Indoor Air Quality Assessment Using Low-cost

Commercial Off-the-Shelf Sensors

Marin B. Marinov Borislav T. Ganev Dimitar N. Nikolov
Department of Electronics, Department of Electronics, Department of Electronics,
Technical University of Sofia Technical University of Sofia Technical University of Sofia
2021 6th International Symposium on Environment-Friendly Energies and Applications (EFEA) | 978-1-7281-7011-4/20/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/EFEA49713.2021.9406260

8, Kliment Ohridski Blvd., 8, Kliment Ohridski Blvd., 8, Kliment Ohridski Blvd.,

BG-1756 Sofia, Bulgaria, BG-1756 Sofia, Bulgaria, BG-1756 Sofia, Bulgaria,
mbm@tu-sofia.bg b_ganev@tu-sofia.bg dnikolov@tu-sofia.bg

Abstract — Limited representative data sets on CO2
concentrations and volatile organic compounds ( ) are
available for indoor spaces. At the same time, more and more
inexpensive and portable measuring systems are being used in air
quality studies, which open up new fields of application. It is
unclear to what extent the lower measurement precision and long-
term stability of the low-cost systems are sufficient to quantify the
rather low pollutant concentrations in offices and living spaces.
This work reports on test measurements of and AQ sensors
made by way of example.
Keywords—аir pollution, calibration and characterization;
environmental monitoring, IAQ (indoor air quality), IoT.
I. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION
A. Background and Motivation
More than 90% of the population of the world breathes
polluted air, according to recent data from the World Health
Organization (WHO). This is the main cause of more than 7
million deaths annually. [1]. The number of studies on the
levels of ambient air pollution and its adverse effects on
human health in cities and regions is constantly growing. [2].
Unfortunately, the bad indoor air quality (IAQ) is an even
greater danger to human health, as we typically spend 80 to
90 % of our time indoors [3]. Some health effects, such as
respiratory disease, heart disease, and cancer, have been
shown to occur years later, according to research by the US
Environmental Protection Agency [4].
This makes it important to monitor indoor air pollutants
(in homes, offices, schools, hospitals, public buildings, etc.)
[5, 6]. Conventional approaches to air pollution monitoring
are based on the use of expensive stationary devices, which
significantly complicates the possibilities for detailed indoor
observations. Over the last two decades, low-cost sensor
technologies have made remarkable progress in air pollution
monitoring, making it possible to bring a change to this state
of affairs [7].
For the research in the present work, it is essential to
determine what exactly is meant by cheap air quality sensors.
The definition given in Morawska et al. [8] has already
received general recognition. According to this definition,
low-cost sensors for air pollutants are defined as technologies
that promise significant advances in air pollution monitoring,
through huge growths in temporal and spatial resolution of
data, thus providing answers to scientific problems and
applications for end-users and uses the term low-cost sensor
to refer to a sensor cost of about 100 €. This definition is in
full accordance with the modern vision of paradigm-shifting
of the environmental monitoring methods and the increasing
use of lower-cost sensors [7].
B. Indoor Air Quality Assessment
The WHO guidelines define as major pollutants
determining IAQ such pollutants as carbon monoxide ( ),
benzene, naphthalene, formaldehyde, nitrogen dioxide
( ), radon, particulate matter . and . Although,
carbon dioxide ( ) is not included in the WHO list. It can
be used as an integrated indicator for IAQ. High
concentrations suggest poor ventilation, which could mean
elevated concentrations of indoor pollutants [9].
The European Respiratory Society (ERS) defines carbon
dioxide ( ), , . and as key air pollutants
[9]. At present, there is still no generally accepted metric for
indoor air quality. Traditionally, ( ), concentrations have
been used to evaluate the levels of indoor air pollution in
rooms inhabited by humans. Besides, metabolic could be
used in tandem with Demand Controlled Ventilation (DCV).
An analysis presented in [10] shows that about 2/3 of the IAQ
studies include , which is considered to be the most
appropriate parameter to measure IAQ [11]. But in buildings
with low employment levels, such as logistics centers,
automated production lines-plants, where an increased
emission of other pollutants such as volatile organic
compounds (VOC) or PMs is possible, ventilation control
based on levels measurement alone is not sufficient [12].
This creates the need for monitoring multiple air pollutants.
This work presents a study of the possibilities of
combining low-cost sensors and air quality sensors to
obtain reliable indoor pollution data. Reliable indoor pollution
data allow for both efficient management of ventilation
systems, assessment of pollution levels, and identification of
sources. PM sensors are not considered in this study.
II. INSTRUMENTATION AND METHODS
A. Sensors requirements
To correlate between CO and AQ/VOC sensor
measurement, the chosen sensors should be able to measure
and VOC compounds with different underlying
measurement techniques. For example, CO sensors should
rely on non-dispersive infrared spectroscopy and VOC sensor
could rely on many different microelectromechanical systems
(MEMS) sensing techniques. This will make it possible to
correlate the measured data because most of the VOC gas
sensors provide reading for content. However, the is
not measured directly but relies on mathematical correlation.
B. Sensors
High concentrations of are considered toxic. Elevated
levels of concentration can cause eye, throat, and nose
irritation. levels in the range 400 − 1000 are
typical of well-ventilated occupied interiors. The long-term

