Field Evaluation

Smart Citizen Kit v2.1

 Background
• From 09/19/2019 to 11/19/2019, three Smart Citizen Kit v2.1 (hereinafter SCK 2.1) sensors
were deployed at the South Coast AQMD stationary ambient monitoring site in Rubidoux and
were run side-by-side with Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) instruments measuring the same
pollutants
• MetOne BAM (reference instrument):
• SCK 2.1 (3 units tested):  Beta-attenuation monitor
 Particle sensor: optical; non-FEM (model PMS 5003, Plantower) (FEM PM2.5 & PM10)
 Each unit reports: PM1.0, PM2.5 and PM10 (μg/m3), temperature  Measures PM2.5 & PM10 (μg/m3)
(°C), RH (%), pressure (Pa), noise level (dBA) and ambient light  Unit cost: ~$20,000
(Lux), VOC (ppb), equivalent carbon dioxide (ppm)  Time resolution: 1-hr
 Unit cost: $119 (Smart Citizen Starter Kit)
 Time resolution: 1-min • GRIMM (reference instrument):
 Units IDs: 7FD1, 3423, 4E34  Optical particle counter (FEM PM2.5)
 Measures PM1.0, PM2.5, and PM10 (μg/m3)
 Cost: ~$25,000 and up
 Time resolution: 1-min
• Teledyne API T640 (reference instrument):
 Optical particle counter (FEM PM2.5)
 Measures PM2.5 & PM10 (μg/m3)
 Unit cost: ~$21,000
 Time resolution: 1-min
• Met station (T, RH, P, WS, WD), cost: ~$5,000
 Time resolution: 1-min

2
 Data validation & recovery
• Basic QA/QC procedures were used to validate the collected data (i.e. obvious outliers, negative values
and invalid data-points were eliminated from the data-set)
• Data recovery from units 7FD1, 3423, 4E34 was ~100% for all PM measurements

SCK 2.1; intra-model variability

• Absolute intra-model variability was ~ 0.35, 0.44 and 1.13 µg/m3 for PM1.0, PM2.5 and PM10, respectively
(calculated as the standard deviation of the three sensor means)
• Relative intra-model variability was ~ 3.2%, 2.5% and 6.0 % for PM1.0, PM2.5 and PM10, respectively
(calculated as the absolute intra-model variability relative to the mean of the three sensor means)
PM1.0 PM2.5 PM10
mean ± SD median mean ± SD median mean ± SD median
30 50 50
5-min mean mass conc. (µg/m3)

5-min mean mass conc. (µg/m3)

5-min mean mass conc. (µg/m3)

25 40 40
20
30 30
15
20 20
10
5 10 10

0 0 0
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34 Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34 Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34

3
 Reference Instruments: PM2.5
GRIMM, BAM & T640
• Data recovery for PM2.5 from FEM GRIMM, FEM BAM and FEM T640 was ~ 98%, 99% and 100%, respectively.
• Very strong correlations between the reference instruments for PM2.5 measurements (R2 ~ 0.90) were observed.
Note: GRIMM data were not available between 9/19/19 and 10/9/19 due to maintenance.

PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
100 y = 1.1843x + 4.11 100 100
y = 0.9857x + 0.5648 y = 1.1816x + 3.8599
R² = 0.8687 R² = 0.9104 R² = 0.9212
80 80 80
FEM GRIMM
FEM GRIMM

FEM T640
60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
FEM BAM FEM T640 FEM BAM
4
 Reference Instruments: PM10
GRIMM, BAM & T640
• Data recovery for PM10 from GRIMM, FEM BAM and T640 was ~97%, 99% and 100%, respectively.
• Strong correlations between the reference instruments for PM10 measurements (R2 ~ 0.88) were observed.
Note: GRIMM data were not available between 9/19/19 and 10/9/19 due to maintenance.

PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
800 800 800
y = 0.8888x + 13.939 y = 1.0216x + 1.6189 y = 0.8635x + 12.484
R² = 0.8325 R² = 0.8879 R² = 0.9224
600 600 600
GRIMM
GRIMM

T640
400 400 400

200 200 200

0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
FEM BAM T640 FEM BAM
5
 SCK 2.1 vs GRIMM (PM1.0; 5-min mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed very strong correlations
with the corresponding GRIMM data (R2 ~ 0.94)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM1.0 mass concentrations when PM1.0 mass
concentrations were lower than 30 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM1.0 mass concentrations
when PM1.0 mass concentrations were higher than
30 µg/m3 as measured by GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM1.0
diurnal variations as recorded by GRIMM

PM1.0 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM1.0 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM1.0 (5-min mean, µg/m3)
120 120 120
y = 0.9292x + 2.701 y = 0.9126x + 2.8198 y = 0.8659x + 2.8287
100 R² = 0.9451 100 R² = 0.9417 100 R² = 0.9403
GRIMM
GRIMM

GRIMM
80 80 80
60 60 60
40 40 40
20 20 20
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
6
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM GRIMM (PM2.5; 5-min mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed strong correlations with
the corresponding FEM GRIMM data (R2 ~ 0.77)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass
concentrations were lower than 20 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM2.5 mass concentrations
when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher than
20 µg/m3 as measured by FEM GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM2.5
diurnal variations as recorded by FEM GRIMM

PM2.5 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (5-min mean, µg/m3)
200 200 200
y = 0.4938x + 10.761 y = 0.4954x + 11.257 y = 0.5173x + 10.861
R² = 0.7719 R² = 0.759 R² = 0.7695
150 150 150
FEM GRIMM
FEM GRIMM

FEM GRIMM
100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
7
 SCK 2.1 vs GRIMM (PM10; 5-min mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors did not correlate with the
corresponding GRIMM data (R2 ~ 0.06)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated
the PM10 mass concentrations measured by
GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors did not seem to track the
PM10 diurnal variations as recorded by GRIMM

PM10 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM10 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM10 (5-min mean, µg/m3)
600 600 600
y = 0.4179x + 66.093 y = 0.4621x + 66.436 y = 0.4784x + 65.917
R² = 0.0592 R² = 0.0569 R² = 0.0602
400 400 400
GRIMM
GRIMM

GRIMM
200 200 200

0 0 0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34

8
 SCK 2.1 vs GRIMM (PM1.0; 1-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed very strong correlations
with the corresponding GRIMM data (R2 ~ 0.96)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM1.0 mass concentrations when PM1.0 mass
concentrations were lower than 30 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM1.0 mass concentrations
when PM1.0 mass concentrations were higher
than 30 µg/m3 as measured by GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM1.0
diurnal variations as recorded by GRIMM

PM1.0 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM1.0 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM1.0 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
80 80 80
y = 0.9404x + 2.5615 y = 0.9237x + 2.6785 y = 0.8756x + 2.697
R² = 0.9609 R² = 0.9577 R² = 0.9558
60 60 60
GRIMM
GRIMM

GRIMM
40 40 40

20 20 20

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
9
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM GRIMM (PM2.5; 1-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed strong correlations
with the corresponding FEM GRIMM data (R2 ~
0.79)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated
the PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass
concentrations were lower than 20 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM2.5 mass concentrations
when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher
than 20 µg/m3 as measured by FEM GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM2.5
diurnal variations as recorded by FEM GRIMM
PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
150 150 y = 0.4999x + 11.171 150
y = 0.4982x + 10.674 y = 0.5217x + 10.777
R² = 0.7984 R² = 0.7854 R² = 0.7959
FEM GRIMM
FEM GRIMM

FEM GRIMM
100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
10
 SCK 2.1 vs GRIMM (PM10; 1-hr mean)

• SCK 2.1 sensors did not correlate with the

corresponding GRIMM data (R2 ~ 0.07)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated
the PM10 mass concentrations measured by
GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors did not seem to track the
PM10 diurnal variations as recorded by GRIMM

PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
500 500 500
y = 0.4201x + 66.068 y = 0.4636x + 66.435 y = 0.4778x + 65.962
R² = 0.07 R² = 0.067 R² = 0.0705
400 400 400
GRIMM
GRIMM

