Although accurate and precise, filter-based measurements are expensive, time-consuming, and provide little temporal information. These measurements are based on gravimetric, filter-based methods (the “gold standard”), or methods deemed equivalent to filter-based methods ( NIOSH, 1975). To avoid the development of adverse health effects from inhaling particles, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to maintain workplace, 8-h time-weighted average, respirable PM below 5 mg/m 3 for particles not otherwise regulated (PNOR) ( OSHA, 2006). In occupational studies, exposure to respirable particulate matter (PM), the fraction of particles that can penetrate to the alveolar regions of the lungs ( Antonini, 2003), is associated with respiratory diseases ( Antonini, 2003, Taylor, Zimmer, & Roberts, 2004), lung cancer ( Sørensen et al., 2007), and cardiovascular diseases ( Li et al., 2015). These findings suggest that the Foobot, with a linear response to different aerosol types and good precision, can provide reasonable estimates of PM 2.5 in the workplace after site-specific calibration to account for particle size and composition. Precision was excellent for the Foobot (coefficient of variation range: 5% to 8%) and AirBeam (2% to 9%), but poorer for the Speck (8% to 25%). All three photometers had a bias (< −82%) for welding fume. AirBeam bias was (−36%) for salt and (−83%) for welding fume. Speck bias was at 18% salt for ARD and −86% for welding fume. Foobot bias was (< −46%) for salt and welding fume aerosols. The Foobot bias was (−12%) for ARD and measurements were similar to the medium-cost instrument. ![]() Compared to reference instruments, mass concentrations measured with the Foobot (r-value = 0.99) and medium-cost photometer (r-value = 0.99) show strong correlation, whereas those from the Speck (r-value range 0.88 – 0.99) and AirBeam (0.7 – 0.96) were less correlated. Three of each type of CAM were included to estimate precision. In a laboratory study, PM 2.5 measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from reference instruments for three aerosols (salt, welding fume, and Arizona road dust, ARD) at concentrations up to 8500 μg/m 3. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings. PocketLab has the same features as lab equipment that costs thousands of dollars but is low cost and intuitive to use.Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available. Using the PocketLab app, you can easily analyze your data, create graphs, and integrate your data with other software. PocketLab measures motion, acceleration, angular velocity, magnetic field, pressure, altitude, and temperature. PocketLab connects with a single button to a smart phone, tablet, Chromebook, or computer and instantly streams data that you can see and record. ![]() ![]() By documenting and leveraging health and environmental data to inform personal decision-making and public policy, the AirCasting platform empowers citizen scientists and changemakers. The platform consists of wearable sensors that detect changes in your environment and physiology, including a palm-sized air quality monitor called the AirBeam, the AirCasting Android app, the AirCasting website, and optional wearable LED accessories. AirCasting is an open-source, end-to-end solution for collecting, displaying, and sharing health and environmental data using your smartphone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |