Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

ISSN: 1096-2247 (Print) 2162-2906 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm20

Laboratory and field evaluation of real-time and

near real-time PM2.5 smoke monitors

Ahmed Mehadi, Hans Moosmüller, David E. Campbell, Walter Ham, Donald

Schweizer, Leland Tarnay & Julie Hunter

To cite this article: Ahmed Mehadi, Hans Moosmüller, David E. Campbell, Walter Ham, Donald
Schweizer, Leland Tarnay & Julie Hunter (2020) Laboratory and field evaluation of real-time and
near real-time PM2.5 smoke monitors, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 70:2,
158-179, DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2019.1654036

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1654036

View supplementary material

Published online: 06 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1140

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 14 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
2020, VOL. 70, NO. 2, 158–179
https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1654036

TECHNICAL PAPER

Laboratory and field evaluation of real-time and near real-time PM2.5 smoke
monitors
Ahmed Mehadia, Hans Moosmüllerb, David E. Campbellb, Walter Hama, Donald Schweizerc,d, Leland Tarnaye,
and Julie Hunterf
a
Monitoring and Laboratory Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, USA; bDesert Research Institute, Nevada System of
Higher Education, Reno, NV, USA; cU.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Bishop, CA, USA; dHealth
Sciences Research Institute, University of California, Merced, CA, USA; eU.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest
Region Remote Sensing Lab, McClellan, CA, USA; fWashoe County Health District, Reno, NV, USA

ABSTRACT PAPER HISTORY

Increases in large wildfire frequency and intensity and a longer fire season in the western United Received February 2, 2019
States are resulting in a significant increase in air pollution, including concentrations of PM2.5 Revised July 24, 2019
(particulate matter <2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter) that pose significant health risks to nearby Accepted July 25, 2019
communities. During wildfires, government agencies monitor PM2.5 mass concentrations providing
information and actions needed to protect affected communities; this requires continuously measur-
ing instruments. This study assessed the performance of seven candidate instruments: (1) Met One
Environmental beta attenuation monitor (EBAM), (2) Met One ES model 642 (ES642), (3) Grimm
Environmental Dust Monitor 164 (EDM), (4) Thermo ADR 1500 (ADR), (5) TSI DRX model 8543 (DRX),
(6) Dylos 1700 (Dylos), and (7) Purple Air II (PA-II) in comparison with a BAM 1020 (BAM) reference
instrument. With the exception of the EBAM, all candidates use light scattering to determine PM2.5
mass concentrations. Our comparison study included environmental chamber and field components,
with two of each candidate instrument operating next to the reference instrument. The chamber
component involved 6 days of comparisons for biomass combustion emissions. The field component
involved operating all instruments in an air monitoring station for 39.5 days with hourly average
relative humidity (RH) ranging from 19% to 98%. Goals were to assess instrument precision and
accuracy and effects of RH, elemental carbon (EC), and organic carbon (OC) concentrations. All
replicate candidate instruments showed high hourly correlations (R2 ≥ 0.80) and higher daily average
correlations (R2 ≥ 0.90), where all instruments correlated well (R2 ≥ 0.80) with the reference. The DRX
and Purple Air overestimated PM2.5 mass concentrations by a factor of ~two. Differences between
candidates and reference were more pronounced at higher PM2.5 concentrations. All optical instru-
ments were affected by high RH and by the EC/OC ratio. Equations to convert candidate instruments
data to FEM BAM type data are provided to enhance the usability of data from candidate instruments.
Implications: This study tested the performance of seven candidate PM2.5 mass concentration
measuring instruments in two settings - environmental chamber and field. The instruments were tested
to determine their suitability for use during biomass combustion events and the effects of RH, PM mass
concentrations, and concentrations of EC and OC on their performance. The accuracy and precision of
each monitor and effect of RH, PM concentration, EC and OC concentrations are varied. The data show
that most of these candidate instruments are suitable for measuring PM2.5 concentration during
biomass combustions with a proper correction factor for each instrument type.

Introduction to Wildfire PM2.5 Monitoring
Motivation
In the western United States, large wildfires are increas-
ing in frequency and intensity and the fire season is
growing longer (Westerling et al. 2006). Prescribed
fires, which are used to manage wildlands and to
reduce the risk of wildfires, are also increasing.
Increases in frequency and intensity of fires result in
a significant increase in air pollution, including con-
centrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), posing
higher health risks to residents in nearby communities
(Reid et al. 2016) and to those most vulnerable (Upton
and Wheeling 2017). It is important to measure mass
concentrations of PM2.5 on a real-time base during fire
incidents to issue timely health advisories to protect
public health and to better understand atmospheric
processes.

CONTACT Hans Moosmüller Hans.Moosmuller@dri.edu Desert Research Institute, Nevada System of Higher Education, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno,
NV 89512, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the paper can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uawm.
Supplemental data for this paper can be accessed on the publisher’s website.
© 2019 A&WMA

Objective
The objective of this study was to identify potential can-
didate monitors for measuring PM2.5 mass concentrations
generated during biomass combustion over the wide con-
centration ranges expected during wildland fires that are
accurate, precise, easy to transport and setup, relatively
inexpensive, and can transmit data. This was accom-
plished using environmental chamber and field tests.
The environmental chamber test was used to identify
the effects of humidity, PM, and organic and elemental
carbon concentrations on the performance of the can-
didate monitors under controlled conditions. The field
test data were used to determine instrument precision
and to compare the candidate monitors to the FEM
BAM 1020 (BAM) in real-world conditions.
Comparison to the FEM BAM was used to deter-
mine accuracy. Duplicate candidate monitors were
compared to each other for precision.
Regulatory environment
In 1997 the U.S. EPA established PM2.5 mass concentra-
tion standards that were revised in 2012 to make them
more stringent. With these standards, the U.S. EPA also
set requirements for instruments that can be used to
measure ambient PM2.5 mass concentrations and
approved several instruments as federal reference meth-
ods (FRM) and federal equivalent methods (FEM) to
determine compliance with the ambient air quality stan-
dards (U.S. EPA 2013). According to the
15 December 2017 list of FRMs and FEMs (U.S. EPA/
ORD 2017), most of the approved methods are filter-
based, where particles are collected on filters, equilibrated
and their mass determined in approved environmental
laboratories by weighing filters before and after PM sam-
pling. Filter-based methods are accurate and precise, but
measurements are expensive, time consuming, and pro-
vide little spatiotemporal information (McMurry 2000).
Since 2008, some automated methods have been
approved as FEMs for PM2.5 mass concentration mea-
surements. The approved automated instruments for all
pollutants, other than for PM10, are acceptable for use
only when operated in a shelter where the temperature is
between 20°C and 30°C as prescribed in the method (U.S.
EPA 2013).
Instrument needs
Automated or continuous measurements provide quick
and higher resolution temporal PM2.5 data (Solomon
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 159
and Sioutas 2008). These timely and high-resolution
data can be used by authorities to make timely deci-
sions to protect public health. During emergencies (e.g.,
wildfires) measurements should be taken near and
downwind of the incident and therefore, the monitor-
ing equipment should require no shelter and be easily
transportable and installable when needed. None of the
approved automated methods can be used if the inci-
dence occurs away from monitoring stations as they
require proper sheltering. Preparing the required
instrument shelter in remote locations is time consum-
ing, hence not practical in emergency situations.
Principles of optical PM monitoring
Many continuous instruments use light scattering opti-
cal methods – photometers or optical particle counters
(OPC) for continuous PM measurements. Optical
methods are based on the interaction of light with
particles. OPCs characterize the light scattered by indi-
vidual particles to estimate particle number concentra-
tions for different particle size ranges. This is very
important because for small particles (diameter
d much smaller than wavelength λ, i.e., d < 0.06 λ),
the particle scattering cross section is proportionally to
the particle volume squared making the mass scattering
efficiency proportional to the particle volume or mass
(Moosmüller and Sorensen 2018a, 2018b). Therefore,
total scattering is a poor indicator for mass concentra-
tion unless it is measured as function of particle size.
Particle number is converted to PM mass using particle
size distribution and assumptions for particle mass
density and shape. Photometers measure PM mass
based on light scattering by an ensemble of particles
present in the optical detection volume. Based on the
signal intensity, PM mass concentration is determined.
Most commercial light scattering instruments use
wavelengths of ~600 nm (Hinds 1999; Giechaskiel
et al. 2014).
Evaluation of optical PM monitoring instruments
Some optical PM instruments – Environmental Dust
Monitor (EDM) (Grimm and Eatough 2009), Purple Air
(SCAQMD, 2017), and Dylos (Carvlin et al., 2017) use
OPCs to determine PM number concentrations. EDM
and Purple Air convert PM number concentrations (m−3)
to PM mass concentrations (µg/m3) using pre-established
conversion factors while the Dylos outputs only PM num-
ber concentrations. The interactions of light with PM and
160 A. MEHADI ET AL.
the relation of that interaction to PM mass concentration
depends on particle size, shape, mass density, optical prop-
erties, and composition (Wallace et al. 2011; Yanosky,
Williams, and MacIntosh 2002). Therefore, relationships
between the outputs of real-time continuous optical instru-
ments and standard gravimetric methods used to evaluate
compliance with air quality standards need to be
established.
In 2003 and 2006, the performance of several con-
tinuous PM2.5 mass monitors was characterized in an
environmental chamber at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service Missoula Technology and
Development Center (Trent 2003, 2006). In 2003, the
performance of the Met One EBAM and ES642 and of
the Thermo-Electron MIE DataRAM 4 were evaluated
relative to the FRM. Three years later, the TSI DustTrak
and the modified Met One EBAM and ES642 were also
evaluated. During these evaluations, the chamber PM2.5
mass concentration from biomass combustion varied
between 21 µg/m3 and 1706 µg/m3. The FRM vs. the
modified EBAM yielded a coefficient of determination
(R2) of 0.96 and a slope of 1.01 while the FRM vs.
DustTrak yielded R2 of 0.96 and slope of 3.17, with
the DustTrak overestimating the PM concentration by
217%. The FRM vs. ES642 yielded R2 of 0.94 and slope
of 1.18. The MIE DataRam4 vs. FRM yielded R2 of 0.96
and slope of 2.45. The principle of operations for
EBAM is based on attenuation of beta particles and
that of the DustTrak, Thermo-Electron MIE
DataRAM 4, and ES642 are based on light-scattering.
DataRAM 4
In laboratory and field experiments, Costa et al. (2012)
used a DataRAM 4 to measure mass concentrations of
PM2.5. During laboratory biomass combustion, the
average diameter of particles emitted was between
0.06 and 0.5 µm aerodynamic diameter. The highest
PM concentrations were in the smallest diameter range.
The smallest sizes were registered for emissions from
the flaming phase of the combustion with larger sizes
emitted during the smoldering phase. During the field
experiment, the average diameters ranged between
0.035 and 0.26 um and again, the smallest particle
sizes and largest PN concentrations were associated
with the flaming phase of combustion. They reported
that DataRAM 4 is an appropriate instrument for mea-
suring PM2.5 mass concentrations.
EBAM
The EBAM uses beta attenuation for PM mass concentra-
tion measurement (Jaklevic et al. 1981). A recent study by
Schweizer et al. (2016) reported result of a comparison of
co-located EBAM and FEM BAM ambient hourly and
daily averaged data. The comparison was made between
April and November 2006 with maximum hourly average
of 93 µg/m3 and maximum daily average of 40 µg/m3 mass
concentrations. The coefficient of determination (R2) of the
hourly average was 0.70 while for the daily average it was
0.90. The mean difference between the EBAM and the
BAM was an over prediction of PM mass concentrations
by the EBAM of ~24%. Increases in RH above 40% further
increased this disagreement. When considering only data
for RH below 40%, R2 increased to 0.76 for the hourly and
to 0.93 for the daily average. Furthermore, the hourly
average data of the EBAM fluctuated more than those of
the BAM. The authors recommended invalidating EBAM
data when RH is greater than 40% to limit the EBAM over
prediction.
EDM, FDMS, GRIMM 1.108, TSI DustTrak
Comparison of EDM model 1.107 with a filter
dynamics measurement system for ambient air at
Fresno and Rubidoux, California, showed good
agreement in measuring total PM concentrations
including semi-volatile PM. The use of a Nafion
dryer allowed measurement of total PM2.5 mass con-
centrations without particle-bound water (Grimm
and Eatough 2009). In a comparison of GRIMM
model 1.108 and TSI Model 8520 DustTrak with
Dichotomous FRM, the DustTrak overestimated
PM2.5 mass concentrations while the GRIMM 1.108
EDM underestimated them (Cheng 2008).
Personal data RAM, TSI aerotrak OPC, TSI DustTrak
DRX, personal modular impactor
Wang et al. (2016) compared the performance of real-
time instruments – Thermo Scientific pDR-1500 (per-
sonal data RAM), TSI Aerotrak Optical Particle
Counter (OPC) model 8220, and TSI DustTrak DRX
model 8534 against that of a Personal Modular
Impactor (PMI) with PM2.5 size cut based on 24-hr
average concentrations. The test occurred inside
a high-rise residential green building with non-smok-
ing and smoking residences. The pDR-1500 vs. PMI2.5
had R2 of 0.937 with no significant bias. Based on
a 1-h average data, the OPC underestimated PM
mass concentrations by a factor of 2.5 while DRX
overestimated them by a factor of 2 compared to the
pDR-1500. But both were correlated well with pDR;
R2 = 0.936 vs. OPC and R2 = 0.863 vs. DRX. Because
of the high R2 values, they recommended the use of
these monitors for indoor monitoring as long as
proper correction factors are applied. The ADR-1500
uses a pDR-1500 nephelometer and incorporates tem-
perature and RH sensors to deal with positive bias
during higher RH condition. The ADR-1500 was

