Articles | Volume 16, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-169-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-169-2023
Research article
 | 
13 Jan 2023
Research article |  | 13 Jan 2023

Identifying optimal co-location calibration periods for low-cost sensors

Misti Levy Zamora, Colby Buehler, Abhirup Datta, Drew R. Gentner, and Kirsten Koehler

Related authors

Formation, radiative forcing, and climatic effects of severe regional haze
Yun Lin, Yuan Wang, Bowen Pan, Jiaxi Hu, Song Guo, Misti Levy Zamora, Pengfei Tian, Qiong Su, Yuemeng Ji, Jiayun Zhao, Mario Gomez-Hernandez, Min Hu, and Renyi Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4951–4967, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4951-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4951-2022, 2022
Short summary
Stationary and portable multipollutant monitors for high-spatiotemporal-resolution air quality studies including online calibration
Colby Buehler, Fulizi Xiong, Misti Levy Zamora, Kate M. Skog, Joseph Kohrman-Glaser, Stefan Colton, Michael McNamara, Kevin Ryan, Carrie Redlich, Matthew Bartos, Brandon Wong, Branko Kerkez, Kirsten Koehler, and Drew R. Gentner
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 995–1013, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-995-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-995-2021, 2021
Short summary
Wintertime aerosol properties in Beijing
Misti Levy Zamora, Jianfei Peng, Min Hu, Song Guo, Wilmarie Marrero-Ortiz, Dongjie Shang, Jing Zheng, Zhuofei Du, Zhijun Wu, and Renyi Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 14329–14338, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14329-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-14329-2019, 2019
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Aerosols | Technique: In Situ Measurement | Topic: Validation and Intercomparisons
A 2-year intercomparison of three methods for measuring black carbon concentration at a high-altitude research station in Europe
Sarah Tinorua, Cyrielle Denjean, Pierre Nabat, Véronique Pont, Mathilde Arnaud, Thierry Bourrianne, Maria Dias Alves, and Eric Gardrat
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3897–3915, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3897-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3897-2024, 2024
Short summary
Comparison of the LEO and CPMA-SP2 techniques for black-carbon mixing-state measurements
Arash Naseri, Joel C. Corbin, and Jason S. Olfert
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3719–3738, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3719-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3719-2024, 2024
Short summary
Aerosol trace element solubility determined using ultrapure water batch leaching: an intercomparison study of four different leaching protocols
Rui Li, Prema Piyusha Panda, Yizhu Chen, Zhenming Zhu, Fu Wang, Yujiao Zhu, He Meng, Yan Ren, Ashwini Kumar, and Mingjin Tang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 3147–3156, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3147-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-3147-2024, 2024
Short summary
Field comparison of dual- and single-spot Aethalometers: equivalent black carbon, light absorption, Ångström exponent and secondary brown carbon estimations
Liangbin Wu, Cheng Wu, Tao Deng, Dui Wu, Mei Li, Yong Jie Li, and Zhen Zhou
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2917–2936, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2917-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2917-2024, 2024
Short summary
Comparison of the imaginary parts of the atmospheric refractive index structure parameter and aerosol flux based on different measurement methods
Renmin Yuan, Hongsheng Zhang, Jiajia Hua, Hao Liu, Peizhe Wu, Xingyu Zhu, and Jianning Sun
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2089–2102, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2089-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2089-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Air Quality Sensor Performance Evaluation Center (AQ-SPEC): Field Evaluation of AirThinx IAQ, 2016, Field Evaluation of AirThinx IAQ, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/aq-spec/field-evaluations/airthinx-iaq--field-evaluation.pdf?sfvrsn=18, (last access: March 2022), 2016a. 
Air Quality Sensor Performance Evaluation Center (AQ-SPEC): Field Evaluation Purple Air (PA-II) PM Sensor, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/aq-spec/field-evaluations/purple-air-pa-ii---field-evaluation.pdf?sfvrsn=2, (last access: March 2022), 2016b. 
Buehler, C., Xiong, F., Zamora, M. L., Skog, K. M., Kohrman-Glaser, J., Colton, S., McNamara, M., Ryan, K., Redlich, C., Bartos, M., Wong, B., Kerkez, B., Koehler, K., and Gentner, D. R.: Stationary and portable multipollutant monitors for high-spatiotemporal-resolution air quality studies including online calibration, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 995–1013, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-995-2021, 2021. 
Cross, E. S., Williams, L. R., Lewis, D. K., Magoon, G. R., Onasch, T. B., Kaminsky, M. L., Worsnop, D. R., and Jayne, J. T.: Use of electrochemical sensors for measurement of air pollution: correcting interference response and validating measurements, Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 3575–3588, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-3575-2017, 2017. 
Datta, A., Saha, A., Zamora, M. L., Buehler, C., Hao, L., Xiong, F., Gentner, D. R., and Koehler, K.: Statistical field calibration of a low-cost PM2.5 monitoring network in Baltimore, Atmos. Environ., 242, 117761, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117761, 2020. 
Download
Short summary
We assessed five pairs of co-located reference and low-cost sensor data sets (PM2.5, O3, NO2, NO, and CO) to make recommendations for best practices regarding the field calibration of low-cost air quality sensors. We found diminishing improvements for calibration periods longer than about 6 weeks for all sensors and that co-location can be minimized if the period is strategically selected and monitored so that the calibration period is representative of the desired measurement setting.