978-1-7281-7011-4/20/$31.00©2020 European Union

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 20:51:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE I. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF SENSORS.
Reference Reference Test chamber
gas 1 gas 3
Sensor S100 MinIR IRC-A1 K30
BME680_1 K-30_1

..........
Manufacturer ELT Sensor GSS Alphasense SenseAir

Valve 3
Valve 1

...
...
±30 ppm ±70 ppm ±5% ±30 ppm +3%
Accuracy 1% FS
±5% of read. of read. of reading BME680_n K-30_n
Measurement
...
0–5,000 0–5,000 0–5,000 0–10,000
range,
Response time, Output Battery and power ESP 32
60 10 < 40 < 60 valve management Wi - Fi
!" ,
Operating
5 3.25–5.5 2–5 4.5–14 Heating / Cooling Unit
voltage
Weight, g 10 16 15 17
PUMP
exposure limit in the EU and the US (8-hour average time) is
5000 [13, 12]. Fig. 1. Experimental set-up
To investigate the effectiveness of using inexpensive
sensors for different applications, a group of four NDIR CO D. Test Chamber Set-up
sensors are evaluated (S100, ELT Sensor; MinIR, GSS; IRC- The experimental setup for the sensors study is given
A1, Alphasense; K30, SenseAir). All sensors have guaranteed schematically in Fig. 1.
measurement ranges of 0 − 5000 and a weight of less
than 20 % (see Table I). The studied sensors and the VOC sensors are mounted
in the test chamber, which allows for control of several
The choice of the K30 sensor is determined by its high parameters: i) gas content, ii) temperature, iii) pressure, and
accuracy in the measuring range, which is of major interest iv) humidity. The test chamber has computer control and is
( ±30 ± 3 % of the reading) for the sampling rate of equipped with a glass door. The internal dimensions of the
0.5 (), high reliability, on-board temperature correction, and chamber are 30 cm x 30 cm x 30 cm, with a total volume of
signal averaging. The resolution of 1 [14] is possible 27 000 , - . Data acquisition takes place in the LabVIEW
within the 0 − 10 000 measurement range. graphical programming environment.
C. AQ VOC Sensors E. Measurement equipment
Common VOCs include compounds from the benzene, Calibration gases at 0, 100, 1000, and 5000 were
toluene, trichlorethylene, alcohols, and acrolein groups. VOCs used for the measurements.
are reported usually as total tVOC reporting (total VOC - No true reference was considered for tVOC measurements
tVOC). This designation refers to the combined effect of due to the current technological limitations. The main focus of
compounds that may not otherwise be detected due to low this research is on sensor uniformity [21].
concentration levels. Tobacco smoke, detergents, deodorants,
and building materials mainly contribute to increasing tVOC F. Data processing and analysis
levels indoors. Health effects at high concentrations of tVOC
include nausea, dizziness, headache, eye irritation, and fatigue The VOC sensors are switched on at least 12 hours before
[15]. Various sources indicate that tVOC concentrations of up measurements, which allows for the self-calibration
to about 300 * are acceptable and levels above 500 * procedures to be performed and their readings to be stabilized.
should not be exceeded [16]. A wireless connection is used to transmit data in the
LabVIEW environment. In this case, an ESP 32 controller for
Four off-the-shelf sensors for AQ assessment were sending data to the server and performing logging operations
compared in terms of their low cost, availability, and ease of is used.
data acquisition: CCS811 [17], MICS-VZ-89TE [18],
BME680 [19], BME688 [20]. During the experiments of each The data from all sensors are averaged for 1 − minute
sensor model, 3 units were used. The BME680 and BME688 intervals due to the different frequencies of the sensor data
sensors provide data not only on air quality but also on outputs.
temperature, humidity, and pressure. For the quality assessment of the responses of the sensors
to the reference concentrations, regression coefficients
TABLE II. BASIC SPECIFICATION OF THE TESTED AQ/ tVOC were calculated using the least-squares method. For the
SENSORS
measurements in this work, the correlation was ranked as very
Sensor CCS811 MICS-VZ- BME680 BME688
strong for ≥ 0.8, strong for ∈ [0.6, 0.8), moderate
89TE for ∈ [ 0.4, 0.6), weak for ∈ [0.2, 0.4), and very
Manufacturer AMS SGX Sens. Bosch Bosch weak for ∈ [0, 0.2) [22].