developed for ambient measurements (MIE ADR-1500
Instruction Manual 2010).
Emergence of low-cost monitors
In recent years the emergence of low-cost monitors
(sensors) to measure criteria pollutants has attracted
much attention (Kumar et al. 2015; Rai et al. 2017).
These sensors are relatively cheap, small in size, easy to
transport, install, and operate. Being low cost and easy
to use provides opportunities for communities and
citizens to monitor their local air quality and to help
them to be more informed and educated on larger air
quality issues (Snyder et al. 2013). These sensors can be
used to develop affordable near-source fence line mon-
itoring, to supplement air quality network, for source
identification and characterization, and for educational
purposes (U.S. EPA 2014). Currently, many sensors
such as Purple Air, Dylos, etc. are in these markets
and are being used by citizens and community mem-
bers in collaboration with government agencies and
academia (e.g., https://www.ivan-imperial.org/air) to
collect ambient PM data. Because of their widespread
and increasing use, some government agencies (e.g.,
SCAQMD and EPA) and academics (e.g., Carvlin
et al. 2017; Manikonda et al. 2016; Sousana et al.
2016) have started to determine accuracy (comparabil-
ity to FEMs or FRMs) and precision of these sensors
and their suitability for their intended purposes.
Purple air
The Purple Air (PA) is a low-cost dual laser particle
counter. Two models are available – PA-I with one
PM1003 sensor and PA-II with two PMS5003 sensors.
PA-II uses dual PMS5003 sensors and each sensor
provides counts of suspended particles in size bins of
0.3, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, and 10 µm. The PA measures particle
count and converts it to particle mass concentration
(µg m−3) using a built-in algorithm. The resulting data
are posted online. During the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) sensors’ performance
study, comparison of PA-II data with those of the Met
One BAM FEM for PM2.5 resulted in R2 values of 0.93
to 0.97 for triplicated sensors (SCAQMD 2017).
A study by the Lane Regional Air Protection Agency
reported that PA-II measured PM2.5 mass concentra-
tions ~2.5 times higher than an FEM (LRAPA 2018). In
a study by Gupta et al. (2018), comparison of PA-II to
FEM BAM yielded R2 > 0.90 using hourly average
concentrations. However, PA-II overestimated PM2.5
mass concentration compared to FEM BAM with
higher bias with increase in concentrations. Using
daily average PM2.5, PA-II consistently overestimated
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 161
PM2.5 mass concentrations by 35% with values ranging
between 15 and 50 µg m−3. Comparison of PA-I
(PMS1003) with FRMs in ambient environment, Kelly
et al. (2017) reported correlation of 0.88 with gravi-
metric method while it overestimated concentrations
and began to exhibit a non-linear response when con-
centrations exceed 40 µg m−3. In a similar study,
Jayaratne et al. (2018), PMS1003 measured 28% higher
PN concentrations for fine particle size when RH%
increased above 50%. The effect of RH was higher for
larger particle size.
Dylos
The Dylos is a low-cost optical laser particle counter. It
counts suspended particles in two bins – low (>0.5 µm) and
high (>2.5 µm) size ranges. As part of a community
engaged air monitoring study to generate continuous
real-time ambient PM2.5 data with increased spatial resolu-
tion for Imperial County, CA, United States, Carvlin et al.
(2017) increased the number of existing regulatory moni-
tors to measure PM2.5 alongside a network of modified
Dylos. The modification included increasing the particle
size bins from 2 to 4, using an algorithm to convert PM
number to mass, adding a custom circuit board and net-
work capabilities and integrated RH and temperature sen-
sors. They used RH data to correct PM number
concentrations before converting them to PM mass. They
collocated and compared data from the modified Dylos
1700 with those from FEM BAM and FRM gravimetric
filters for PM2.5 and PM10. The hourly correlation (r) of the
Dylos data with the FEM BAM PM2.5 mass concentration
data was 0.90. In the inter-comparison of low-cost sensors
for occupational PM aerosol, Sousana et al. (2016) reported
that the Dylos 1700 had high precision with a low coeffi-
cient of variability (7.4%) and was highly correlated (R2 =
0.99) with a reference instrument. During the SCAQMD
sensor evaluation study, Dylos data were compared to FEM
BAM data for Rubidoux, CA, United States providing R2 of
0.65 to 0.85 (SCAQMD 2017).
CARB use of EBAMs and future instrument needs
The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the
United States Department of Agriculture Forest
Service (USDA-FS), and some California air districts
have been using portable, real-time smoke monitors to
measure PM2.5 mass concentrations. Measurements
have been made primarily using the EBAM, which
provides hourly average values and became the instru-
ment of choice for wildfire smoke monitoring. Since
2006, CARB has purchased over 30 EBAMs for use
during wildfire seasons. USDA-FS and a number of
local air districts have also purchased several EBAMs.
An EBAM has three parts in three separate boxes –
162 A. MEHADI ET AL.

EBAM box, power supply box, and a box containing

8.5 cm (dia) x 13 cm (H).

telemetry and a battery that powers the system.

0– 1000 µg m−3

Cloud/SD card
Light scatter
Purple Air II

PM2.5, PM10
Having three separate boxes to install and connect is

T, RH, P

Minute

~0.4kg
(OPC)

PM1.0

Wi-Fi
(Fan)
Mass
cumbersome during emergency conditions, especially

No
when multiple incidences occur within a day. Since
2006, many new instruments (some mentioned above)
have made it to the market and a new comparative
study of their capabilities was needed.

125x90x185 mm
Internal storage
Light scatter

PM2.5, PM0.5
Dylos 1700

Number

0.54 kg
Minute
Materials and methods

(OPC)

none

none
(Fan)

No
The environmental chamber test was conducted
over 6 days at the Desert Research Institute (DRI)
Biomass Combustion Facility in Reno, Nevada,

Cloud/internal storage
United States. Data generated from this test were

40 x 40 × 20 cm
PM10, PM2.5, PM1
0.1– 100 mg/m3
analyzed for precision, accuracy, effect(s) of relative

T, RH, WS,WD
Light scatter

1.2 ± 3%
EDM-164

Cellular
Minute
humidity (RH), and organic carbon/elemental car-

20 kg
(OPC)
Mass

Yes
bon (OC/EC) mass concentration on monitors’ per-
formances. The field test was conducted during the
California, United States fire season (24 October to
19 December 2017) when all candidate instruments
were operated next to the FEM BAM.

PM0.1 to PM2.5, PM10

53.3 x 43.1 21.5 cm

0.001– 400 mg/m3

Internal storage
(Nephelometer)

1.2 volumetric
Light scatter
ADR-1500

T, RH, P

12.9 kg
Minute

none
Mass

Yes
Instruments tested
Two each of seven candidate monitors – Met one EBAM
and ES642, TSI DRX 8543 (DRX), Thermo ADR 1500
(ADR), GRIMM EDM 164 (EDM), Purple Air II (PA-II),

Cloud/internal storage
and Dylos 1700 (Dylos) (Table 1) were tested. In addition,

41.5x30.5x31.1 cm
T, RH, P, WS, WD
PM10, PM4, PM2.5
(Nephelometer)

3.0 volumetric
0– 15 mg/m3

two BAMs, one polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-filter-

Light scatter
DRX 8543

Cellular

13.6 kg
based FRM and one quartz-filter-based URG filter sampler Minute
Mass

Yes
were used during the chamber test. Two BAMs were used
as reference instruments. The samples from URG filters
were analyzed for organic carbon (OC) and elemental
carbon (EC) using thermo-optical analysis (Chow et al.
2004). During the field test, one BAM was used as
47.3x41.9x17.8cm
0 to 100 mg/m3
(Nephelometer)
Light scatter

a reference instrument.
Cellular
Minute

2.5 kg
ES642

Cloud
PM2.5

none
Mass

Yes
2.0

For the DRX and EDM, inlets provided by the man-

ufacturers were used. The ADR, EBAM, and BAM
monitors were fitted with PM2.5 sharp cut cyclone
inlets. The Dylos and Purple Air are classified as low-
cost sensors (<$500) with no specified flow or inlet
Table 1. Candidate instrument features.

