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 3.

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

Instrument Data Pairs Slope ± Std. Error Intercept ± Std. Error (μg/m3) r % Bias
A) Salt
Foobot 8 0.46 ± 0.003 7.3 ± 2.7 0.991,2 −42
Speck 8 0.21 ± 0.009 6.1 ± 6.1 0.991,2 −64
AirBeam 8 0.07 ± 0.03 96 ± 28 0.66 −27
B) Welding fume
Foobot 7 0.50 ± 0.02 −5.4 ± 16 0.991,2 −48
Speck 7 0.10± 0.006 −0.3 ± 4.5 0.991,2 −76
AirBeam 7 0.08 ± 0.02 51 ± 18 0.84 −56
C) ARD
Foobot 7 0.96 ± 0.0091,2 8.2 ± 3.1 0.991,2 12
Speck 7 0.58 ± 0.10 76 ± 36 0.92 51
AirBeam 7 0.26 ± 0.03 15 ± 9.7 0.971,2 −42
1

meets EPA criterion

2

meets NIOSH criterion