Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Aerosol Sci. 2017 May;107:123–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2017.02.013

Table 2.

Accuracy, bias, and precision over the entire concentration range (occupational) for the CAMs, pDR-raw (uncorrected mass), and pDR-mc (mass corrected) for A) salt, B) welding fume, and C) ARD

Instrument Data Pairs Slope ± Std. Error Intercept ± Std. Error (μg/m3) r % Bias % CV
A) Salt
Foobot 8 0.5 ± 0.008 −9.8 ± 6.8 0.991,2 −46 5.0
Speck 8 0.2 ± 0.009 5.4 ± 8.1 0.991,2 −68 25
AirBeam 8 0.07 ± 0.03 92 ± 27 0.70 −36 4.0
pDR-raw 8 1.1 ± 0.021,2 −37 ± 18 0.991,2 −6.3 -
pDR-mc 8 1.1 ± 0.021,2 −39 ± 18 0.991,2 1.01,2 -
B) Welding fume
Foobot 7 0.08 ± 0.006 −31 ± 27 0.991,2 −82 7.61
Speck 7 0.02 ± 0.002 −5.5 ± 10 0.971,2 −86 7.91
AirBeam 7 0.02 ± 0.004 44 ± 17 0.88 −83 9.21
pDR-raw 7 0.20 ± 0.01 −54 ± 53 0.991,2 −74 -
pDR-mc 7 1.09 ± 0.011,2 −30 ± 53 0.991,2 −42 -
C) ARD
Foobot 7 0.7 ± 0.02 17 ± 9.1 0.99v −12 8.01
Speck 7 0.4 ± 0.08 83 ± 40 0.91 18 12
AirBeam 7 0.2 ± 0.02 18 ± 11 0.96 −53 2.01
pDR-raw 7 0.7 ± 0.01 9.1 ± 7.5 0.991,2 −21 -
pDR-mc 7 1.0 ± 0.011,2 12.1 ± 7.5 0.991,2 101,2 -
1

meets EPA criterion

2

meets NIOSH criterion