Range tVOC, * 0–1200 0-2000 NA NA III. EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS
Range eCO2, 400-8192 400-2000 NA NA
A. Sensors
Additional parameters - - T, RH, p T, RH, p
Operating voltage, 1.7-3.6 1.65–3.6 1.7-3.6 1.7-3.6 1) Linearity and Calibration Tests
Dimensions, 2.7x4x1.1 6.9×5×1.55 3×3×0.93 3×3×0.93
For measurements with K30 sensors in this study,
reference gases with concentrations of 0, 100, 1000, and
Response time, !" , ~s <5 <3 <3
5000 ppm were used as a reference.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 20:51:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 3. K30 Sensor Calibration function vs reference gas
concentrations
Fig. 2. 24-hour measurements at 3 different concentrations of
from 4 K30 sensors Conventional least-squares regression and Reduced Major
Fig. 2 shows 24-hour measurements of 3 different Axis (RMA) regression are used for the calculations. No
concentrations of from four K30 sensors. Between 10:30 major outliers were found in the dataset that can lead to
significant deviations in the model parameter estimates.
and 11:30, the test chamber is filled with a gas with a low
concentration of approximately 100 ppm. Between 11:30 and Table III shows the linear regression result for the
12:30 a chamber is filled with a gas with a high concentration averaged value for all sensors against the reference gas
of of approximately 5000 .A concentration of concentrations.
approximately 500 was maintained for the remaining 22 The coefficients of determination between the sensor
hours. average and the reference gas concentrations are very high
Тhe data from each K30 sensor are averaged over one- (; ≈ 0.99), which indicates the very good data quality of the
minute intervals. It can be seen that for a concentration of 500 low-cost sensors.
ppm the average data from three of the four sensors are very 2) Allan deviation
close and stable. Only in the readings of sensor K-30_4 a
An Allan deviation analysis was performed to quantify the
systematic error of about 80 is observed. For high
main noise characteristics of the sensor and to establish the
concentrations, the sensors also have similar readings. Only
optimal averaging interval for a data set to minimize noise
for low concentrations, significant differences are found
levels [23]. Fig. 3 shows the analysis of the Allan deviation for
between the readings of the four sensors. Weak fluctuations in three of the tested K30 sensors.
the sensor readings are due to the slow diffusion of ambient
air into the chamber, which is not perfectly closed. The analysis uses raw data from the sensors, exposed to a
Fig. 3 shows calibration function averaged for tree sensors certain constant concentration of CO concentration (about
compared with reference gas concentrations. For the 1000 ppm) in a test chamber. More than 2000 consecutive
procedure, first, the synthetic zero air, containing only nitrogen, measurements were made at a constant temperature, pressure,
is pumped into the test chamber. Then calibration gas and relative humidity.
balanced in is used to build up 100 2 3 pressure in the Allan variance log-log plots for a set of tree K30 sensors
chamber and the pressure is maintained for 30 45. After the are shown in Fig. 4. Averaging times are between 6 and
measurement period, the chamber is filled with synthetic zero 6000 s . According to the analysis, for lower values for
air. The procedure is repeated for the following calibration averaging times, the dominant noise is Gaussian (with a slope
mixtures: (i) 100 balanced in , (ii) of about −0.5). Allan variance reaches a minimum when the
1000 balanced in , (iii) 2000 balanced in averaging time is about 200 s. As can be seen from fig. 4,
, and (iv) 5000 balanced in . averaging for times exceeding 350 s does not improve the
The calibration functions of the tested sensors are noise level [24].
calculated, assuming a linear relationship between the sensor
outputs and the reference measurements. The functions are of
the 6 = 3 + *9 type, where 6 represents the sensor
reactions and 9 the related reference measurements (Fig. 3). To
calculate the concentration levels, the measuring
function (inverse equation), 9 = (6 − 3)/*, is applied to all
sensor outputs.
TABLE III. COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION BETWEEN THE K30
SENSOR AVERAGE AND THE REFERENCE GAS CONCENTRATIONS.

Least-squares RMA Least-squares

(0 − 5000 ) (0 − 5000 ) (1000 − 2000 )
Slope 0.9093 0.9094 0.9327
Intercept 50.93 53.26 27.94
; 0.992 0.992 0.999
Fig. 4. Allan variance log-log plots for a set of tree K30 sensors

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 20:51:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
B. VOC Sensors
BME 680 shows a drop in resistance from 82 2@ to 78 2@
when exposed to tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene.
Тhe sensor shows very good sensitivity when exposed to
benzene, toluene, and ethylbenzene. BME 680 shows weak
responses to both PCE, TCE as well as the CAH mixture.
BME 688 includes an artificial intelligence unit that provides
the ability to tune up and down the selectivity and sensitivity
towards specific compounds in ppb ranges.
The readings of the monitored BME 680 were close to
each other. They showed high repeatability when compared
to one another. The differences between their reading are in
the range of 11 %.
BME 688 and BME 680 could be used to calculate
equivalent concentrations. However, the prolonged time
for self-calibration should be taken into account. Besides,
those sensors will provide the concentrations with slow
response time i.e. the result of the measurement is provided a
long time after the change in the concentration. This
response time depends on the time spent in the self-
calibration.
IV. CONCLUSION
Recently, there has been an increasing interest in
identifying the effects of indoor air quality on human health.
Traditionally used analytical tools are too expensive and often
their accuracy is unnecessarily significantly higher than that
required to effectively assess indoor pollution levels. The use
of low-cost sensors to assess indoor air quality is increasingly
becoming an alternative to the traditional approaches. This
makes research and evaluation of their accuracy in simulated
environments and in field experiments quite relevant.
This paper presents an assessment of the accuracy and
stability of low-cost sensors for monitoring basic
environmental parameters indoors. Experiments were
conducted with a simulation of sources of indoor air
pollutants.
The latest technological advances have opened up new
opportunities for more effective monitoring and control of
indoor air quality. The results of the present study show that
many low-cost sensors have the potential to be used to
provide a safe indoor environment.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the Research and
Development Sector at the Technical University of Sofia for
its financial support.
REFERENCES
[1] "WHO - How air pollution is destroying our health," 2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.who.int/air-pollution/news-and-events/how-
air-pollution-is-destroying-our-health.
[2] B. Ostro, J. Spadaro, S. Gumy, P. Mudu, Y. Awe, F. Forastiere and A.
Peters, "Assessing the recent estimates of the global burden of disease
for ambient air pollution: methodological changes and implications
for low- and middle-income countries," Environmental Research, vol.
166, p. 713–725, 2018.
[3] N.E. Klepeis et al., "The National Human Activity Pattern Survey
(NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental
pollutants," Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental
Epidemiology, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 231–252, 2001.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO. Downloaded on May 26,2021 at 20:51:15 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[4] Environmental Protection Agency, "Healthy Buildings, Healthy
