Air quality monitors using low-cost optical PM_2.5 sensors can track the dispersion of wildfire smoke; but quantitative hazard assessment requires a smoke-specific adjustment factor (AF). This study determined AFs for three professional-grade devices and four monitors with low-cost sensors based on measurements inside a well-ventilated lab impacted by the 2018 Camp Fire in California (USA). Using the Thermo TEOM-FDMS as reference, AFs of professional monitors were 0.85 for Grimm mini wide-range aerosol spectrometer, 0.25 for TSI DustTrak, and 0.53 for Thermo pDR1500; AFs for low-cost monitors were 0.59 for AirVisual Pro, 0.48 for PurpleAir Indoor, 0.46 for Air Quality Egg, and 0.60 for eLichens Indoor Air Quality Pro Station. We also compared public data from 53 PurpleAir PA-II monitors to 12 nearby regulatory monitoring stations impacted by Camp Fire smoke and devices near stations impacted by the Carr and Mendocino Complex Fires in California and the Pole Creek Fire in Utah. Camp Fire AFs varied by day and location, with median (interquartile) of 0.48 (0.44–0.53). Adjusted PA-II 4-h average data were generally within ±20% of PM_2.5 reported by the monitoring stations. Adjustment improved the accuracy of Air Quality Index (AQI) hazard level reporting, e.g., from 14% to 84% correct in Sacramento during the Camp Fire.

中文翻译：

---

带光学传感器的低成本专业 PM2.5 监测仪的野火烟雾调整系数。


使用低成本光学 PM _2.5传感器的空气质量监测仪可以跟踪野火烟雾的扩散情况；但定量危害评估需要特定于烟雾的调整因子（AF）。这项研究根据受 2018 年美国加利福尼亚州营火影响的通风良好的实验室内的测量结果，确定了三台专业级设备和四台配备低成本传感器的显示器的 AF。以 Thermo TEOM-FDMS 为参考，专业监测仪的 AF 分别为：Grimm 迷你宽量程气溶胶光谱仪为 0.85，TSI DustTrak 为 0.25，Thermo pDR1500 为 0.53；低成本显示器的 AF 分别为：AirVisual Pro 为 0.59、PurpleAir Indoor 为 0.48、Air Quality Egg 为 0.46、eLichens Indoor Air Quality Pro Station 为 0.60。我们还比较了 53 个 PurpleAir PA-II 监测仪与受 Camp Fire 烟雾影响的 12 个附近监管监测站以及受加利福尼亚州卡尔和门多西诺综合火灾以及犹他州 Pole Creek 火灾影响的监测站附近设备的公共数据。营火 AF 因日期和地点而异，中位数（四分位数）为 0.48 (0.44–0.53)。调整后的 PA-II 4 小时平均数据一般在监测站报告的 PM _2.5的 ±20% 范围内。调整提高了空气质量指数 (AQI) 危险级别报告的准确性，例如，坎普火灾期间萨克拉门托的准确率从 14% 提高到 84%。