41 x 36 × 20 cm
Beta attenuation

0– 65 mg/m3

volumetric

system but use a fan for inducing sample air flow. All
Satellite
Hourly

server
EBAM

13 kg
PM2.5

T, RH
Mass

16.7

Yes

monitors were setup and operated according to the

manufacturers’ recommended specifications.
Dylos, unlike the other particle counters (EDM and
PA-II), does not have a conversion factor to convert
particle number concentrations to mass concentrations.
Principle of operation

Concentration Range

For this study, Dylos particle number concentration

Averaging time
Additional AQ

data were converted to mass concentrations by regres-

Mass/number

measured

Inlet heater
Instrument

Dimension
Measured,
Candidate

Telemetry

sing field hourly Dylos particle number (PN) concen-

µg/m3

Flowrate
(lpm)

Storage
Weight

trations from the field data (this study) (x-axis) against

BAM hourly PM2.5 mass concentrations. First linear fit

was checked. The quadratic fit gave slightly higher R2
(−1E-06x2 + 0.0168x + 11.49, R2 = 0.3547) and was
subsequently used to convert Dylos PN data from
chamber and field tests to PM2.5 mass concentrations
(Figure S1). Using the BAM data to convert Dylos
number to mass and in turn comparing the Dylos to
the BAM limits the strength of our Dylos evaluation.
To compare PA-II to each other and to the reference
BAM, PM2.5 data from the two sensors – A and B of
each PA-II were averaged. No correction factor was
applied to data from both sensors.
All candidate instruments have real-time telemetry
capability (except for ADR and Dylos), provided that
there is Wi-Fi or other internet connection available.
The EBAM uses satellite communication to send data
to the required server that is on the network.
Instrument calibrations
All candidate instruments, except for EBAMs and
reference BAMs, were calibrated at the factory and
their calibrations were good for 1 year. For BAM
and EBAMs, flow calibrations were performed per
the manufacturer’s protocols. For factory calibra-
tions, the manufacturers used different materials
for DRX and ADR (NIST certified Arizona Road
Dust), EDM (NIST certified mono dispersed poly-
styrene latex (PSL) for particle detection and dolo-
mite for mass calculation), ES642 (NIST traceable
0.54 micron microsphere PSL), PA-II (30 PA-II at
once in a chamber calibrated using vaporizer with
polyethylene glycol/glycerin smoke fluid) and for
EBAM and BAM (burning incense stick in
a chamber). No calibration information is available
for Dylos. TSI, manufacture of DRX, recommends
custom calibration if instrument is used for mon-
itoring particulates that are different than the one
used at the factory.
Instrument maintenance and service
For the BAM and EBAM, established procedures were
used to check and calibrate flow rates and to service the
instruments. For EDM, ADR, ES642, and DRX, manu-
facturer’s instructions in their respective manual were
used to clean and calibrate the instruments. The Dylos
and PA-II were cleaned on the inside with compressed
air where possible and clean cloth was used to remove
any visible dirt. When instruments failed to operate,
they were sent to their respective manufacturer for
service. At the end of the chamber test, before the
field test, instruments were cleaned and calibrated.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 163
Chamber test
For the chamber test, all monitors were installed at the
DRI biomass combustion chamber for the controlled
study. The chamber is made of aluminum and mea-
sures 1.83 m width by 1.83 m length by 2.06 m high.
The chamber is equipped with a dilution sampler and is
attached to a metal manifold with multiple sampling
ports for interfacing with different monitors. The
chamber was configured in such a way that it generated
open combustion PM under different humidity condi-
tions; generated PM can be aged in an oxidation flow
reactor to simulate real-world aging (Bhattarai et al.
2018; Sengupta et al. 2018). The sealed system reduces
particle/gas loss, ensures flow stability and uniformity
in the stack and better purifications of the dilution air.
Up to 50 g of solid biomass fuels can be burned under
controlled conditions of dilution and relative humidity
(RH). Temperature and RH are controlled by the build-
ing HVAC system with the option of increasing RH
with humidifiers placed in the chamber. The chamber
can generate PM mass concentrations ranging from
ambient to more than 10 mg/m3.
Near the top of the inside of the biomass chamber, an
emission sample was drawn from the chamber using
copper tubing to a manifold with multiple outlets.
More details about the chamber can be found in Tian
et al. (2015), describing a close replicate of the DRI
chamber. For this study, dried Jeffrey pine (Pinus jef-
freyi) needles collected from the forest floor, near
Truckee, CA, United States were used as biomass fuel,
representative of fuels burnt in many wildland fires in
the western U.S. Four ultrasonic humidifiers were used
to change RH condition in the chamber. The RH inside
the chamber ranged from 24% to 68% with the average
of 41%. Concentrations of CO2 and CO were measured
during the tests to determine the modified combustion
efficiency, which was found to be 95% with a standard
deviation of 3%. All monitors were connected to the
various outlets of the manifold except for the Dylos
and the Purple Air, which have no specific flow system
but use a fan for inducing sample air flow; they were
placed inside of the chamber, near its top and just below
the location from where sample was drawn to the mani-
fold. Two filter-based samplers – one FRM with PTFE
filter for mass and one URG sampler with quartz filter
for organic carbon (OC) and elemental carbon (EC)
analysis were connected to ports of the manifold. The
burn schedule was synchronized with each sampling
period of the BAMs. At the start of the hour when the
BAM started sampling, the burn started. When the BAM
stopped sampling, around 10 min before the end of
the hour, the burn chamber was flushed with outside
164 A. MEHADI ET AL.

air and opened for fuel replenishment. The connected
instruments were used to monitor PM mass concentra-
tions for about 1 hr after combustion initiation. This was
repeated several times each day for 6 days to allow
monitoring over a wide range of PM mass concentration
and at two humidity levels – ambient and high RH
conditions.
Field test
For the field test, the criteria described in the Code of
Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 58 were used for proper
siting (spacing from obstructions, trees, sources, and road-
ways, and horizontal and vertical placements) of the instru-
ments to the maximum extent possible (U.S. EPA 2013).
The field study was conducted for 39.5 days (during
October 24 to December 19, 2017 period) at the
Weaverville, CA, United States existing air monitoring
station, on top of a single-story part of the Weaverville
Courthouse. Weaverville is a small northern California
town with a population of less than 4,000. During
November and December, the average high tempera-
ture is 11°C and the average low is 0°C. During these
cold months, residential heating is mainly done with
wood burning.
Fourteen instruments (seven candidates in duplicate)
were deployed next to a FEM BAM, which was used as
reference instrument that is permanently installed at this
station. Identifying a site with an existing FEM BAM
helped reduce the overall logistics needed for this study.
Unlike the candidate instruments tested here, the FEM
BAM 1020 (BAM) requires a shelter. The availability of
enough space for 14 candidate instruments and some
kind of connectivity (cellular, Wi-Fi, and/or internet) in
addition to the likelihood of encountering wildland fire
smoke were of the essence for selecting the Weaverville
site for the field test.
Both during the chamber and field tests, all instru-
ments (except EBAM, DRX, and ES642) were directly
connected to a laptop that operates PEAQS (portable
emission data acquisition system). Data from all candi-
date instruments were directly pulled into a spreadsheet
in comma separated value (csv) format. Data from
DRX and ES642 were pulled from the cloud into the
same spreadsheet. Data from the EBAM and BAM were
downloaded directly from the instrument.
Data validation
Basic quality assurance/quality control procedures were
used for the data from the candidate and reference
instruments. For candidate instruments, negative values
and obvious outliers were removed. Outliers were
determined based on visual assessment of scatter
plots. When an instrument restarts after service, the
first hour of data were removed to allow for steady-
state operation. Also, when instruments indicated
errors, the corresponding data were removed.
Chamber test results
Summary statistics for the chamber test results are
given in Table 2. The average RH was 41% ranging
between 24% and 68%. The average PM2.5 mass con-
centrations measured by EBAM and ADR were closer
to those of the reference BAM than those of other
candidate instruments. The EDM, Dylos, and ES642
PM2.5 mass concentrations were lower than those of
the FEM BAM, while those of the PA-II and Dylos
were higher. The differences between BAM and
Dylos and PA-II PM2.5 mass concentrations were
more pronounced at high PM concentrations than
at low ones.
In time series plots of the hourly averages of PM2.5
mass concentrations measured with the FEM BAMs
and candidate instruments; all candidates track mea-
surements by the BAM (Figure 1). PA-II and DRX
measured PM2.5 mass concentrations substantially
higher than the BAM and the other candidate instru-
ments and the EDM measured the lowest concentra-
tions. Measurements by the EBAM, ADR, and ES642
were closer to the BAM, with the EBAM and ADR the
closest. Cheng (2008) and Trent (2006) reported over-
prediction of PM2.5 by the earlier DustTrack version of
the DRX, as compared to the reference. Also, a study at
Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA 2018)

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the chamber data.

