Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4589
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4589
19 Oct 2026
 | 19 Oct 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (AMT).

Spatial and temporal approaches for differentiating local source and background air quality impacts using low-cost sensor networks

Caroline Frischmon, Grace E. Berg, MiKyla Harjamaki, Gabriela Cortes, Evan R. Coffey, and Michael P. Hannigan

Abstract. Low-cost sensor (LCS) networks are increasingly used to characterize the impacts of local air pollution sources. Researchers have developed a variety of methods to differentiate local impacts from background influences; however, these methods differ substantially in their definitions, assumptions, and resulting insights.  This study compares four spatial and temporal techniques for isolating local influences: Spatial Network, Peak Finding, Fourier Decomposition, and Wavelet Decomposition. We apply these techniques to three pollutants across two LCS networks to assess their strengths, limitations, and suitability for different contexts. The Spatial Network approach performed better for pollutants with spatially localized plumes and low regional background, such as coarse particulate matter, but was sensitive to systematic sensor bias. In contrast, the temporal approaches were more robust to sensor bias but were instead limited by their underlying assumption of the short-lived nature of local impacts. The Peak Finding approach was effective for identifying episodic plume events but struggled to differentiate local impacts for pollutants with strong diurnal variability, such as nitrogen dioxide. Wavelet Decomposition and Fourier Decomposition provided greater flexibility for separating variability across multiple temporal scales, such as diurnal, weekly, and seasonal cycles. Each method also showed distinct tradeoffs in implementation complexity, parameter sensitivity, and data completeness requirements. These findings demonstrate that researchers should select a technique according to the community context, pollutant characteristics, and data quality rather than applying a single approach universally.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
Share
Caroline Frischmon, Grace E. Berg, MiKyla Harjamaki, Gabriela Cortes, Evan R. Coffey, and Michael P. Hannigan

Status: open (until 24 Nov 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Caroline Frischmon, Grace E. Berg, MiKyla Harjamaki, Gabriela Cortes, Evan R. Coffey, and Michael P. Hannigan
Caroline Frischmon, Grace E. Berg, MiKyla Harjamaki, Gabriela Cortes, Evan R. Coffey, and Michael P. Hannigan
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 19 Oct 2026
Download
Short summary
Low-cost sensor networks capture air quality dynamics at high spatiotemporal scales, but many insights depend on disentangling local and background influences. We applied four approaches for isolating local impacts to three datasets, each representing a different context. There was no single best approach; instead, we identified tradeoffs in each's flexibility, sensitivity to bias and data gaps, and outputs. Future work could explore approaches that define local impacts in both space and time.
Share