Charles C. Sylvester, Nathaniel D. Hauenstein, Kabindra M. Shakya
{"title":"Validation of PurpleAir PM2.5 Sensors in Temperate Urban Environments","authors":"Charles C. Sylvester, Nathaniel D. Hauenstein, Kabindra M. Shakya","doi":"10.1021/acsestair.5c00443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Low-cost sensors (LCS), such as PurpleAir (PA), are widely\r\nused\r\nfor measuring fine particulate matter (PM<sub>2.5</sub>) because they\r\nare inexpensive, easy to deploy, and provide publicly accessible data.\r\nHowever, PA sensors are known to overestimate PM<sub>2.5</sub>, and\r\nthus, several correction methods have been developed to improve their\r\naccuracy. In this study, we evaluated accuracy by comparing nationwide\r\nand locally derived correction methods during summer and spring seasons,\r\nexamined PA output data types, assessed the influence of relative\r\nhumidity using both PA and weather station data, and analyzed the\r\nperformance after one year of field deployment. In the moderate climate\r\nof Philadelphia, the nationwide correction of Barkjohn et al. (2021)\r\ncombined with using the mean value of two PA<sub>atm</sub> data outputs\r\n(RMSE = 1.640 μg/m<sup>3</sup>, MBE = 0.103 μg/m<sup>3</sup>, <em>R</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.683) for both 1 h and 24 h measurements\r\nprovided the highest accuracy. Relative humidity measurements, whether\r\nobtained from a weather station or the PA sensor, had minimal effect\r\non PM<sub>2.5</sub> accuracy (difference in <em>R</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.04). PA sensor accuracy declined after one year of use\r\n(<em>R</em><sup>2</sup> = 0.567), showing requiring extra\r\nsensor calibration in long-term deployment. This methodology enhances\r\nthe performance of PA sensors and establishes greater trust in the\r\nLCS.</p>","PeriodicalId":100014,"journal":{"name":"ACS ES&T Air","volume":"3 10","pages":"2503–2512"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS ES&T Air","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestair.5c00443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Low-cost sensors (LCS), such as PurpleAir (PA), are widely
used
for measuring fine particulate matter (PM2.5) because they
are inexpensive, easy to deploy, and provide publicly accessible data.
However, PA sensors are known to overestimate PM2.5, and
thus, several correction methods have been developed to improve their
accuracy. In this study, we evaluated accuracy by comparing nationwide
and locally derived correction methods during summer and spring seasons,
examined PA output data types, assessed the influence of relative
humidity using both PA and weather station data, and analyzed the
performance after one year of field deployment. In the moderate climate
of Philadelphia, the nationwide correction of Barkjohn et al. (2021)
combined with using the mean value of two PAatm data outputs
(RMSE = 1.640 μg/m3, MBE = 0.103 μg/m3, R2 = 0.683) for both 1 h and 24 h measurements
provided the highest accuracy. Relative humidity measurements, whether
obtained from a weather station or the PA sensor, had minimal effect
on PM2.5 accuracy (difference in R2 = 0.04). PA sensor accuracy declined after one year of use
(R2 = 0.567), showing requiring extra
sensor calibration in long-term deployment. This methodology enhances
the performance of PA sensors and establishes greater trust in the
LCS.