µg m−3 %
BAM EBAM Dylos Purple Air EDM ADR ES642 DRX RH
Mean 493 512 359 955 176 489 398 1057 41
% mean difference reference 4 −27 94 −64 −1 −19 144
Median 507 493 223 972 175 490 416 1071 40
Standard deviation 168 201 391 196 49 201 154 393 13
Range 695 834 1588 908 182 761 715 1371 44
Min 188 183 19 377 83 176 165 410 24
Max 883 1017 1607 1284 265 937 879 1781 68

Figure 1. Time series plots of PM2.5 mass concentrations measured with reference BAM and candidate instruments.
reported that Purple Air over predicted PM2.5 by
a factor of ~2.5 times compared to the reference.
Figure S2 provides scatter plots of all candidate instru-
ments against reference BAM measurements. The average
of replicate candidates is used to compare candidates to
the reference BAM for this and subsequent statistical
analysis. All candidate instrument measurements tracked
with BAM measurements. The variability among the can-
didates was higher with higher PM2.5 mass
concentrations.
Based on the chamber data box plots (Figures S3), more
than 75% of the measurements by the PA-II and the DRX
are higher than maximum measured by the BAM, ADR,
and ES642. All (100%) measurements by the EDM and
Dylos are below the minimum measured by the PA-II
and DRX and below 25 percentile of the BAM, EBAM,
ADR, and ES642. The median measurements of the EBAM,
ADR, and ES642 were closer to the median of the BAM. On
the lower end, the ES642 measurements were closer to
those of the BAM and on the higher end, lower than
those of the BAM. The short lower whiskers indicate lesser
variability at the lower end concentrations and longer
whiskers at the higher concentrations suggests more varia-
bility among monitors at high concentrations. The use of
Dylos-BAM regression to convert Dylos particle number to
PM may have affected the findings for the BAM vs Dylos
relationship.
Comparisons of candidates to a reference FEM BAM
using hourly average data are given in Figure 2 and
Table S1. Except for the Dylos, PA-II, and ES642,
correlation coefficients R2 for most of the candidate
instruments were ≥0.8. For Dylos, PA-II, and ES642,
the R2 values were 0.29, 0.33, and 0.62, respectively.
EBAM is the most correlated with BAM (R2 of 0.95)
followed by EDM, ADR, and DRX all with R2 of 0.8.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 165
Based on the slope of the regression equations, EBAM,
Dylos, and ADR slopes were higher than 1.00, while
those of PA-II, EDM, and ES642 were lower than 1.00
with the EDM having the lowest slope (= 0.26) result-
ing in larger intercept values.
Effect of RH on candidate instrument performance
The RH ranged from 24% to 68% in the chamber during
the study. The effect of RH on candidate instrument
performance was evaluated using regression analysis of
candidate/BAM ratios of hourly PM2.5 mass concentra-
tions as a function of RH (Figure 3 and Table S2). Figure 3
shows that measured PM concentrations decreased as
a function of RH for all optical instrument relative to
BAM reference measurements. Table S2 shows further
statistical results of the linear regression analysis of can-
didate/BAM ratios of hourly PM2.5 mass concentrations
as a function of RH. The second column (Slope) gives, for
each candidate instrument, the value of the slope and its
standard error; the third column (Slope/error) gives the
ratio of these two values, where a ratio larger than one
indicates a significant dependence of the PM2.5 mass
concentration measurement of the respective candidate
instrument on RH.
RH significantly affected measurements of PM2.5
mass concentrations as shown by higher (>1.0) absolute
ratios of slope to standard error for all candidates
except for PA-II. The effect of RH on PA-II is not as
strong. The maximum RH in the chamber was 68% and
fresh emissions from the combustion of pine needles
are relatively non-hygroscopic (Petters et al. 2009),
thereby reducing the effect of RH on instrument per-
formances compared to more hygroscopic smokes.
166 A. MEHADI ET AL.

Figure 2. Hourly accuracy of candidate instruments using regression analysis for the chamber study.

Correlation of candidate instrument results during
the chamber test
Minute-average and hourly average replicate correla-
tion results are given in Table 3. All candidates, except
for the EBAM, provide minute average data. Regression
coefficient of determination (R2) of duplicate minute-
average were 0.9 or higher, except for the Dylos, indi-
cating strong correlation between pairs. The slope of
the regression equation ranged from 0.9 to 1.1.
The minute-average PN concentration data were used
for comparing replicate Dylos. Regression analysis for
the Dylos provided R2 of 0.55 and slope of 0.78.
Hourly-average regression analysis of replicate
instruments yielded R2 greater or equal to 0.9 with
slopes ranging from 0.8 to 1.1. The reference BAM R2
was 0.997 with slope ranging between 0.99 and 1.02.
The EBAM and the ADR had the lowest slope (0.87)
compared to the other candidates. Both EBAMs had
frequent tape advances (set for one advance every 24
hr or based on PM loading) with EBAM1 advancing
three times and EBAM2 two times within each hour.
These frequent unsynchronized tape advances may
have contributed to the lower slope for the collocated
EBAMs.
The effect of PM mass concentrations on instrument
performance is shown in Figure 4 and Table S3 where
regression plots of candidates/BAM ratios vs BAM are
provided. There appears to be an effect of PM mass con-
centrations on all candidates (slope/std error ratio >1).
However, based on the slope/standard error ratio vs RH,
this may include the effect of RH (Figure 3 and Table S3).
 JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 167

Figure 3. Regression analysis of candidate/BAM ratios of hourly PM2.5 mass concentrations as function of RH for the chamber study.

PA-II, EDM, and ES642 showed strong negative relation- progressively lower as PM mass concentrations increased.
ships with PM concentrations (slope/ratios = −6.75, −5.50, As shown in Table S2, ES642 showed negative slope/error
or −8.82, respectively), resulting in both measuring ratio (−3.00) while PA-II (−0.60) and EDM (−1.20) slope/
error ratios vs RH. This could be due to the highest RH in
the chamber was 68%, which may not be high enough to
Table 3. Minute and hourly average replicate instrument PM2.5 cause considerable effect. The effect of PM mass concen-
mass measurements regression analysis for the chamber data. tration appears to be more important in affecting accurate
Averaging time Slope Intercept R2 measurement of PM mass concentrations by these instru-
Minute average µg m−3 ments in the chamber. The PA-II, EDM, and ES642
Dylos1 vs Dylos2 0.78 ± 0.02 112.3 ± 16.8 0.55 appeared to be showing saturation points at higher con-
Purple Air 1 vs Purple Air2 1.08 ± 0.00 −11.16 ± 4.33 0.97
EDM1 vs EDM2 1.00 ± 0.00 −2.13 ± 0.72 0.97 centrations. DRX appeared to not be affected by PM con-
ADR1 vs ADR2 0.90 ± 0.00 −20.7 ± 1.67 0.99
ES641-1 vs ES641-2 1.12 ± 0.00 −0.11 ± 0.72 0.99
centrations and the ADR data showed only a slight effect.
DRX1 vs DRX2 0.92 ± 0.01 25.3 ± 9.1 0.92
Hourly average
BAM1 vs BAM2 1.001 ± 0.010 −0.96 ± 5.03 0.997
EBAM1 vs EBAM2 0.874 ± 0.026 16.9 ± 15.4 0.970 Effect of EC/OC on instrument performance
Dylos1 vs Dylos2 0.905 ± 0.055 38.3 ± 29.3 0.897
Purple Air1 vs Purple Air2 1.084 ± 0.046 −48.0 ± 44.1 0.937 The summary of regression plots of elemental carbon/
EDM1 vs EDM2 0.996 ± 0.010 −1.35 ± 1.86 0.996
ADR1 vs ADR2 0.876 ± 0.037 −5.79 ± 21.45 0.949
organic carbon (EC/OC) ratio to candidate/BAM PM2.5
ES641-1 vs ES641-2 1.107 ± 0.017 3.45 ± 6.91 0.991 ratio is provided in Table S4 and Figure 5. Except for the
DRX1 vs DRX2 0.917 ± 0.019 28.2 ± 22.8 0.984
EBAM and Dylos ratios, the slopes are negative and the
168 A. MEHADI ET AL.
Figure 4. Effect of PM mass concentrations on candidate instruments performances for the hourly chamber data.
absolute values of slopes to standard errors ratios are greater
than one indicating significant influence of EC/OC ratio on
candidates’ performance. The negative slopes indicate that
as ratios of EC/OC increased, ratios of candidates to BAM
decreased, except for EBAM and Dylos. EC is responsible
for most of the light absorption and OC for most of the light
scattering (Moosmüller, Chakrabarty, and Arnott 2009).
With an increase in EC/OC ratio, the amount of EC
increased more compared to OC. With increase in EC,
there is decreased scattering per mass, which decreased
PM mass concentration measurements with the optical
instruments that use light scattering to determine PM
mass concentrations while the PM measured by EBAM
increased because it is based on beta attenuation.
Organic carbon particles freshly emitted from smolder-
ing combustion of wildland fuels are generally near-sphe-
rical in shape and larger in size than EC particles freshly
emitted from flaming combustion. In addition, freshly
emitted EC particles are non-spherical with a fractal-like
morphology (Chakrabarty et al. 2006). Wang et al. (2015)
reported the effect of particle size on sensors performance
depending on the wavelength of the incident radiation. So
the candidate monitors’ response is affected by not only
particle chemical composition (EC/OC) but also by particle
size distribution.
Field data analysis
The average PM2.5 mass concentrations and RH conditions
during the field test are given in Table 4. Based on the
reference FEM BAM, the daily PM2.5 mass concentrations
ranged from 6 to 33 µg m-3 with a mean of 17 µg m−3 and
a median of 17 µg m−3. The external RH, as measured by
 JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 169

Figure 5. Regression analysis of candidate/BAM ratio vs EC/OC using hourly average chamber data.

Table 4. Descriptive statistic of field data for the period of 24 October to 19 December 2017 based on daily average values.
BAM EBAM Dylos PA-II EDM ADR ES642 DRX RH external
µg/m3 %
Mean 17 14 18 30 21 20 18 42 82
%mean difference reference −18 6 76 24 18 6 147
Median 17 13 16 29 20 19 16 38 83
Standard deviation 7 6 6 16 10 13 11 26 8
Range 28 25 21 63 42 51 44 96 27
Minimum 6 5 12 5 6 2 3 7 66
Maximum 33 30 33 68 48 53 47 103 93
Confidence Level (95.0%) 2.3 2.0 1.8 5.0 3.3 4.0 3.6 8.7 2.6