People: A Vision for the twenty-first century, EPA 402-K-01-003,"
U.S., Washington, DC: U.S., 2001.
[5] M. David and S. Seter, "Indoor air pollution-related respiratory ill
health, a sequel of biomass use," SciMedicine J., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 30–
37, 2019.
[6] "Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden
of disease. Technical report," World Health Organization, Geneva,
2016.
[7] E.G. Snyder et al., "The changing paradigm of air pollution
monitoring," Environmental science & technology, vol. 47, no. 20, p.
11369–11377, 2013.
[8] L. Morawska et al., "Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for
air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: how far have they
gone?," Environ. Int., vol. 116, p. 286–299, 2018.
[9] P. N. R. Branco, M. Alvim-Ferraz, F. Martins and S. Sousa,
"Children’s exposure to indoor air in urban nurseries – part II: gaseous
pollutants’ assessment," Environmental Research, vol. 142, p. 662–
670, 2015.
[10] J. Saini, M. Dutta, and G. Marques, "‘Indoor Air Quality Prediction
Systems for Smart Environments: A Systematic Review," p. 433 –
453, Jan. 2020.
[11] P. Branco, M. Alvim-Ferraz, F. Martins and S. Sousa, "Quantifying
indoor air quality determinants in urban and rural nursery and primary
schools., "Environmental Research, vol. 176, no. 108534, 2019.
[12] "OSHA, Carbon Dioxide Exposure Limits and Health Effects,"
August 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_225400.html.
[Accessed Oct. 2020].
[13] "HSE, General Hazards of Carbon Dioxide," June 2017. [Online].
Available: http://www.hse.gov.uk/carboncapture/carbondioxide.html.
[Accessed Oct. 2020].
[14] "SenseAir: CO2 Engine K30 Specification," 2007. [Online].
Available:
http://www.senseair.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/CO2-Engine-
K30_PSP110-R7.pdf. [Accessed 2018].
[15] "OSHA, Indoor Air Quality Investigation," June 2017. [Online].
Available:
https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_iii/otm_iii_2.html.
[16] "Cashins & Associates, VOCs and Indoor Air Quality," June 2017.
[Online]. Available: http://blog.cashins.com/blog-
0/bid/194114/VOCs-and-Indoor-Air-Quality.
[17] CCS811 Ultra-Low-Power Digital Gas Sensor for Monitoring Indoor
Air Quality, Datasheet, ams, 2016.
[18] MiCS-VZ-89TE – Datasheet, Corcelles-Cormondrèche, Switzerland:
SGX Sensortech, 2018.
[19] BME680, Low power gas, pressure, temperature & humidity sensor
Datasheet Document rev. 1.0, Reutlingen: Bosch Sensortec,
Document release date July 2017.
[20] BME688. 4-in-1 environmental sensor with Artificial Intelligence,
Bosch Sensortec, Document release date Jan 2021.
[21] E. Nirlo, N. Crain and J. S. R.L. Corsi, "Field evaluation of five
volatile organic compound measurement techniques: Implications for
green building decision making," Science and Technology for the Built
Environment, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 67-79, 2015.
[22] J. D. Evans, Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences,
Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1996.
[23] D. W. Allan, "Statistics of Atomic Frequency Standards,"
Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,
vol. 54, p. 221–230, 1966.
[24] M. B. Marinov, N. Djermanova, B. Ganev, G. Nikolov and E.
Janchevska, "Performance evaluation of low-cost carbon dioxide
sensors," in IEEE 27th International Scientific Conference
Electronics, ET 2018, Sozopol, 2018.