Articles online

Evaluation of Nine Low-cost-sensor-based Particulate Matter Monitors

Category: Aerosol Physics and Instrumentation

Volume: 20 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 254-270
DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2018.12.0485

Export Citation:  RIS | BibTeX

To cite this article:
Li, J., Mattewal, S.K., Patel, S. and Biswas, P. (2020). Evaluation of Nine Low-cost-sensor-based Particulate Matter Monitors. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 20: 254-270. doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2018.12.0485.

Jiayu Li1, Simar K. Mattewal1,2, Sameer Patel1,3, Pratim Biswas 1

  • 1 Aerosol and Air Quality Research Laboratory, Department of Energy, Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
  • 2 Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India
  • 3 University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA


  • Characterizing nine different types of low-cost personal PM.
  • Demonstrating the need for user calibration for data accuracy from the monitors.
  • Studying the air quality index prediction and color display capabilities.


Due to their affordability, compact size, and moderate accuracy, low-cost sensors have been studied extensively in recent years. Different manufacturers employ different calibration methodologies and provide users with calibration factors for their models. This study assessed the performance of nine low-cost PM monitors (AirVisual, Alphasense, APT, Awair, Dylos, Foobot, PurpleAir, Wynd, and Xiaomi) in a chamber containing a well-defined aerosol. A GRIMM and a SidePak were used as the reference instruments. The monitors were divided into two groups according to their working principle and data reporting format, and a linear correlation factor for the PM2.5 mass concentration measurement was calculated for each monitor. Additionally, the differences between the mass concentrations reported by the various monitors and those measured by the reference instruments were plotted against their average before and after user calibration to demonstrate the degree of improvement possible with calibration. Bin-specific calibration was also performed for monitors reporting size distributions to demonstrate coincidence errors that could bias the results. Since monitors designed for residential use often display the air quality index, typically illustrating it with a simplified, color-coded index, the color schemes of various monitors were evaluated against the U.S. EPA regulation to determine whether they could convey the overall air quality accurately and promptly. Although these residential monitors indicated the air quality moderately well, their differing color schemes made the evaluation difficult and potentially inaccurate. Altogether, the tested monitors offer low-cost sensors in packages that are convenient for use and ready for deployment without additional assembly. However, to improve the accuracy of the measurements, user-defined calibration for the target PM source is still recommended.


Low-cost PM monitors Residential application Calibration and characterization Air quality index

Related Article

Low-cost PM2.5 Sensors: An Assessment of their Suitability for Various Applications

Rohan Jayaratne, Xiaoting Liu, Kang-Ho Ahn, Akwasi Asumadu-Sakyi, Gavin Fisher, Jian Gao, Adrian Mabon, Mandana Mazaheri, Benjamin Mullins, Mawutorli Nyaku, Zoran Ristovski, Yvonne Scorgie, Phong Thai, Matthew Dunbabin , Lidia Morawska

Influence of the Dilution System and Electrical Low Pressure Impactor Performance on Particulate Emission Measurements from a Medium-scale Biomass Boiler

Jordi F.P. Cornette , Thibault Coppieters, Dominique Desagher, Jurgen Annendijck, Hélène Lepaumier, Nathalie Faniel, Igor Dyakov, Julien Blondeau, Svend Bram

Estimation of Surface Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10) Mass Concentrations from Ceilometer Backscattered Profiles

Avinash N. Parde, Sachin D. Ghude , Prakash Pithani, Narendra G. Dhangar, Sandip Nivdange, Gopal Krishna, D.M. Lal, R. Jenamani, Pankaj Singh, Chinmay Jena, Ramakrishna Karumuri, P.D. Safai, D.M. Chate
Accepted Manuscripts
DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2019.08.0371