the EBAMs, ranged from 27% to 92% with a mean of 82%
and a median of 83%.
The average PM2.5 mass concentrations measured by
most candidate instruments were within ~25% of those
measured by the FEM BAM (17 µg/m3) except for the PA-
II and DRX, which reported concentrations 76% and 141%
larger, respectively. Minimum concentrations reported by
all instruments were close to each other with values ranging
from 2 to 6 µg m−3 except for the Dylos of 12 µg m−3. Much
higher variability was observed at high concentrations. The
highest average PM2.5 mass concentrations reported by
DRX, PA-II, EDM, and ADR were 2.5, 1.8, 1.2, and 1.2
times higher than those reported by the FEM BAM, respec-
tively. The Dylos data appear to be close to the BAM. This
is likely due to the quadratic fit to the BAM data that was
used to convert Dylos particle number to particle mass
concentration.
Figures S4 and S5 show scatter plots and box and
whisker plots of the PM2.5 mass concentration for field
data. The scatter plots show that instrument measurements
track each other with closer values at lower daily concen-
trations and increased variability at higher concentrations
170 A. MEHADI ET AL.
with EBAM closer to the BAM on both ends. Based on the
box plot, the median PM2.5 mass concentrations of the
EBAM, Dylos, EDM, ADR, and ES642 were within 25%
of the median of the FEM BAM. The median concentra-
tions reported by the Purple Air and the DRX were ~1.5
and two times of those reported by the FEM BAM. The
variability of measurements at lower concentration was
less, as shown by shorter whiskers while longer whiskers
indicate larger variability at higher concentrations. Purple
Air and DRX show more variability in their concentration
measurements than the other candidate instruments. More
than 50% of measurements by DRX were larger than any
measurements by the BAM, EBAM, and Dylos.
Figure S6, which is time series plots, shows that all
instruments tracked each other very well. All instruments
measured closer to each other at lower concentrations and
the variability increased at higher concentrations.
Results characterizing the correlation of replicate candi-
date instrument during the field campaign are summarized
in Table S5. Minute-average regression results show corre-
lation coefficients R2 of 0.9 or higher for all instruments
with the exception of the EDM (R2 = 0.81) and the ADR
(R2 = 0.67). The lower R2 for the ADR may be attributed to
problems with the loaner instrument that arrived directly
from another field deployment. After brief testing, pro-
blems were detected and it was shipped to the manufac-
turer for service. Upon return, it had problem with data
retrieval and another loaner arrived directly from another
field deployment and also had some problems.
The hourly-average regression results show R2 of 0.8
or higher and slopes of ranging from 0.8 to 1.3 for all
candidate instruments except for the DRX where the
slope was 0.28. The loaner DRX had a laser problem,
which was identified after the fact. The daily average
regression results show R2 greater than 0.97 and slopes
ranging from 0.9 to 1.3 except for the DRX.
Results of regression analysis of candidate PM2.5 mass
concentration against those measured with the FEM
BAM to determine candidate accuracy are given in
Figure 6, Figure S7, and Table S6. The highest average
correlation coefficient with the hourly BAM data was
achieved by the hourly ADR data (R2 = 0.83), followed
by the EBAM data (R2 = 0.64). The R2 for the other
candidate instruments ranged from 0.3 to 0.4. The finding
of EBAM vs BAM R2 of 0.64 was similar to the finding by
Schweizer, Cisneros, and Shaw (2016) of R2 = 0.70.
The daily average PM2.5 mass concentrations measured
by the candidate instruments correlated well with those
measured by the FEM BAM with correlation coefficients
R2 of 0.8 or higher for all candidate instruments. The slope
of DRX vs BAM was about three and vs Purple Air was
about two. For the rest of the candidate instruments, slopes
ranged from 0.7 to 1.6.
Effect of PM mass concentrations on candidates’
performance is given in Table S7. All candidates mea-
surements are affected by increase in concentrations as
shown with higher than slope/error ratio for all.
Effect of RH and temperature on candidate
instruments
Effects of external RH and temperature were investigated
by plotting candidate/BAM PM2.5 mass concentrations as
function of RH or temperature using daily average data
(Figure 7, Figure S8, and Table S8). Except for the Dylos,
increase in RH increased candidates’ concentration mea-
surements relative to the BAM as shown by the positive
slope of the regression equations. The ratio of the slope and
its respective standard error is always greater than 1, indi-
cating the effect is significant. The EBAM/BAM concentra-
tion ratio as function of EBAM internal RH regression
yielded a slope/standard error ratio of 0.7, indicating no
significant effect of RH. EBAMs use internal heaters to
reduce RH when it is above a certain limit, in this case set
to 40%, per recommendation by Schweizer, Cisneros, and
Shaw (2016). Doing this reduces the effect of RH on EBAM
performance. The BAM, EBAM, DRX, EDM, and ADR all
use internal heaters to drive away moisture when RH is
above certain limit thus minimizing the influence of RH.
BAM internal RH was below 37% and EBAM RH was 45%
or less for the 875 hr of testing.
The effect of temperature on candidate instrument per-
formance was evaluated the same way – by plotting the
ratio of candidate to BAM concentrations as function of
temperature (Figure S8 and Table S8). Plots of RH and
T against candidate instrument concentrations are also
given in Figures S9 (a) and (b). The regression lines of
these plots had negative slopes, except for the Dylos. The
T vs ratio plots and the ratio of slope to its standard error
show that temperature may affect PM2.5 mass concentra-
tions measured by the candidate instruments. The daily
average temperature varied between 12°C and 25°C (hourly
average 7°C to 40°C), cooler in the morning and warmer in
the afternoon. Based on the data, RH and T were inversely
related (T(C) = −0.22(%RH) + 34, R2 = 0.5). Hence, the
negative slopes are the inverse of the positive slopes for the
RH plots and the effect of temperature may be indirect,
through its effect on RH.
Figure 8 shows selected partial residual plots of
hourly average difference of the reference BAM and
candidate instruments on the y-axis against meteorolo-
gical conditions (relative humidity, temperature, and
wind speed measured by the EBAM) on the x-axis.
A linear model for each of the meteorological condi-
tions with the least squares line (dashed black line) and
the locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS)

Figure 6. Regression analysis of candidate instruments vs BAM for daily average field data.
curves (red line) indicate some non-linearity in regres-
sion of these independent variables that is more signif-
icant for some of the sensors. The selected partial
residual plots used in Figure 5 show the most linear
fit (EBAM).
The EBAM had relatively flat fitted curves with a dip at
the highest RH, but otherwise are explained by a near zero
slope linear model. The effect of RH on EBAM perfor-
mance has been discussed above and our findings of
increased error at external RH greater than about 85%
agree with Schweizer et al. 2016. The Dylos curves are
similar to those of the EBAM. This result is likely due to
the quadratic fit of Dylos data to BAM data, used to convert
particle number to particle mass. Other candidate instru-
ments largely had non-linear correlation with RH, tem-
perature, and wind speed. Corrections for meteorological
conditions will thus be difficult and require more thorough
study including replicate samplers subjected to higher
ambient concentrations, changing meteorological condi-
tions, and variable sample compositions. The DRX and
Purple Air, which consistently measured the two highest
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 171
PM2.5 mass concentrations, have non-zero slopes over
a wide range of RH. ADR and EDM have close to zero
slopes with slight deviation at higher RH conditions.
Ambient temperature was relatively poor at describing
the difference between the reference and test methods for
the EBAM and Dylos. The other candidate instruments all
appear to have some challenge with temperature particu-
larly around 5°C. DRX and Purple Air PM2.5 mass con-
centration measurements, in particular, are poorly
explained by linear regression but are the most impacted
by temperature (see examples in Figure 8). The Dylos
data, as stated above, were quadratically fitted to the
BAM to convert particle number to particle mass, which
likely explain the reduction in divergence at 5°C.
Statistical results of difference in hourly concentra-
tions (BAM-candidate) as a function of RH, tempera-
ture, and wind speed are given in Table 5. The effect
of RH on EBAM yielded very low slope (7 × 10−4)
and R2 (3.5 × 10−6). The Dylos and EDM exhibited
a similar bias with high RH with the Dylos bias
particularly pronounced after what appears to be
172 A. MEHADI ET AL.
Figure 7. Regression analysis of candidate/BAM ratios of daily average PM2.5 mass concentrations as function of RH for the field data.
a slight underestimate compared to the reference
(Table 5). The ES642 and DRX showed the opposite
with a positive (candidate read higher than the BAM)
bias above about 80% RH. As shown above, linear
regression is not the best predictor for EDM, DRX,
ES642, and PA-II but has been included to illustrate
the difficulties in adjusting for meteorological condi-
tions. The large variation in magnitude of the differ-
ence between the BAM and candidates also reduces
the value of comparing R2 between candidates
through the error from dependence on the covered
range of the data (e.g., BAM-EBAM approximately
−30 to 30 while the DRX was −200 to 30). External
RH appears to be helpful (R2 = .08; p < .0001) in
explaining some of the difference in the DRX below
~90% RH. While DRX (R2 = .01; p = .0009) was the
next highest, the LOWESS curves and the hourly data
points suggest there is a non-linear relationship.
The EBAM data were the least impacted by wind
speed. Linear regression suggests the ADR data
(R2 = .06; p < .0001) were positively impacted
(BAM-ADR difference increases with wind speed)
while the Dylos data (R2 = .03; p = .02) were nega-
tively impacted (BAM-Dylos difference decreases
wind speed). The smooth curves make the linear
model appear less appropriate for the candidates.
To understand the effect of wind speed on candi-
dates’ performance, further study is needed as wind
speed was typically below 1.5 m/s during this study
and largely at or near the 0.3 m/s, lower limit of
detection of the EBAM sensor.
Air quality index and hourly and daily measurement
agreement
Air quality index (AQI) comparability was assessed using
24-hr average PM2.5 data from the reference BAM and the
seven candidates without applying correction factors to
the original data (Table 6). Daily average PM2.5 AQI was
calculated using established breakpoints from the U.S.
EPA and the California Office of Environmental Health
and Hazard Assessment (Lipsett et al. 2013). This was to
compare the effectiveness and applicability of data being
 JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 173

Figure 8. Partial residual (component plus residual) plots with locally weighted scatterplot smoothing (LOWESS) line for meteor-
ological variables (RH, T, and WS) representing the most linear (EBAM top row), nonlinearity typical of many of the monitors (ES264
middle row), and most nonlinear (PA-II bottom row). Least squares line (dashed black line) and the locally weighted scatterplot
smoothing (LOWESS) curves (red line).

Table 5. Difference in hourly concentrations (BAM-candidate) as a function of RH, temperature, and wind speed for the field data.
%RH Temperature (C) Wind Speed (m/s)
Difference Equation R2 P-value Equation R2 P-value Equation R2 P-value
BAM-EBAM 0.0007x + 2.7 3.5E-06 0.9558 −0.056x+ 3.2 0.0027 0.1249 −1.1x + 3.2 0.0011 0.3164
BAM-Dylos 0.04x – 4.4 0.0081 0.0077 −0.1x + 0.4 0.0057 0.0251 −8.4x + 3.1 0.0344 <0.0001
BAM-Purple Air −0.039x – 10.3 0.0013 0.2791 0.6x – 17.9 0.0414 <0.0001 1.8x – 14.3 4E-04 0.5528
BAM-EDM −0.01x – 3.8 2E-04 0.6743 0.2x – 6 0.0097 0.0035 −1.5x – 4 7E-04 0.4340
BAM-ADR −0.1x + 7.8 0.0869 <0.0001 0.4x – 7.4 0.0985 <0.0001 10.8x – 8.6 0.0596 <0.0001
BAM-ES −0.035x + 1.5 0.0024 0.1447 0.3x – 4 0.0303 <0.0001 −1.5x – 0.8 6E-04 0.4535
BAM-DRX −0.2x – 9.2 0.0125 9E-04 1.4x – 35.3 0.0778 <0.0001 11.5x – 30.1 0.006 0.0218

used in smoke advisories and rigor of association between groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, and hazardous) with
sensors when being used during field operations to deter- thresholds depending on a given pollutant.
mine local health advisories. The AQI reporting system The relatively low daily PM2.5 mass concentrations
has six categories (good, moderate, unhealthy for sensitive (max = 33.3 µg m−3; min = 5.8 µg m−3 based on the
174 A. MEHADI ET AL.

