Articles | Volume 15, issue 13
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4091-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4091-2022
Research article
 | 
13 Jul 2022
Research article |  | 13 Jul 2022

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

Related authors

Long-term evaluation of commercial air quality sensors: an overview from the QUANT (Quantification of Utility of Atmospheric Network Technologies) study
Sebastian Diez, Stuart Lacy, Hugh Coe, Josefina Urquiza, Max Priestman, Michael Flynn, Nicholas Marsden, Nicholas A. Martin, Stefan Gillott, Thomas Bannan, and Pete M. Edwards
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3809–3827, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3809-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3809-2024, 2024
Short summary
A study on the performance of low-cost sensors for source apportionment at an urban background site
Dimitrios Bousiotis, David C. S. Beddows, Ajit Singh, Molly Haugen, Sebastián Diez, Pete M. Edwards, Adam Boies, Roy M. Harrison, and Francis D. Pope
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 4047–4061, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4047-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-4047-2022, 2022
Short summary
Assessing the sources of particles at an urban background site using both regulatory instruments and low-cost sensors – a comparative study
Dimitrios Bousiotis, Ajit Singh, Molly Haugen, David C. S. Beddows, Sebastián Diez, Killian L. Murphy, Pete M. Edwards, Adam Boies, Roy M. Harrison, and Francis D. Pope
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 4139–4155, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4139-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-4139-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
Preparation of low-concentration H2 test gas mixtures in ambient air for calibration of H2 sensors
Niklas Karbach, Lisa Höhler, Peter Hoor, Heiko Bozem, Nicole Bobrowski, and Thorsten Hoffmann
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 4081–4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-4081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Pico-Light H2O: intercomparison of in situ water vapour measurements during the AsA 2022 campaign
Mélanie Ghysels, Georges Durry, Nadir Amarouche, Dale Hurst, Emrys Hall, Kensy Xiong, Jean-Charles Dupont, Jean-Christophe Samake, Fabien Frérot, Raghed Bejjani, and Emmanuel D. Riviere
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3495–3513, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3495-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Mobile air quality monitoring and comparison to fixed monitoring sites for instrument performance assessment
Andrew R. Whitehill, Melissa Lunden, Brian LaFranchi, Surender Kaushik, and Paul A. Solomon
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2991–3009, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2991-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2991-2024, 2024
Short summary
Intercomparison of eddy-covariance software for urban tall-tower sites
Changxing Lan, Matthias Mauder, Stavros Stagakis, Benjamin Loubet, Claudio D'Onofrio, Stefan Metzger, David Durden, and Pedro-Henrique Herig-Coimbra
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2649–2669, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2649-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2649-2024, 2024
Short summary
Assessment of current methane emission quantification techniques for natural gas midstream applications
Yunsong Liu, Jean-Daniel Paris, Gregoire Broquet, Violeta Bescós Roy, Tania Meixus Fernandez, Rasmus Andersen, Andrés Russu Berlanga, Emil Christensen, Yann Courtois, Sebastian Dominok, Corentin Dussenne, Travis Eckert, Andrew Finlayson, Aurora Fernández de la Fuente, Catlin Gunn, Ram Hashmonay, Juliano Grigoleto Hayashi, Jonathan Helmore, Soeren Honsel, Fabrizio Innocenti, Matti Irjala, Torgrim Log, Cristina Lopez, Francisco Cortés Martínez, Jonathan Martinez, Adrien Massardier, Helle Gottschalk Nygaard, Paula Agregan Reboredo, Elodie Rousset, Axel Scherello, Matthias Ulbricht, Damien Weidmann, Oliver Williams, Nigel Yarrow, Murès Zarea, Robert Ziegler, Jean Sciare, Mihalis Vrekoussis, and Philippe Bousquet
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 1633–1649, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1633-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-1633-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Altman, D. G. and Bland, J. M.: Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison Studies, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. D-Sta., 32, 307–317, https://doi.org/10.2307/2987937, 1983. 
Andrewes, P., Bullock, S., Turnbull, R., and Coolbear, T.: Chemical instrumental analysis versus human evaluation to measure sensory properties of dairy products: What is fit for purpose?, Int. Dairy J., 121, 105098, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2021.105098, 2021. 
Bagkis, E., Kassandros, T., Karteris, M., Karteris, A., and Karatzas, K.: Analyzing and Improving the Performance of a Particulate Matter Low Cost Air Quality Monitoring Device, Atmosphere, 12, 251, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12020251, 2021. 
Baldauf, R., Watkins, N., Heist, D., Bailey, C., Rowley, P., and Shores, R.: Near-road air quality monitoring: Factors affecting network design and interpretation of data, Air Qual. Atmos. Hlth., 2, 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-009-0028-0, 2009. 
Bigi, A., Mueller, M., Grange, S. K., Ghermandi, G., and Hueglin, C.: Performance of NO, NO2 low cost sensors and three calibration approaches within a real world application, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 3717–3735, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-3717-2018, 2018. 
Download
Short summary
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.