No abstract

Air quality has a huge impact on different aspects of life quality, and for this reason, air quality monitoring is required by national and international regulations. Technical and procedural limitations of traditional fixed-site stations for monitoring or sampling of air pollutants are also well-known. Recently, a different type of miniaturized monitors has been developed. These monitors, due to their characteristics (e.g., low cost, small size, high portability) are becoming increasingly important for individual exposure assessment, especially since this kind of instrument can provide measurements at high spatial and temporal resolution, which is a notable advantage when approaching assessment of exposure to environmental contaminants. The aim of this study is indeed to provide information regarding current knowledge regarding the use of miniaturized air pollutant sensors. A systematic review was performed to identify original articles: a literature search was carried out using an appropriate query for the search of papers across three different databases, and the papers were selected using inclusion/exclusion criteria. The reviewed articles showed that miniaturized sensors are particularly versatile and could be applied in studies with different experimental designs, helping to provide a significant enhancement to exposure assessment, even though studies regarding their performance are still sparse.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision, accuracy, practicality, and potential uses of a PM2.5 miniaturized monitor (MM) in exposure assessment. These monitors (AirBeam, HabitatMap) were compared with the widely used direct-reading particulate matter monitors and a gravimetric reference method for PM2.5. Instruments were tested during 20 monitoring sessions that were subdivided in two different seasons to evaluate the performance of sensors across various environmental and meteorological conditions. Measurements were performed at an urban background site in Como, Italy. To evaluate the performance of the instruments, different analyses were conducted on 8-h averaged PM2.5 concentrations for comparison between direct-reading monitors and the gravimetric method, and minute-averaged data for comparison between the direct-reading instruments. A linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate whether the two measurement methods, when compared, could be considered comparable and/or mutually predictive. Further, Bland-Altman plots were used to determine whether the methods were characterized by specific biases. Finally, the correlations between the error associated with the direct-reading instruments and the meteorological parameters acquired at the sampling point were investigated. Principal results show a moderate degree of agreement between MMs and the reference method and a bias that increased with an increase in PM2.5 concentrations.

ART may lead to more accurate results when well-documented ESs are available. In other situations, Stoffenmanager appears to be a safer alternative because of its greater robustness, particularly when entry data uncertainty is difficult to assess. ECETOC TRA cannot be directly compared to higher tiered models because of its simplistic nature: the use of this tool should be limited only to exceptional cases in which a strong conservative and worst-case evaluation is necessary.

No abstract