Table 6. AQI determined using the reference and candidates average data, were the EBAM (−2.9 ± 2.9 µg m−3) and the
field data based on the field data. Dylos (7 ± 6.7 µg m−3). The EBAM agreement improved as
Unhealthy for
Monitor n Good Moderate Sensitive Group Unhealthy
the averaging time increased, which is why using the rolling
BAM 40 12 28 0 0 or 24-h average data is recommended when determining
EBAM 40 17 23 0 0 AQI (Schweizer, Cisneros, and Shaw 2016). Although lim-
Dylos 40 3 37 0 0
Purple Air 40 7 24 6 3 ited to two EBAMs, our finding is similar to the multiyear
EDM 40 8 30 2 0 study using multiple EBAM by Schweizer, Cisneros, and
ADR 40 11 25 4 0
ES 40 13 25 2 0 Shaw (2016). The other candidates’ variability was large
DRX 37 7 12 6 12 compared to the reference BAM. The DRX performance
was 24.6 ± 28.8 µg m−3 against a reference BAM, effectively
reference BAM) for the study period did not allow for the encompassing the entire range of the BAM readings. The
wide AQI range that may be expected during wildland fire EBAM error was 17% of the median daily average found
smoky days. However, the high AQIs associated with for the BAM (17.05 µg m−3), Dylos 39%, EDM 52%, ES
extremely high levels of smoke exposure are typically 61%, ADR 76%, PA-II 107%, and DRX 228%. Since the
very obvious for the public, the lower levels of AQI (e.g., cutoff for a Good AQI is 12.1 µg m−3, this certainly would
good, moderate, and unhealthy for sensitive), which are at pose a concern for accurate health advisories particularly
the lower concentrations and are more difficult to accu- for the DRX error, which includes the entire Moderate
rately measure, are important for the public so an indivi- category.
dual can manage their personal exposure during these
times of lower smoke exposure. Moderate was the highest Correction factors
AQI measured at the reference BAM. The highest AQI The findings from this study lead to the development of
estimated by any candidate unit was unhealthy (UH). The post-data PM2.5 mass correction factors for the candi-
EBAM estimated 24-hr average AQI agreed well with the date instruments to maximize comparability to the
reference BAM except that there were five less days of reference instrument (BAM 1020) and minimize bias.
moderate compared to the reference BAM, which is likely The BAM used here as a reference was not tested for
due to the EBAM precision/accuracy not being as good at equivalency for particulate matters emitted during bio-
lower PM2.5 concentrations (Zheng et al. 2018). Dylos mass combustion. Comparison of the two BAMs with
over-reported the moderate level (<15 µg m−3) by 9 days gravimetric method during the chamber test (when all
and largely measured moderate for all days and did not PM was due to biomass combustion) resulted in slopes
capture the good days well; this is likely explained in part of 0.833 and 0.832, R2 of 0.978 for both BAMs with
by the quadratic fit of the Dylos data to the BAM data to intercept of zero for both (Figure S10).
convert particle number to particle mass. There was an Some of the candidate instruments (PA-II and
overall increase to higher AQI categories when using data DRX) provide simultaneous measurement of various
from the other candidates. While the reference BAM had PM fractions (PM2.5, PM10, etc.). The provided correc-
no days of UH or UHS, many of the candidates’ estimated tion factors are for correction of PM2.5 mass concen-
higher AQI categories. The ES642 reported 2 days of UH tration only. These correction factors are only
for sensitive groups (UHS) while reporting 3 days less of applicable under the environmental conditions in
moderate compared to the reference BAM. ADR and which these instruments were tested. If an optical
EDM have a similar response as ES642 except there are instrument is used for a long time under high smoky
two more (i.e., four) UHS days by ADR compared to the conditions, these factors may not apply as optical-
ES642. The PA-II and the DRX measured the highest
PM2.5 mass concentrations compared to the rest of the
candidates (Tables 2 and 4), resulting in three and 12 days Table 7. Daily and hourly upper and lower limits and mean
differences for the candidate instruments for the field data.
of UH AQI, respectively. Therefore, data generated by all
24 Hours Average Hourly average
the candidate instruments, except for the EBAM, should
Lower Mean Upper Lower Mean Upper
not be used to determine AQI unless proper correction Monitor limit Difference limit limit Difference limit
factors provided below are used with the understanding EBAM −5.8 −2.9 0.0 −18.1 −2.7 12.5
that these correction factors are based on the PM sources Dylos −5.9 0.7 7.4 −20.2 0.4 21.0
Purple −5.3 13.0 31.4 −27.7 13.6 54.9
that are dominated by biomass combustion. Air
Analysis of lower and upper limits of the mean differ- EDM −4.2 4.6 13.4 −21.8 4.7 31.2
ADR −9.5 3.5 16.5 −14.9 4.2 23.3
ences (candidates – BAM) is given in Table 7. The two ES642 −9.2 1.22 11.6 −26.0 1.5 28.9
candidates that agreed well with the BAM, based on daily DRX −14.3 24.6 63.4 −42.2 25.4 93.0

based instrument performance could deteriorate under
such condition. No correction factor is provided for
Dylos because Dylos produces PN and conversion of
PN to mass can result in different data set.
To create correction factors, generalized linear mod-
els with multiple dependent variables were used along
with R2 to compare the candidates to the reference.
Adding RH and T to the linear regression analysis
reduced the correlations between the candidates and
reference (Table S9). This could be attributed to the
lower hygroscopicity of the biomass combustion pro-
ducts that constitute the PM2.5 fraction. Below are the
correction factors to convert candidates’ data to BAM-
like measurements without including RH and T.
EBAM : BAM ¼ 1:10EBAM þ 1:5 R2 ¼ 0:97
PA  II : BAM ¼ 0:43PA  II þ 3:9 R2 ¼ 0:91
EDM : BAM ¼ 0:65EDM þ 3:0 R2 ¼ 0:88
ADR : BAM ¼ 0:53ADR þ 6:1 R2 ¼ 0:87
ES264 : BAM ¼ 0:60ES þ 6:1 R2 ¼ 0:88
DRX : BAM ¼ 0:26DRX þ 6:2 R2 ¼ 0:88
General discussions
All candidate instruments correlated well with the refer-
ence BAM and with each other on a daily average basis
but showed significant bias compared to the reference
(Table S6). This could be attributed to the different work-
ing principles of these instruments and the different
materials (Arizona Road dust, dolomite, mono-disperse
polystyrene latex, etc.) used to calibrate them compared to
the aerosols encountered during wildfire incidences.
Based on chamber and field tests, PA-II and DRX
consistently measured much higher PM2.5 mass concen-
trations than all other instruments with their concentra-
tions being 76% and 141% higher, respectively than
those of the FEM BAM. The EDM measured lower
PM2.5 mass concentrations than the FEM BAM during
chamber test but its measured concentrations were
within 23% of those of the FEM BAM during the field
test. Cheng (2008) also reported lower concentration
measured with an EDM 1.108 Grimm instrument.
Overestimation of PM2.5 mass concentrations by the
TSI DustTrak 8533 (an earlier version) was reported by
Trent (2006) and Cheng (2008). Wang et al. (2016) also
reported that the TSI DRX overestimated PM2.5 mass
concentrations by about two times compared to a filter-
based Personal Modular Impactor. The time series plots
trends were similar during both chamber and field tests,
with all instruments tracking one another. During both
tests, instrument concentration measurements were clo-
ser to each other for low PM2.5 mass concentrations but
their variability increased for high concentrations. The
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 175
hourly average EBAM data were better correlated with
the FEM BAM data during the chamber test (R2 = 0.95)
compared to the hourly field test (R2 = 0.64). This was
attributed to very high PM concentrations (mean = 4930
µg m−3, min = 188 µg m−3, max = 883 µg m−3, based on
hourly average) during the chamber test and low PM
concentrations (mean = 17 µg m−3, min 6 µg/m µg m−3,
max = 33 µg m−3, based on daily average) during the field
test. Lower correlations at lower PM2.5 mass concentra-
tions were previously reported for these instruments by
Schweizer, Cisneros, and Shaw (2016) and Zheng et al.
(2018). Zheng et al. (2018) concluded that the EBAM is
not an ideal instrument for measuring low PM2.5 mass
concentrations. Overall, among the tested monitors, the
EBAM is the one that best correlated with the BAM on
daily average level and whose AQI predictions were
closer to those of the BAM. As a result, many agencies
use EBAMs during wildfires and other emergency situa-
tions that require PM monitoring.
Effect of PM mass concentrations can be seen in Table
S2 for chamber test and Table S7 for the field test. In both
cases, the effect of concentration is significant as shown by
slope/std error ratios. This may show the saturation points
at higher PM mass concentrations. To understand this
issue, the effect of very high PM concentrations on light
scattering instruments (possibly extinction and multiple
scattering artifacts) was checked.
At very high PM concentrations, light scattering
instruments may be influenced by extinction and
multiple scattering artifacts. This will be the case
if the optical depth (OD; i.e., the product of extinc-
tion (mostly scattering) coefficient and optical path
length in the instrument sample volume) becomes
comparable to one (1). For the compact candidate
instruments, the optical path is limited to less than
0.1 m and therefore the extinction coefficient would
have to be 1 m−1 to achieve an OD of 0.1 where
extinction and multiple scattering artifacts become
significant. For a PM mass extinction efficiency of 1
m2/g, this would correspond to a PM mass concen-
tration of 1 g/m3 = 106 μg m-3, about three orders
of magnitude larger than any PM mass concentra-
tion encountered during our lab and field studies.
This analysis failed to explain the concentration
effect. However, there could be concentrations in
which these systems would underestimate the mass.
Effects of RH on measured PM2.5 mass concentrations
were observed during both chamber and field tests. During
the field tests, where the mean ambient RH was 82%, the
effects of high RH condition were obvious for both the light
scattering and beta attenuation methods. EBAM data, at
internal RH ≤ 40%, showed no effect of RH on EBAM
performance (Table S8). Schweizer, Cisneros, and Shaw
176 A. MEHADI ET AL.
(2016) and Kiss et al. (2017) previously reported the effects
of RH on EBAM performance. Schweizer, Cisneros, and
Shaw (2016) suggested to invalidate EBAM data for RH
greater than 40%. According to Huang (2007), higher
PM2.5 mass concentration readings by the DustTrak, an
optical, light scattering instrument, compared to
a collocated EBAM were attributed to the effect of RH on
the optical method. When comparing the DustTrak and
EBAM data to those of a manual filter-based sampler, the
DustTrak measured higher PM2.5 mass concentrations
than the other two regardless of an inlet heater on the
EBAM being turned on or off. The difference increased
when RH was raised. The EBAM measured concentrations
closer to those of the manual sampler when its inlet heater
was turned on. Effect of RH on pDR (Chang-Fu et al. 2005)
and on EDM (Grimm and Eatough 2009) data have also
been reported. Using laboratory and field tests, Jayaratne
et al. (2018) reported that for measurements of particle
number and particle mass concentrations using a low-
cost sensor (PMS1003) at RH above 70%, the number
and mass concentration (for PM larger than PM2.5)
increased by 28% and more than 50%, respectively. In
a similar study, Li et al. (2018) reported an increase in
particle number concentrations with an increase in RH
and with an increase in particle number in the upper size
range. According to Gu et al. (2016), when RH was
increased between 60% and 95%, the diameter of spherical
particles increased exponentially and the refractive index
decreased linearly. Effects of RH on the Dylos, a low-cost
sensor, were also previously reported (EPA/600/R-14/464).
Low-cost PM sensors, which use light scattering methods
for PM mass concentration measurement, do not have
specific PM2.5 inlet systems (use fan for air flow) and do
not heat incoming air samples to reduce RH at the inlet.
Candidate instruments showed effects of EC and
OC concentrations on the performance of both beta
attenuation and optical light scattering methods,
except the effects were opposite. When EC increased
(higher EC/OC ratio), the EBAM measured higher
while the optical systems measured lower. This was
attributed to EC being mainly responsible for optical
absorption and OC mainly for optical scattering
(Moosmüller, Chakrabarty, and Arnott 2009).
Therefore, an increase in EC fraction decreased the
amount of scattered light, thereby causing decreased
PM concentration measurements for light-scattering-
based instruments.
The R2 of replicate candidate instruments for hourly
averages during the chamber and field tests were ≥0.8.
Based on daily average field data of replicate candidate
instruments, the R2 were >0.970, indicating that repli-
cate candidate instruments all correlated very well.
A comparison of candidate instruments data to those
of the FEM BAM daily average data, yielded R2 ≥ 0.8,
indicating good correlation.
Analysis of partial residual plots of the differences
between the BAM and candidates data at various RH,
temperature, and wind speed conditions provided further
insight into the instruments performance. The EBAM
and the Dylos data had shown almost flat slope indicating
less effect of RH on the instrument performance, except
for a little bump of the EBAM data at RH of about 85%,
which is in agreement with the findings of a multi-year
EBAM evaluation by Schweizer, Cisneros, and Shaw
(2016). The partial residual plots for the other candidate
instrument showed non-linear plots for RH, temperature,
and wind speed, indicating the influence of these para-
meters on the candidates’ performance. The EBAM and
the Dylos plots were both relatively flat. When using AQI
as means to compare performance, the EBAM was the
only one that agreed well with the reference BAM.
The upper and lower limits of the mean differences
(candidates – BAM) of the 24-hr average data indicated
that the EBAM and the Dylos were the only two instru-
ments whose data were close to the reference BAM. The
other candidate instruments showed higher variability with
the Purple Air and the DRX showing the highest. The
errors were (BAM daily median average = 17.05 µg/m3)
EBAM, 17%, Dylos 39%, EDM 52%, ES642 61%, ADR
76%, Purple Air 107%, and DRX 228%, based on standard
deviation of the mean difference.
Summary
The goal of this study was to identify instruments that can
be used to measure ambient mass concentrations of PM2.5
during wildfire incidences and to distribute the data
immediately to desired locations, so actions can be taken
to protect public health. The overall data indicate that the
EBAM compared best to the reference BAM when AQI,
concentrations, RH, temperature, and wind speed were
considered. The other candidates (not including Dylos)
measured higher PM2.5 mass concentrations both in the
chamber and field tests. On daily average base, candidates
vs BAM PM2.5 mass correlated well (R2 > 0.8) but with
lower correlations for hourly averages. Based on the daily
average data, conversion equations are provided to con-
vert candidates PM2.5 mass concentration to BAM-like
measurements. The EBAM data have been in use during
fire seasons to monitor PM2.5 mass concentrations used to
provide AQI index. The EBAM, because of its long history
in air quality monitoring has well-defined quality control/
quality assurance requirements for its operations. The
other candidates (EDM, ADR, DRX, and PA-II), because
of their correlation with the reference BAM, are likely
effective in providing supplemental monitoring for early

