shape showed minor additional changes in overall bias (4.4% overestimation) but halved relative bias for 4 situations. Error was comparable for sensor-reported and recalculated mass concentrations (SD ranging from 93% to 106%) but differed between situations. This study addresses challenges in sensor performance in occupational settings. It shows that recalculating mass from particle counts can reduce bias without extensive reference measurements. This practical approach enhances sensor accuracy, aiding in better monitoring and managing hazardous particle exposure, ultimately improving occupational health.

Annals of Work Exposures and HealthVol. 70(2)
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL), Utrecht University (NL), Midlothian Community Hospital (GB), Institute of Occupational Medicine (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.