BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Priyanka deSouza

Priyanka deSouza contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Applications

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Evaluating the Performance of Low-Cost PM2.5 Sensors in Mobile Settings

Low-cost sensors (LCS) for measuring air pollution are increasingly being deployed in mobile applications but questions concerning the quality of the measurements remain unanswered. For example, what is the best way to correct LCS data in a mobile setting? Which factors most significantly contribute to differences between mobile LCS data and higher-quality instruments? Can data from LCS be used to identify hotspots and generate generalizable pollutant concentration maps? To help address these questions we deployed low-cost PM2.5 sensors (Alphasense OPC-N3) and a research-grade instrument (TSI DustTrak) in a mobile laboratory in Boston, MA, USA. We first collocated these instruments with stationary PM2.5 reference monitors at nearby regulatory sites. Next, using the reference measurements, we developed different models to correct the OPC-N3 and DustTrak measurements, and then transferred the corrections to the mobile setting. We observed that more complex correction models appeared to perform better than simpler models in the stationary setting; however, when transferred to the mobile setting, corrected OPC-N3 measurements agreed less well with corrected DustTrak data. In general, corrections developed using minute-level collocation measurements transferred better to the mobile setting than corrections developed using hourly-averaged data. Mobile laboratory speed, OPC-N3 orientation relative to the direction of travel, date, hour-of-the-day, and road class together explain a small but significant amount of variation between corrected OPC-N3 and DustTrak measurements during the mobile deployment. Persistent hotspots identified by the OPC-N3s agreed with those identified by the DustTrak. Similarly, maps of PM2.5 distribution produced from the mobile corrected OPC-N3 and DustTrak measurements agreed well.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2023arXiv

Evaluation of Model-Based PM$_{2.5}$ Estimates for Exposure Assessment During Wildfire Smoke Episodes in the Western U.S

Investigating the health impacts of wildfire smoke requires data on people's exposure to fine particulate matter (PM$_{2.5}$) across space and time. In recent years, it has become common to use machine learning models to fill gaps in monitoring data. However, it remains unclear how well these models are able to capture spikes in PM$_{2.5}$ during and across wildfire events. Here, we evaluate the accuracy of two sets of high-coverage and high-resolution machine learning-derived PM$_{2.5}$ data sets created by Di et al. (2021) and Reid et al. (2021). In general, the Reid estimates are more accurate than the Di estimates when compared to independent validation data from mobile smoke monitors deployed by the US Forest Service. However, both models tend to severely under-predict PM$_{2.5}$ on high-pollution days. Our findings complement other recent studies calling for increased air pollution monitoring in the western US and support the inclusion of wildfire-specific monitoring observations and predictor variables in model-based estimates of PM$_{2.5}$. Lastly, we call for more rigorous error quantification of machine-learning derived exposure data sets, with special attention to extreme events.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2023arXiv

Investigating Use of Low-Cost Sensors to Increase Accuracy and Equity of Real-Time Air Quality Information

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality (AQ) monitors, the gold standard for measuring air pollutants, are sparsely positioned across the US due to their costliness. Low-cost sensors (LCS) are increasingly being used by the public to fill in the gaps in AQ monitoring; however, LCS are not as accurate as EPA monitors. In this work, we investigate factors impacting the differences between an individual's true (unobserved) exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and the exposure reported by their nearest AQ instrument, which could be either an EPA monitor or an LCS. Three factors contributing to these differences are (1) distance to the nearest AQ instrument, (2) local variability in AQ, and (3) device measurement error. We examine the contributions of each component to the overall error in reported AQ using simulations based on California data. The simulations explore different combinations of hypothetical LCS placement strategies (at schools, near major roads, and in environmentally and socioeconomically marginalized census tracts) for different numbers of LCS, with varying plausible amounts of LCS device measurement error. For each scenario, we evaluate the accuracy of daily AQ information available from individuals' nearest AQ instrument with respect to absolute errors and misclassifications of the Air Quality Index, stratified by socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. We illustrate how real-time AQ reporting could be improved (or, in some cases, worsened) by using LCS, both for the population overall and for marginalized communities specifically. This work has implications for the integration of LCS into real-time AQ reporting platforms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access