warning of increased smoke in areas where wildfires are
historically known to occur. This can be done by installing
them and monitoring before, during, and after fire inci-
dences to gain broader information on the effects of wild-
fire on air quality. PA-II, because of its low cost (<$300),
can be used to provide high-resolution spatial and tem-
poral data in areas prone to wildfire before, during, and
after wildfire events. Based on the findings from this
study, currently over 300 PA-II (and the number is grow-
ing) are deployed in historically wildfire-prone areas in
California.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following persons for their
assistance: Joseph McCormack, Mark Copple, and Jamie
Vandermast of CARB and Randy Deckau of North Coast Air
Quality Management District. The authors would also like to
thank the manufacturers – Met One Inc., Thermo Fisher
Scientific, Grimm Technologies, and TSI, Inc. - for their assis-
tance during the study. H. Moosmüller and D. E. Campbell
acknowledge support from CARB (Agreement Number
16MLD061), NASA ROSES (Grant Number NNX15AI48G),
and NSF (Award Number AGS-1544425).
Funding
This work was supported by the California Air Resources
Board [16MLD061]; National Science Foundation, Division
of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences [AGS-1544425];
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
[NNX15AI48G].
Disclaimer
The statements and conclusions in this paper are solely those
of the contributors not necessarily of the California Air
Resources Board, Desert Research Institute, U.S.
Department of Forest Service, or Washoe County Health
District.
About the authors
Ahmed Mehadi is an Air Pollution Specialist at the California
Air Resources Board Monitoring and Laboratory Division,
Sacramento, CA.
Hans Moosmüller is a Research Professor, NSHE Regents’
Researcher, and the Senior Director of the Wildland Fire
Science Center at the Desert Research Institute (DRI) of the
Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE).
David E. Campbell is an Associate Research Scientist at the
Desert Research Institute (DRI) of the Nevada System of
Higher Education (NSHE).
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 177
Walter Ham is the Manager of Advanced Air Monitoring
Techniques Section at the California Air Resources Board
Monitoring and Laboratory Division, Sacramento, CA.
Donald Schweizer is an Air Resource Specialist with the U.S.
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region and an affiliate
researcher with the Health Science Research Institute at the
University of California, Merced.
Leland Tarnay is an ecologist with the USDA Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Region Remote Sensing Lab, focused on air
pollution, fire, and forest health.
Julie Hunter is the Senior Air Quality Specialist/Smoke
Management Coordinator for the Washoe County Health
District, Air Quality Management Division, Reno, NV.
References
Bhattarai, C., V. Samburova, D. Sengupta, M. Iaukea-Lum,
A. C. Watts, H. Moosmüller, and A. Y. Khlystov. 2018.
Physical and chemical characterization of aerosol in fresh
and aged emissions from open combustion of biomass
fuels. Aerosol Sci. Tech. 52 (11):1266–82. doi:10.1080/
02786826.2018.1498585.
Carvlin, G. N., H. Lugo, L. Olmedo, E. Bejarano, A. Wilkie,
D. Meltzer, M. Wong, G. King, A. Northcross, M. Jerrett,
P.B. English, and D. Hammond 2017. Development and
field evaluation of a community-engaged particulate mat-
ter air quality monitoring network in Imperial, California,
USA. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 67 (12):1342–52.
doi:10.1080/10962247.2017.1369471.
Chakrabarty, R. K., H. Moosmüller, M. A. Garro,
W. P. Arnott, J. W. Walker, R. A. Susott, R. E. Babbitt,
C. E. Wold, E. N. Lincoln, and W. M. Hao. 2006.
Emissions from the laboratory combustion of wildland
fuels: Particle morphology and size. J. Geophys. Res. 111:
D07204. doi:10.1029/2005JD006659.
Chang-Fu, W., R. J. Delfino, J. N. Floro, B. S. Samimi,
P. J. E. Quintana, M. T. Kleinman, and L.-J. S. Liu. 2005.
Evaluation and quality control of personal nephelometers
in indoor, outdoor and personal environments. J. Exposure
Anal Environ. Epidemiol 15:99–110. doi:10.1038/sj.
jea.7500351.
Cheng, Y.-H. 2008. Comparison of the TSI model 8520 and
Grimm series 1.108 portable aerosol instruments used to
monitor particulate matter in iron foundry. J. Occupa.
Environ. Hygiene 5 (3):157–68. doi:10.1080/
15459620701860867.
Chow, J. C., J. G. Watson, L.-W. A. Chen, W. P. Arnott,
H. Moosmüller, and K. Fung. 2004. Equivalence of ele-
mental carbon by thermal/optical reflectance and transmit-
tance with different temperature protocols. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 38 (16):4414–22. doi:10.1021/es034936u.
Costa, M. A. M., J. A. Carvalho, T. G. S. Neto, E. Anselmo,
B. A. Lima, L. T. U. Kura, and J. C. Santos. 2012. Real-time
sampling of particulate matter smaller than 2.5 μm from
Amazon forest biomass combustion. Atmos. Environ.
54:480–89. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.023.
Giechaskiel, B., M. Maricq, L. Ntziachristos, C. Dardiotis,
X. Wang, H. Axmann, A. Bergmann, and W. Schindler.
2014. Review of motor vehicle particulate emissions
178 A. MEHADI ET AL.
sampling and measurement: From smoke and filter mass
to particle number. J. Aerosol Sci. 67:48–86. doi:10.1016/j.
jaerosci.2013.09.003.
Grimm, H., and D. J. Eatough. 2009. Aerosol measurement:
The use of optical light scattering for the determination of
particulate size distribution and particulate mass including
the semi-volatile fraction. J. Air Waste Mange. Assoc.
59:101–07. doi:10.3155/1047-3289.59.1.101.
Gu, F., J. Zhang, Y. Chen, F. Cui, Y. Liu, Y. Wei, and L. Shen.
2016. The influence of relative humidity on the scattered
light signal of aerosol concentration measurement system.
Proc. SPIE 9684, 8th International Symposium on
Advanced Optical Manufacturing and Testing
Technologies: Optical Test, Measurement Technology,
and Equipment, 968404, September 27. doi:10.1117/
12.2243535.
Gupta, P., P. Doraiswamy, R. Levy, O. Pikelnaya, J. Maibach,
B. Feenstra, A. Polidori, F. Kiros, and K. C. Mills. 2018. Impact
of California fires on local and regional air quality: The role of
a low-cost sensor network and satellite observations.
GeoHealth 2:172–81. doi:10.1029/2018GH000136.
Hinds, W. C. 1999. Aerosol technology: Properties, behavior,
and measurement of airborne particles. 2nd ed. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Huang, C.-H. 2007. Field comparison of real-time PM2.5
readings from a beta gauge monitor and a light scattering
method. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 7 (2):239–50. doi:10.4209/
aaqr.2007.01.0002.
Jaklevic, J. M., R. C. Gatti, F. S. Goulding, and B. W. Loo.
1981. A beta gauge method applied to aerosol samples.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 15:680–84. doi:10.1021/es00088a006.
Jayaratne, R., X. Liu, P. Thai, M. Dunbabin, and
L. Morawska. 2018. The influence of humidity on the
performance of low-cost air particle mass sensors and the
effect of atmospheric fog. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 4883–
4890, 2018. https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4883-2018
Kelly, K. E., J. Whitaker, A. Petty, C. Widmer, A. Dybwad,
D. Sleeth, R. Martin, and A. Butterfield. 2017. Ambient
and laboratory evaluation of a low-cost particulate matter
senor. Environ. Pollut. 221:491–500. doi:10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.12.039.
Kiss, G., K. Imre, Á. Molnár, and A. Gelencsér. 2017. Bias caused
by water adsorption in hourly PM measurements. Atmos.
Meas. Tech. 10:2477–88. doi:10.5194/amt-10-2477-2017.
Kumar, P., L. Morawska, C. Martani, G. Biskos,
M. Neophytou, S. Di Sabatino, M. Bell, L. Norford, and
R. Britter. 2015. The rise of low-cost sensing for managing
air pollution in cities. Environ. Intern. 75:199–205.
doi:10.1016/j.envint.2014.11.019.
Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA). 2018.
Particulate matter sampling. Do low cost sensors fit into
the picture? Lane Regional Air Protection Agency, 1010
Main Street, Springfield, OR 97477.
Li, C.-R., H. Chih-Ning, Y.-C. Lin, M.-W. Hung, -C.-C. Yang,
H.-Y. Tsai, Y.-J. Chang, K.-C. Huang, and W.-T. Hsiao.
2018. Integrating temperature, humidity, and optical aero-
sol sensors for a wireless module for three-dimensional
space monitoring. Published in: 2018 IEEE Sensors
Applications Symposium (SAS), Seoul, South Korea.
doi:10.1109/SAS.2018.8336731.
Lipsett, M., B. Materna, S. Lyon Stone, S. Therriault,
R. Blaisdell, and J. Cook. 2013. Wildfire smoke: a guide
for public health officials.Revised July 2008 (With 2012
AQI Values). Accessed October, 2018. http://www.arb.ca.
gov/carpa/toolkit/data-to-mes/wildfiresmoke-guide.pdf.
Manikonda, A., N. Zíková, P. K. Hopke, and A. R. Ferro. 2016.
Laboratory assessment of low-cost PM monitors. J. Aerosol
Sci. 102:29–40. doi:10.1016/j.jaerosci.2016.08.010.
McMurry, P. H. 2000. A review of atmospheric aerosol
measurements. Atmos. Environ. 34 (12–14):1959–99.
doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00455-0.
MIE ADR-1500 Instruction Manual. 2010. Particulate moni-
tor. Par number 108836-00. Franklin, MA: Thermo Fisher
Scientific, Air Quality Instruments.
Moosmüller, H., R. K. Chakrabarty, and W. P. Arnott. 2009.
Aerosol light absorption and its measurement: A review.
J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer 110 (11):844–78.
doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.02.035.
Moosmüller, H., and C. M. Sorensen. 2018a. Small and large
particle limits of single scattering Albedo for homoge-
neous, spherical particles. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat.
Transfer 204 (Supplement C):250–55. doi:10.1016/j.
jqsrt.2017.09.029.
Moosmüller, H., and C. M. Sorensen. 2018b. Single scattering
Albedo of homogeneous, spherical particles in the transi-
tion region. J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer
219:333–38. doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.08.015.
Petters, M. D., C. M. Carrico, S. M. Kreidenweis, A. J. Prenni,
P. J. DeMott, J. L. Collett, and H. Moosmüller. 2009. Cloud
condensation nucleation activity of biomass burning Aerosol.
J. Geophys. Res. 114 (D22205). doi: 10.1029/2009JD012353.
Rai, A. C., P. Kumar, F. Pilla, A. N. Skouloudis,
S. D. Sabatino, C. Ratti, A. Yasar, and D. Rickerby. 2017.
End-user perspective of low-cost sensors for outdoor air
pollution monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 607-608:691–705.
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.266.
Reid, C. E., M. Jerrett, E. B. Tager, M. L. Petersen, J. K. Mann,
and J. R. Balmes. 2016. Differential respiratory health effect
from the 2008 northern California wildfires:
A spatiotemporal approach. Environ. Res. 150:227–35.
doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.012.
Schweizer, D., R. Cisneros, and G. Shaw. 2016. A comparative
analysis of temporal and permanent beta attenuation
monitors: the importance of understanding data and
equipment limitations when creating PM2.5 air quality
health advisories. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 7:865–75.
doi:10.1016/j.apr.2016.02.003.
Sengupta, D., V. Samburova, C. Bhattarai, E. Kirillova,
L. Mazzoleni, M. Iaukea-Lum, A. Watts, H. Moosmüller,
and A. Khlystov. 2018. Light absorption by polar and
non-polar Aerosol compounds from laboratory biomass
combustion. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18 (15):10849–67.
doi:10.5194/acp-18-10849-2018.
Snyder, E. G., T. H. Watkins, P. A. Solomon, E. D. Thoma,
R. W. Williams, G. S. W. Hagler, D. Shelow, D. A. Hindin,
V. J. Kilaru, and P. W. Preuss. 2013. The changing para-
digm of air pollution monitoring. Environ. Sci. Technol.
47:11369–77. doi:10.1021/es4022602.
Solomon, P. A., and C. Sioutas. 2008. Continuous and semi-
continuous monitoring techniques for particulate matter
mass and chemical components: A synthesis of findings
from EPA’s particulate matter supersites program and
related studies. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 58
(2):164–95. doi:10.3155/1047-3289.58.2.164.

