Laboratory evaluation of the effects of particle size and composition on the performance of integrated devices containing Plantower particle sensors

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of tested sensors in this study.

Sensor	Type	Cost	Sensor	No. of Units	Mass Conc. Range (µg m^−3)
ID1	AirThinx IAQ	$699	BS3	1	0 − 500
ID2	AirBeam2	$200	PMS7003	3	0 − 1000
ID4	TSI BlueSky	N/A	Dual BS3	2	0 − 1000
ID5	PurpleAir II	$229	Dual BS3	3	0 − 1000
BS3	Plantower PMS5003	$25	N/A	2	0 − 1000

See text for details regarding the exclusion of ID3, BS1, and BS2.

Figure 1. General experimental set up for decay tests. All sensors were co-located in the same chamber, labeled as “Sensors.” For some experiments, the SMPS was split into a fixed-voltage DMA for size-selection upstream of that chamber and a CPC downstream of the chamber for particle counting.

Table 2. Assumed densities for the tested particle sources in this study.

Source	Density (g cm^−3)	Reference
(NH4)2SO4	1.77	Zelenyuk et al. (2006)
Incense	1.06	Cheng et al. (1995); Singer and Delp (2018)
Toast	0.94	Singer and Delp (2018)
Propane torch	1.9	Khalizov et al. (2012);
Arizona Test Dust	2.7	Teipel et al. (2008); Singer and Delp (2018)

Figure 2. Mean slope and R² for each particle source for ID5 (PurpleAir II). These data represent the total mass concentration output by the sensors and the total mass concentration inferred from the SMPS + APS (i.e., the values input into the box-and-whisker plot in Figure S3). Error bars represent one standard deviation in both panels.

Figure 3. Results for experiments using size-selected propane torch and (NH₄)₂SO₄ particles for ID4 (TSI BlueSky). Bars represent the mean, and error bars represent standard deviation.

Figure 4. Slope and average R² for each particle source for ID4 (TSI BlueSky), considering total mass concentration, PM₁, PM_1–2.5, and PM_2.5–10. The size fraction data represent the “as-reported” values from the sensors and the integrated mass concentration within the size range from the SMPS + APS. Bars represent the mean, and error bars represent standard deviation.

Table 3. Average mass median diameter and geometric standard deviation for all replicates of each particle source tested.

	Mass median diameter		Geometric standard deviation
	Mode 1	Mode 2	Mode 1	Mode 2
Incense - trial 1	153 nm	6.11 µm	1.85	1.25
Incense - trial 2	117 nm	7.91 µm	1.76	1.30
Incense - trial 3	189 nm	8.03 µm	1.98	1.33
Incense - trial 4	130 nm	6.93 µm	1.89	1.29
Toast - trial 1	132 nm	6.90 µm	1.92	1.21
Toast - trial 2	130 nm	6.88 µm	1.90	1.20
Toast - trial 3	131 nm	7.36 µm	1.95	1.28
Toast - trial 4	126 nm	8.21 µm	2.01	1.26
(NH4)2SO4 - trial 1	494 nm	n/a	1.53	n/a
(NH4)2SO4 - trial 2	486 nm	n/a	1.53	n/a
(NH4)2SO4 - trial 3	468 nm	n/a	1.45	n/a
(NH4)2SO4 - trial 4	490 nm	n/a	1.49	n/a
Propane torch - trial 1	318 nm	n/a	1.58	n/a
Propane torch - trial 2	309 nm	n/a	1.52	n/a
Propane torch - trial 3	272 nm	n/a	1.48	n/a
Propane torch - trial 4	285 nm	n/a	1.53	n/a
Dust - trial 1	2.7 µm^a	n/a	1.85	n/a
Dust - trial 2	2.01 µm^a	n/a	1.44	n/a
Dust - trial 3	1.24 µm^a	n/a	1.35	n/a
Dust - trial 4	1.33 µm^a	n/a	1.34	n/a

These values were derived from the merged SMPS + APS data.

^a Larger dust particles likely settled out of the air prior to sampling. There is not strong evidence that the reference instruments have under-sampled these particles.

Zelenyuk, A., C. Yong, and D. Imre. 2006. From agglomerates of spheres to irregularly shaped particles: Determination of dynamic shape factors from measurements of mobility and vacuum aerodynamic diameters. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 40 (3):197–217. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820500529406.

 Google Scholar

Cheng, Y. S., W. E. Bechtold, C. C. Yu, and I. F. Hung. 1995. Incense smoke: Characterization and dynamics in indoor environments. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 23 (3):271–81. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02786829508965312.

 Google Scholar

Singer, B. C., and W. W. Delp. 2018. Response of consumer and research grade indoor air quality monitors to residential sources of fine particles. Indoor Air. 28 (4):624–39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12463.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Khalizov, A. F., H. Brian, Chong Qiu, E. L. Petersen, and R. Zhang. 2012. Characterization of soot aerosol produced from combustion of propane in a shock tube. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 46 (8):925–36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02786826.2012.683839.

 Google Scholar

Teipel, U., H. Winter, J. Cäsar, and A. Gromov. 2008. Characterization of test dust for product qualification. Bulk Solids & Powder. Sci. & Technol. 3 (4):155–16.

 Google Scholar