the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Apr 2024
An overview of outdoor low-cost gas-phase air quality sensor deployments: current efforts, trends, and limitations
Abstract. We reviewed 60 sensor networks and 15 related efforts (sensor review papers and data accessibility projects) to better understand the landscape of stationary low-cost gas-phase sensor networks deployed in outdoor environments worldwide. This study is not exhaustive of every gas-phase sensor network on the globe, but rather exists to categorize types of sensor networks by their key characteristics and explore general trends. This also exposes gaps in monitoring efforts to date, especially regarding the availability of gas-phase measurements compared to particulate matter (PM), and geographic coverage gaps (the global south, rural areas). We categorize ground-based networks that measure gas-phase air pollutants into two main subsets based on their deployment type: quasi-permanent (long-term) and campaign (short to medium-term) and explore commonplace practices, strengths, and weaknesses of stationary monitoring networks. We conclude with a summary of cross-network unification and quality control efforts. This work aims to help scientists looking to build a sensor network explore best practices and common pathways, and aid end users in finding low-cost sensor datasets that meet their needs.
- Preprint
(2110 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(341 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Jul 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1004 [Labzovskii et al.]', Lev Labzovskii, 10 Apr 2024
reply
We have noticed a citation on the low-cost AQ network from Siberia in your work; the network we used to publish Lin et al. (2020) work about studying AQ using synergy of sensors and satellites in Siberia. I am thinking about this statement you made: "We encountered one PM study in the region (Lin et. al., 2020) and one study using spatially-distributed passive sampling (Khuriganova et. al., 2019), but no true gas-phase low-cost sensor studies, highlighting the need for more monitoring and availability of data in this region.").
Considering this statement, I'd advise to look at another study from our side on the topic of AQ using cheap sensors in Siberia (Labzovskii et al., 2023; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290112200363X). From this study, you can learn more about situation on AQ monitoring in Siberia (in particular in Krasnoyarsk) with its drivers, challenges and pitfalls. In fact, we managed to show that Krasnoyarsk is the first case in the world, where citizen monitoring-driven system by Nebo activists (https://nebo.live/pages/neboair) has led to full-scale decentralization of AQ urban monitoring. You can learn more about this network in the paper, but in short - Nebo sensors are being used alongside governmental sensors in many AQ aggregators like waqi.info and by people to judge about air quality. This comment will help complementing the scarce information your provided about sensors in Russia and Eastern Europe.
P.s. Among the low-cost sensors networks you mentioned I have not noticed not only Nebo, but also Smart Air Bangladesh and this initiative - https://github.com/CodeForAfrica/sensors.AFRICA. There are many more, but its outside of the scope of my comment! Good luckCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1004-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Kristen Okorn, 10 Apr 2024
reply
Thank you for your comments! We will add a reference to the Labzovskii et. al. 2023 paper in the Siberia section to mention the Nebo sensors as another PM effort, and add a bit more context as to why sensors are lacking in this region. The paper has a lot of valuable context which will be helpful to the reader. Nebo will remain a reference for future reading and not a full review, however, since it only measures PM rather than gas-phase compounds.
Thank you for mentioning the additional sensor networks as well. SmartAir Bangladesh seems to be made for indoor and wearable monitoring – we did not encounter any studies using these sensors in a stationary outdoor deployment, so it does not seem to meet our criteria for inclusion as detailed in section 1.4.
Thank you for mentioning sensors.africa as well. This network seems to only measure PM, so it is also outside the scope of our review, but I can add a reference for further reading where appropriate.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1004-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Kristen Okorn, 10 Apr 2024
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1004', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jun 2024
reply
The manuscript devoted to an impressive review on sensor networks and related efforts to monitor air quality worldwide. Significant analysis has been done by deep approach and methodology. Many features have been outlined in different Countries: particulate matter and gases have been reviewed as deployed by universities, research groups and private companies. Some key references should be added to complement the full list:
M. Penza (2020). Low-cost sensors for outdoor air quality monitoring - Book Chapter - Advanced Nanomaterials for Inexpensive Gas Microsensors (2020) 235-288 - Editor E. Llobet. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814827-3.00012-8
Philipp Schneider, Alena Bartonova, Nuria Castell, Franck R. Dauge, Michel Gerboles, Gayle S.W. Hagler, Christoph Hüglin, Roderic L. Jones, Sean Khan, Alastair C. Lewis, Bas Mijling, Michael Müller, Michele Penza, Laurent Spinelle, Brian Stacey, Matthias Vogt, Joost Wesseling, Ronald W. Williams (2019). Toward a Unified Terminology of Processing Levels for Low-Cost Air-Quality Sensors - Environmental Science and Technology, 2019, 53, 15, 8485-8487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03950
C. Borrego, J. Ginja, M. Coutinho, C. Ribeiro, K. Karatzas, Th Sioumis, N. Katsifarakis, K. Konstantinidis, S. De Vito, E. Esposito, M. Salvato, P. Smith, N. André, P. Gérard, L.A. Francis, N. Castell, P. Schneider, M. Viana, M.C. Minguillón, W. Reimringer, R.P. Otjes, O. von Sicard, R. Pohle, B. Elen, D. Suriano, V. Pfister, M. Prato, S. Dipinto, M. Penza (2018). Assessment of air quality microsensors versus reference methods: The EuNetAir joint exercise - Part II - Atmospheric Environment, 2018, 193, 127-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.08.028
World Meteorological Organization, 2021 WMO Report No. 1215 - An update on low-cost sensors for the measurement of atmospheric composition. Editor: Richard E. Peltier. Lead Authors: Núria Castell, Andrea L Clements, Tim Dye, Christoph Hüglin, Jesse H Kroll, Shih-Chun Candice Lung, Zhi Ning, Matthew Parsons, Michele Penza, Fabienne Reisen, Erika von Schneidemesser. ISBN 978-92-63-11215-6. https://library.wmo.int/index.php?id=21508&lvl=notice_display#.Yifnz3yZPIU
World Meteorological Organization, 2018 WMO Report No. 1215. Low -cost sensors for the measurement of atmospheric composition: overview of topic and future applications. Editors: Alastair C. Lewis, Erika von Schneidemesser and Richard E. Peltier. Lead Authors: SC Candice Lung, Rod Jones, Christoph Zellweger, Ari Karppinen, Michele Penza, Tim Dye, Christoph Hüglin, Zhi Ning, Alastair C. Lewis, Erika von Schneidemesser, Richard E. Peltier, Roland Leigh, David Hagan, Olivier Laurent and Greg Carmichael. ISBN 978-92-63-11215-6. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/aq-spec/resources-page/low_cost_sensors_post_review_final.pdf?sfvrsn=6
Minor typo: at page 17, the reference Sun et al., 2016 is related to "Hong Kong Marathon" and not related to "Beijing Marathon". Please, amend properly the text.
I kindly suggest Minor Revisions before publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1004-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 290 | 131 | 20 | 441 | 38 | 11 | 12 |
- HTML: 290
- PDF: 131
- XML: 20
- Total: 441
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1