the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Performance evaluation of air quality sensors for environmental epidemiology
Abstract. Over the past few decades, the study and the use of air quality sensors have significantly increased, leading to a wealth of experience and a deeper understanding of their strengths and limitations. This study aimed to transcend the limitations by developing and evaluating a methodology for PM2.5 and NO2 sensors to enhance sensor accuracy to a level suitable for epidemiological studies, where ensuring data quality is paramount. The performance evaluation of indoor and outdoor sensors was carried out during the co-location phase with reference instruments (RIs), by calculating common error metrics, target diagrams and the relative expanded uncertainties (REUs) stated in the EU Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC and the recently published EU Directive 2024/2881, before the deployment of the air quality sensor systems (AQSSs) in the houses of patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma in Stuttgart (Germany). Regression and machine learning models for sensor calibration were tested during the co-location. Moreover, an original methodology was designed and evaluated to validate the sensor data during the epidemiological study. The study found that indoor sensor calibration using artificially generated NO2 and aerosols does not ensure model transferability, emphasizing the need for training data that matches the intended deployment environment in terms of real patterns of concentration, particle composition and environmental conditions. Integrating metadata such as activity logs, window status, and data from official monitoring stations, proved essential for data validation and interpretation during the sensor deployment in the houses of the participants. Despite limitations at low pollutant levels, calibrated AQSSs are a promising tool to increase the ubiquity of epidemiological studies for low- and middle-income countries or regions where higher air pollutant concentrations are expected.
- Preprint
(2260 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2714 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-587', Laurent Spinelle, 02 Apr 2025
First of all I would like to congratulate the author for this very interesting and very complete work on the real use of sensor system in an epidemiologic study. The use of the uncertainty as a marker for reliability is a very interesting choice. However, I would like to emphasize that the European Directive DQO uses a specific value usually taken as the limit value set by the Directive itself. Nevertheless, the work presented in this paper ha been carried out with great care resulting in a very nice publication. You can find below some comments I had on some specific point:
- Table 2: in the comparison with outdoor AQMS, how did you defined the 6km limit ?
- Line 272-273: the REU needs to be calculated at a given value, usually the limit value also set in the Directive. You do not mentionned those value here, will you use a specific one ?
- Line 281: why did you mentioned both directive as the 2024 will overcome the 2008 ?
- Figure 3: this kind of figure is not easy to read. I do understand that the main idea is to show a general trend but I'm a bit overwhelmed by so many information.
- Figure 3: which indicative measurement DQO did you select 2008 or 2024 ?
- Figure 6: I would advise the author to change the color scheme, currently indoor (pink) and outdoor (dark pink) to get a more distinguishable colors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-587-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Miriam Chacón-Mateos, 18 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-587', Sebastian Diez, 08 Apr 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-587/egusphere-2025-587-RC2-supplement.pdf
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Miriam Chacón-Mateos, 18 May 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
256 | 104 | 15 | 375 | 26 | 10 | 12 |
- HTML: 256
- PDF: 104
- XML: 15
- Total: 375
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1