Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Aerosol Sci Technol. 2016 Mar 10;50(5):462–473. doi: 10.1080/02786826.2016.1162901

Table 7.

Evaluation of mass concentrations estimated with the Sharp sensors with reference to those measured with the SMPS and APS.

Aerosol Data Pairs Slope ± Std. Error Intercept ± Std. Error (μg/m3) r R2 % Bias
A. Sharp DN
0.9% Salt Aerosol 21 1.2 ± 0.02 −34 ± 14 0.991 0.99 −3.71,2
5% Salt Aerosol 21 0.9 ± 0.0061,2 −5.0 ± 5.01 0.991 0.99 5.21,2
Arizona Road Dust 18 1.3 ± 0.04 −55 ± 30 0.991 0.98 −5.81,2
Diesel Fume 21 1.1 ± 0.051,2 3.3 ± 651 0.991 0.99 −9.81,2
Welding Fume 18 1.0 ± 0.021,2 −57 ± 31 0.991 0.99 −1.31,2
B. Sharp GP
0.9% Salt Aerosol 21 1.2 ± 0.02 −33 ± 14 0.991 0.99 −3.81,2
5% Salt Aerosol 21 0.9 ± 0.0061,2 −0.6 ± 5.01 0.991 0.99 4.61,2
Arizona Road Dust 18 1.3 ± 0.03 −56 ± 26 0.991 0.98 −6.31,2
Diesel Fume 21 1.1 ± 0.0251,2 8.2 ± 66 0.971 0.95 −9.31,2
Welding Fume 18 1.0 ± 0.011,2 −55 ± 25 0.991 0.99 −2.41,2
1

meets EPA criterion

2

meets NOISH criterion