Sousana, S., K. Koehlerb, G. Thomasc, J. H. Parka,
M. Hillmanc, A. Haltermand, and T. M. Peters. 2016.
Inter-comparison of low-cost sensors for measuring the
mass concentration of occupational aerosols. Aerosol Sci.
Tech. 50 (5):462–73. doi:10.1080/02786826.2016.1162901.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Evaluation
Summary. 2017. Accessed June 11, 2018. http://www.
aqmd.gov/aq-spec/evaluations/summary.
Tian, J., J. C. Chow, J. Cao, Y. Han, H. Ni, L.-W. A. Chen,
X. Wang, R. Huang, H. Moosmüller, and J. G. Watson.
2015. A biomass combustion chamber: design, evaluation,
and a case study of wheat straw combustion emission tests.
Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 15:2104–14. doi:10.4209/
aaqr.2015.03.0167.
Trent, A. 2003. Laboratory evaluation of real-time smoke
particulate monitors. USDA Forest Service, Technology
and Development Program, Missoula, MT, USA, 2500
Watershed. December 2003. 0325-2834-MTDC.
Trent, A. 2006. Smoke particulate monitors: 2006 updates.
USDA Forest Service, Technology and Development
Program, Missoula, MT, USA, 2500 Watershed, Soil, and
Air. December 2006, 0625-2842-MTDC.
U.S. EPA. 2013. 40 CFR parts 50, 51, 52, 53, 58. national
ambient air quality standards for particulate matter; final
rule, Vol. 78, 3086–287. Washington, DC: Environmental
Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. 2014. Air sensors guide book. Accessed August 27,
2018. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.
cfm?dirEntryId=277996.
U.S. EPA/ORD. 2017. List of designated reference and
equivalent methods. 2017. U.S. EPA Ambient Monitoring
Technology Information Center (AMTIC). Accessed
August 27, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/amtic/air-monitor
ing-methods-criteria-pollutants.
JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 179
Upton, J., and K. Wheeling. 2017. How smoke from
California’s fires is harming the most vulnerable. Climate
Central. Accessed June 11, 2018. http://www.climatecen
tral.org/news/smoke-california-wildfires-harming-most-
vulnerable-21777.
Wallace, L. A., A. J. Wheeler, J. Kearney, K. Van Ryswyk,
H. You, R. H. Kulka, P. E. Rasmussen, J. R. Brook, and
X. Xu. 2011. Validation of continuous particle monitors
for personal, indoor, and outdoor exposures. J. Expo. Sci.
Environ. Epidemiol. 21 (1):49–64. doi:10.1038/jes.2010.15.
Wang, Y., J. Li, H. Jing, Q. Zhang, J. Jiang, and P. Biswas.
2015. Laboratory evaluation and calibration of three
low-cost particle sensors for particulate matter
measurement. Aerosol. Sci. Technol. 49 (11):1063–77.
doi:10.1080/02786826.2015.1100710.
Wang, Z., L. Calderón, A. P. Patton, M. S. Allacci, J. Senick,
R. Wener, C. J. Andrews, and G. Mainelis. 2016.
Comparison of real-time instruments and gravimetric
method when measuring particulate matter in
a residential building. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 66
(11):1109–20. doi:10.1080/10962247.2016.1201022.
Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and
T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase
western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313:940–43.
doi:10.1126/science.1128834.
Yanosky, J. D., P. L. Williams, and D. L. MacIntosh. 2002.
A comparison of two direct-reading aerosol monitors with
the federal reference method for PM2.5 in indoor air. Atmos.
Environ. 36 (1):107–13. doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00422-8.
Zheng, T., M. H. Bergin, K. K. Johnson, S. N. Tripathi,
S. Shirodkar, M. S. Landis, R. Sutaria, and D. E. Carlson.
2018. Field evaluation of low-cost particulate matter sensors
in high and low concentration environments. Atmos. Meas.
Tech. 11 (8):4823–46. doi:10.5194/amt-11-4823-2018.