GRIMM
300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
11
 SCK 2.1 vs GRIMM (PM1.0; 24-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed very strong correlations
with the corresponding GRIMM data (R2 ~ 0.99)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM1.0 mass concentrations when PM1.0 mass
concentrations were lower than 30 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM1.0 mass concentrations
when PM1.0 mass concentrations were higher than
30 µg/m3 as measured by GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM1.0
diurnal variations as recorded by GRIMM

PM1.0 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM1.0 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM1.0 (24-hr mean, µg/m3)
50 50 50
y = 0.927x + 2.7528 y = 0.9063x + 2.9202 y = 0.858x + 2.9548
40 R² = 0.9911 40 R² = 0.9912 40 R² = 0.9893
GRIMM
GRIMM

GRIMM
30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
12
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM GRIMM (PM2.5; 24-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed very strong
correlations with the corresponding FEM GRIMM
data (R2 ~ 0.92)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass
concentrations were lower than 20 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM2.5 mass concentrations
when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher
than 20 µg/m3 as measured by FEM GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM2.5
diurnal variations as recorded by FEM GRIMM

PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3)
50 50 50
y = 0.4766x + 11.101 y = 0.4795x + 11.556 y = 0.4987x + 11.209
40 R² = 0.9218 40 R² = 0.9207 40 R² = 0.9257
FEM GRIMM
FEM GRIMM

FEM GRIMM
30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
13
 SCK 2.1 vs GRIMM (PM10; 24-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed very weak
correlations with the corresponding GRIMM
data (R2 ~ 0.17)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated
the PM10 mass concentrations measured by
GRIMM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors did not seem to track the
PM10 diurnal variations as recorded by GRIMM

PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3)
150 150 150
y = 0.3394x + 67.409 y = 0.3795x + 67.599 y = 0.3828x + 67.383
R² = 0.167 R² = 0.1693 R² = 0.1705
GRIMM
GRIMM

GRIMM
100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34

14
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM BAM (PM2.5; 1-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed strong correlations with
the corresponding FEM BAM data (R2 ~ 0.71)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass
concentrations were lower than 10 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM2.5 mass concentrations
when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher than
10 µg/m3 as measured by FEM BAM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM2.5
diurnal variations as recorded by FEM BAM

PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
150 150 150

y = 0.3759x + 6.5441 y = 0.3814x + 6.7399 y = 0.3975x + 6.4348

FEM BAM
FEM BAM

FEM BAM
100 R² = 0.7127 100 R² = 0.7105 100 R² = 0.719

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
15
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM BAM (PM10; 1-hr mean)

• SCK 2.1 sensors did not correlate with the

corresponding FEM BAM data (R2 ~ 0.04)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM10 mass concentrations measured by FEM
BAM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors did not seem to track the
PM10 diurnal variations as recorded by FEM BAM

PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
800 800 800

y = 0.3183x + 58.009 y = 0.3605x + 57.926 y = 0.3715x + 57.568

600 600 600
FEM BAM

R² = 0.0377 R² = 0.0379 R² = 0.0401

FEM BAM
FEM BAM

400 400 400

200 200 200

0 0 0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
16
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM BAM (PM2.5; 24-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed very strong correlations
with the corresponding FEM BAM data (R2 ~ 0.90)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass
concentrations were lower than 10 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM2.5 mass concentrations
when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher than
10 µg/m3 as measured by FEM BAM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM2.5
diurnal variations as recorded by FEM BAM

PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3)
50 50 50
y = 0.3848x + 6.4014 y = 0.3897x + 6.6113 y = 0.4048x + 6.3228
40 R² = 0.9018 40 R² = 0.9013 40 R² = 0.905
FEM BAM
FEM BAM

FEM BAM
30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
17
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM BAM (PM10; 24-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed very weak correlations
with the corresponding FEM BAM data (R2 ~ 0.10)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM10 mass concentrations measured by FEM
BAM
• The SCK 2.1 sensors did not seem to track the
PM10 diurnal variations as recorded by FEM BAM

PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3)
150 150 150
y = 0.3271x + 57.944 y = 0.3643x + 57.967 y = 0.3678x + 57.743
R² = 0.1021 R² = 0.1008 R² = 0.1017
FEM BAM

FEM BAM
FEM BAM

100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
18
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM T640 (PM2.5; 5-min mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed strong correlations
with the corresponding FEM T640 data (R2 ~
0.77)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated
the PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass
concentrations were lower than 20 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM2.5 mass concentrations
when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher
than 20 µg/m3 as measured by FEM T640
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM2.5
diurnal variations as recorded by FEM T640

PM2.5 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (5-min mean, µg/m3)
200 200 yy==0.4952x 200 y = 0.5154x
0.4645x + 9.9431
yy==0.4889x
0.435x + 10.067
17.017 0.442x + 10.333
17.265 16.852
R² = 0.7692 R² = 0.7644
R² = 0.3148 R² = 0.7735
0.3232
R² = 0.3142
150 150 150
T640

GRIMM
GRIMM

GRIMM
T640

T640
100 100 100
FEMFEM

FEM

FEM
FEM

FEM
50 50 50

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
3423
19
 SCK 2.1 vs T640 (PM10; 5-min mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors did not correlate with the
corresponding T640 data (R2 ~ 0.086)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated
the PM10 mass concentrations measured by
T640
• The SCK 2.1 sensors did not seem to track the
PM10 diurnal variations as recorded by T640

PM10 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM10 (5-min mean, µg/m3) PM10 (5-min mean, µg/m3)
600 600 600
y = 0.4716x + 56.041 y = 0.5315x + 55.959 y = 0.5417x + 55.52
R² = 0.0855 R² = 0.0853 R² = 0.0881
400 400 400
T640

T640
T640

200 200 200

0 0 0
0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600 0 200 400 600
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
20
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM T640 (PM2.5; 1-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed strong correlations with
the corresponding FEM T640 data (R2 ~ 0.79)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass
concentrations were lower than 20 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM2.5 mass concentrations
when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher than
20 µg/m3 as measured by FEM T640
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM2.5
diurnal variations as recorded by FEM T640

PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
150 150 150
y = 0.4934x + 9.9858 y = 0.4999x + 10.252 y = 0.5209x + 9.8559
R² = 0.7899 R² = 0.7853 R² = 0.7949
FEM T640
FEM T640

FEM T640
100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
21
 SCK 2.1 vs T640 (PM10; 1-hr mean)

• SCK 2.1 sensors did not correlate with the

corresponding T640 data (R2 ~ 0.097)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated
the PM10 mass concentrations measured by
T640
• The SCK 2.1 sensors did not seem to track the
PM10 diurnal variations as recorded by T640

PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (1-hr mean, µg/m3)
500 500 500
y = 0.4722x + 56.019 y = 0.5319x + 55.947 y = 0.5432x + 55.511
R² = 0.096 R² = 0.0956 R² = 0.0991
400 400 400
T640

T640

T640
300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
22
 SCK 2.1 vs FEM T640 (PM2.5; 24-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed strong correlations with
the corresponding FEM T640 data (R2 ~ 0.91)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated the
PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass
concentrations were lower than 20 µg/m3 and
overestimated the PM2.5 mass concentrations
when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher than
20 µg/m3 as measured by FEM T640
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track the PM2.5
diurnal variations as recorded by FEM T640

PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM2.5 (24-hr mean, µg/m3)
50 50 50
y = 0.5039x + 9.8157 y = 0.5092x + 10.11 y = 0.5289x + 9.7328
40 R² = 0.917 40 R² = 0.9126 40 R² = 0.9162
FEM T640

FEM T640

FEM T640
30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10

0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
23
 SCK 2.1 vs T640 (PM10; 24-hr mean)
• SCK 2.1 sensors showed very weak
correlations with the corresponding T640 data
(R2 ~ 0.22)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 sensors underestimated
the PM10 mass concentrations measured by
T640
• The SCK 2.1 sensors did not seem to track the
PM10 diurnal variations as recorded by T640

PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3) PM10 (24-hr mean, µg/m3)
150 150 150
y = 0.4734x + 56.193 y = 0.5215x + 56.329 y = 0.5254x + 56.031
R² = 0.2257 R² = 0.2182 R² = 0.2191
T640

T640
T640

100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
24
 SCK 2.1 vs South Coast AQMD Met Station
(Temp; 5-min mean)
• SCK 2.1 temperature measurements showed very
strong correlations with the corresponding South
Coast AQMD Met Station data (R2 ~ 0.96)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 temperature measurements
overestimated the corresponding South Coast AQMD
Met Station data
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track well the
temperature diurnal variations as recorded by South
Coast AQMD Met Station

T (5-min mean, °C) T (5-min mean, °C) T (5-min mean, °C)

South Coast AQMD Met Station

South Coast AQMD Met Station

South Coast AQMD Met Station

40 40 40

30 30 30

20 20 20

10 10 10
y = 0.8599x + 2.6696 y = 0.8663x + 2.3667 y = 0.882x + 2.161
R² = 0.9601 R² = 0.9595 R² = 0.9646
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
25
 SCK 2.1 vs South Coast AQMD Met Station
(RH; 5-min mean)
• SCK 2.1 RH measurements showed very strong
correlations with the corresponding South Coast
AQMD Met Station data (R2 ~ 0.98)
• Overall, the SCK 2.1 RH measurements overestimated
the corresponding South Coast AQMD Met Station
data
• The SCK 2.1 sensors seemed to track well the RH
diurnal variations as recorded by South Coast AQMD
Met Station

RH (5-min mean, %) RH (5-min mean, %) RH (5-min mean, %)

South Coast AQMD Met Station

South Coast AQMD Met Station

South Coast AQMD Met Station

100 100 100

y = 1.2793x - 20.413 y = 1.1682x - 15.928 y = 1.191x - 17.309
80 R² = 0.9784 80 R² = 0.9797 80 R² = 0.9808

60 60 60

40 40 40

20 20 20

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Unit 7FD1 Unit 3423 Unit 4E34
26
 Discussion
• The three SCK 2.1 sensors’ data recovery from all units was ~ 100% for all PM measurements
• The absolute intra-model variability was ~ 0.35, 0.44 and 1.13 µg/m3 for PM1.0, PM2.5 and PM10, respectively
• The reference instruments (GRIMM, BAM and T640) showed strong to very strong correlations with each other for both
PM2.5 (R2 ~ 0.90) and PM10 (R2 ~ 0.88) mass concentration measurements (1-hr mean)
• PM1.0 mass concentration measurements measured by SCK 2.1 sensors showed very strong correlations with the
corresponding GRIMM data (R2 ~ 0.96, 1-hr mean). The sensors underestimated PM1.0 mass concentrations when PM1.0
mass concentrations were lower than 30 µg/m3 as measured by GRIMM
• PM2.5 mass concentration measurements measured by SCK 2.1 sensors showed strong correlations with the
corresponding FEM GRIMM, FEM BAM and FEM T640 data (R2 ~ 0.79, 0.71 and 0.79, respectively, 1-hr mean). The
sensors underestimated PM2.5 mass concentrations when PM2.5 mass concentrations were lower than 20, 10 and 20
µg/m3 as measured by FEM GRIMM, FEM BAM and FEM T640, respectively; and overestimated PM2.5 mass
concentrations when PM2.5 mass concentrations were higher than 20, 10 and 20 µg/m3 as measured by FEM GRIMM,
FEM BAM and FEM T640, respectively
• PM10 mass concentration measurements measured by SCK 2.1 sensors did not correlate with the corresponding GRIMM,
FEM BAM and T640 data (R2 ~ 0.07, 0.04 and 0.097, respectively; 1-hr mean) and underestimated PM10 mass
concentrations measured by GRIMM, FEM BAM and T640
• No sensor calibration was performed by South Coast AQMD Staff prior to the beginning of this test
• Laboratory chamber testing is necessary to fully evaluate the performance of these sensors under known aerosol
concentrations and controlled temperature and relative humidity conditions
• All results are still preliminary

27