Air pollution measurement errors: is your data fit for purpose?
Sebastian Diez,Stuart E. Lacy,Thomas J. Bannan,Michael Flynn,Tom Gardiner,David Harrison,Nicholas Marsden,Nicholas A. Martin,Katie Read,and Pete M. Edwards
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Centre for Atmospheric Science, School of Natural Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Michael Flynn
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Centre for Atmospheric Science, School of Natural Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Tom Gardiner
National Physical Laboratory, Teddington TW11 0LW, UK
Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Centre for Atmospheric Science, School of Natural Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
Nicholas A. Martin
National Physical Laboratory, Teddington TW11 0LW, UK
Katie Read
Wolfson Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratories, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
Regardless of the cost of the measuring instrument, there are no perfect measurements. For this reason, we compare the quality of the information provided by cheap devices when they are used to measure air pollutants and we try to emphasise that before judging the potential usefulness of the devices, the user must specify his own needs. Since commonly used performance indices/metrics can be misleading in qualifying this, we propose complementary visual analysis to the more commonly used metrics.
Regardless of the cost of the measuring instrument, there are no perfect measurements. For this...
