Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision, accuracy, practicality, and potential uses of a PM(2.5) 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 PM(2.5). 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 PM(2.5) 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 PM(2.5) concentrations.