Articles | Volume 14, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021
Research article
 | 
18 Aug 2021
Research article |  | 18 Aug 2021

Machine learning calibration of low-cost NO2 and PM10 sensors: non-linear algorithms and their impact on site transferability

Peer Nowack, Lev Konstantinovskiy, Hannah Gardiner, and John Cant

Related authors

Constraining uncertainty in projected precipitation over land with causal discovery
Kevin Debeire, Lisa Bock, Peer Nowack, Jakob Runge, and Veronika Eyring
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2656,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2656, 2024
Short summary
A systematic evaluation of high-cloud controlling factors
Sarah Wilson Kemsley, Paulo Ceppi, Hendrik Andersen, Jan Cermak, Philip Stier, and Peer Nowack
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 8295–8316, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8295-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8295-2024, 2024
Short summary
Opinion: Why all emergent constraints are wrong but some are useful – a machine learning perspective
Peer Nowack and Duncan Watson-Parris
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1636,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1636, 2024
Short summary
Sensitivities of cloud radiative effects to large-scale meteorology and aerosols from global observations
Hendrik Andersen, Jan Cermak, Alyson Douglas, Timothy A. Myers, Peer Nowack, Philip Stier, Casey J. Wall, and Sarah Wilson Kemsley
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10775–10794, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10775-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10775-2023, 2023
Short summary
A machine learning approach to quantify meteorological drivers of ozone pollution in China from 2015 to 2019
Xiang Weng, Grant L. Forster, and Peer Nowack
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8385–8402, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8385-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8385-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Data Processing and Information Retrieval
Intercomparison of fast airborne ozone instruments to measure eddy covariance fluxes: spatial variability in deposition at the ocean surface and evidence for cloud processing
Randall Chiu, Florian Obersteiner, Alessandro Franchin, Teresa Campos, Adriana Bailey, Christopher Webster, Andreas Zahn, and Rainer Volkamer
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5731–5746, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5731-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5731-2024, 2024
Short summary
Field assessments on the impact of CO2 concentration fluctuations along with complex-terrain flows on the estimation of the net ecosystem exchange of temperate forests
Dexiong Teng, Jiaojun Zhu, Tian Gao, Fengyuan Yu, Yuan Zhu, Xinhua Zhou, and Bai Yang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5581–5599, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5581-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5581-2024, 2024
Short summary
Multi-instrumental analysis of ozone vertical profiles and total columns in South America: comparison between subtropical and equatorial latitudes
Gabriela Dornelles Bittencourt, Hassan Bencherif, Damaris Kirsch Pinheiro, Nelson Begue, Lucas Vaz Peres, José Valentin Bageston, Douglas Lima de Bem, Francisco Raimundo da Silva, and Tristan Millet
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5201–5220, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5201-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5201-2024, 2024
Short summary
Transferability of machine-learning-based global calibration models for NO2 and NO low-cost sensors
Ayah Abu-Hani, Jia Chen, Vigneshkumar Balamurugan, Adrian Wenzel, and Alessandro Bigi
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3917–3931, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3917-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3917-2024, 2024
Short summary
Direct high-precision radon quantification for interpreting high frequency greenhouse gas measurements
Dafina Kikaj, Edward Chung, Alan D. Griffiths, Scott D. Chambers, Grant Foster, Angelina Wenger, Penelope Pickers, Chris Rennick, Simon O'Doherty, Joseph Pitt, Kieran Stanley, Dickon Young, Leigh S. Fleming, Karina Adcock, and Tim Arnold
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-54,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-54, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for AMT
Short summary

Cited articles

Bishop, C. M.: Pattern recognition and machine learning, Springer Science+Business Media, Singapore, 2006. a, b
Breiman, L.: Random forests, Mach. Learn., 45, 5–32, https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429469275-8, 2001. a, b
Breiman, L. and Friedman, J. H.: Predicting multivariate responses in multiple linear regression, J. Roy. Stat. Soc.-B, 59, 3–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00054, 1997. a
Casey, J. G. and Hannigan, M. P.: Testing the performance of field calibration techniques for low-cost gas sensors in new deployment locations: across a county line and across Colorado, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 6351–6378, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-6351-2018, 2018. a, b
Casey, J. G., Collier-Oxandale, A., and Hannigan, M.: Performance of artificial neural networks and linear models to quantify 4 trace gas species in an oil and gas production region with low-cost sensors, Sensor. Actuat. B-Chem., 283, 504–514, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2018.12.049, 2019. a
Download
Short summary
Machine learning (ML) calibration techniques could be an effective way to improve the performance of low-cost air pollution sensors. Here we provide novel insights from case studies within the urban area of London, UK, where we compared the performance of three ML techniques to calibrate low-cost measurements of NO2 and PM10. In particular, we highlight the key issue of the method-dependent robustness in maintaining calibration skill after transferring sensors to different measurement sites.