These measurements are based on gravimetric, filter-based methods (the “gold standard”), or methods deemed equivalent to filter-based methods ( NIOSH, 1975). To avoid the development of adverse health effects from inhaling particles, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires employers to maintain workplace, 8-h time-weighted average, respirable PM below 5 mg/m 3 for particles not otherwise regulated (PNOR) ( OSHA, 2006). In occupational studies, exposure to respirable particulate matter (PM), the fraction of particles that can penetrate to the alveolar regions of the lungs ( Antonini, 2003), is associated with respiratory diseases ( Antonini, 2003, Taylor, Zimmer, & Roberts, 2004), lung cancer ( Sørensen et al., 2007), and cardiovascular diseases ( Li et al., 2015). These findings suggest that the Foobot, with a linear response to different aerosol types and good precision, can provide reasonable estimates of PM 2.5 in the workplace after site-specific calibration to account for particle size and composition. Precision was excellent for the Foobot (coefficient of variation range: 5% to 8%) and AirBeam (2% to 9%), but poorer for the Speck (8% to 25%). All three photometers had a bias (< −82%) for welding fume. AirBeam bias was (−36%) for salt and (−83%) for welding fume. Speck bias was at 18% salt for ARD and −86% for welding fume. Foobot bias was (< −46%) for salt and welding fume aerosols. The Foobot bias was (−12%) for ARD and measurements were similar to the medium-cost instrument. Compared to reference instruments, mass concentrations measured with the Foobot (r-value = 0.99) and medium-cost photometer (r-value = 0.99) show strong correlation, whereas those from the Speck (r-value range 0.88 – 0.99) and AirBeam (0.7 – 0.96) were less correlated. Three of each type of CAM were included to estimate precision. In a laboratory study, PM 2.5 measured with the CAMs and a medium-cost aerosol photometer (personal DataRAM 1500, Thermo Scientific) were compared to that from reference instruments for three aerosols (salt, welding fume, and Arizona road dust, ARD) at concentrations up to 8500 μg/m 3. We evaluated the accuracy, bias, and precision of three CAMs (Foobot from Airoxlab, Speck from Carnegie Mellon University, and AirBeam from HabitatMap) for measuring mass concentrations in occupational settings.

Recently, inexpensive (<$300) consumer aerosol monitors (CAMs) targeted for use in homes have become available.

Airbeam internet az