Articles | Volume 11, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1777-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-1777-2018
Research article
 | 
28 Mar 2018
Research article |  | 28 Mar 2018

Intra-urban spatial variability of surface ozone in Riverside, CA: viability and validation of low-cost sensors

Kira Sadighi, Evan Coffey, Andrea Polidori, Brandon Feenstra, Qin Lv, Daven K. Henze, and Michael Hannigan

Related authors

Improving the quantification of peak concentrations for air quality sensors via data weighting
Caroline Frischmon, Jonathan Silberstein, Annamarie Guth, Erick Mattson, Jack Porter, and Michael Hannigan
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3147–3159, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3147-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3147-2025, 2025
Short summary
Positive matrix factorization of large real-time atmospheric mass spectrometry datasets using error-weighted randomized hierarchical alternating least squares
Benjamin C. Sapper, Sean Youn, Daven K. Henze, Manjula Canagaratna, Harald Stark, and Jose L. Jimenez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2891–2919, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2891-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2891-2025, 2025
Short summary
Interpreting summertime hourly variation of NO2 columns with implications for geostationary satellite applications
Deepangsu Chatterjee, Randall V. Martin, Chi Li, Dandan Zhang, Haihui Zhu, Daven K. Henze, James H. Crawford, Ronald C. Cohen, Lok N. Lamsal, and Alexander M. Cede
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12687–12706, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12687-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12687-2024, 2024
Short summary
Development of the adjoint of the unified tropospheric–stratospheric chemistry extension (UCX) in GEOS-Chem adjoint v36
Irene C. Dedoussi, Daven K. Henze, Sebastian D. Eastham, Raymond L. Speth, and Steven R. H. Barrett
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5689–5703, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5689-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Aggravated surface O3 pollution primarily driven by meteorological variations in China during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown period
Zhendong Lu, Jun Wang, Yi Wang, Daven K. Henze, Xi Chen, Tong Sha, and Kang Sun
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7793–7813, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7793-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7793-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Improving the quantification of peak concentrations for air quality sensors via data weighting
Caroline Frischmon, Jonathan Silberstein, Annamarie Guth, Erick Mattson, Jack Porter, and Michael Hannigan
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3147–3159, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3147-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3147-2025, 2025
Short summary
Long-term observations of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 trends and comparison of two measurement systems at Pallas-Sammaltunturi station in Northern Finland
Antti Laitinen, Hermanni Aaltonen, Christoph Zellweger, Aki Tsuruta, Tuula Aalto, and Juha Hatakka
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 3109–3133, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3109-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-3109-2025, 2025
Short summary
Calibrating adsorptive and reactive losses of monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes in dynamic chambers using deuterated surrogates
Jianqiang Zeng, Yanli Zhang, Haofan Ran, Weihua Pang, Hao Guo, Zhaobin Mu, Wei Song, and Xinming Wang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 1811–1821, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1811-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1811-2025, 2025
Short summary
Orphaned Oil & Gas Well Methane Emission Rates Quantified with Gaussian Plume Inversions of Ambient Observations
Emily Follansbee, James E. Lee, Mohit L. Dubey, Jonathan F. Dooley, Curtis Shuck, Ken Minschwaner, Andre Santos, Sebastien C. Biraud, and Manvendra K. Dubey
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-344,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-344, 2025
Short summary
OF–CEAS laser spectroscopy to measure water isotopes in dry environments: example of application in Antarctica
Thomas Lauwers, Elise Fourré, Olivier Jossoud, Daniele Romanini, Frédéric Prié, Giordano Nitti, Mathieu Casado, Kévin Jaulin, Markus Miltner, Morgane Farradèche, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Amaëlle Landais
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 1135–1147, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1135-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-1135-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Barsan, N. and Weimar, U.: Conduction model of metal oxide gas sensors, J. Electroceram., 7, 143–167, 2001.
Bart, M., Williams, D. E., Ainslie, B., McKendry, I., Salmond, J., Grange, S. K., Alavi-Shoshtari, M., Steyn, D., and Henshaw, G. S.: High Density Ozone Monitoring Using Gas Sensitive Semi-Conductor Sensors in the Lower Fraser Valley, British Columbia, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 3970–3977, https://doi.org/10.1021/es404610t, 2014.
Blanchard, C. L., Tanenbaum, S., and Hidy, G. M.: Spatial and temporal variability of air pollution in Birmingham, Alabama, Atmos. Environ., 89, 382–391, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.006, 2014.
California Air Resources Board: Annual Monitoring Network Report for Twenty-three Districts in California, July 2013, available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/amnr/amnr2013.pdf (last access: 1 February 2017), 2013.
California Department of Transportation: 2015 Traffic Volumes on California State Highway, available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/census/volumes2015/ (last access: 3 February 2016), 2015.
Download
Short summary
Ground-level ozone has negative human health impacts. In the summer of 2015, 13 low-cost sensor monitors were deployed to several neighborhoods around Riverside, California. There were significant spatial differences between monitors. This is important because it means that ozone in certain places may be higher than what EPA monitors report for an area, which is pertinent for residents of those communities. This research helps inform the limitations and advantages of low-cost sensor networks.
Share