In Delhi, the capital city of India, air pollution has been a perpetual menace to urban sustainability and public health. The present study uses a mixed-method approach to enumerate to the urban authorities: (a) the state of air pollution in the city; (b) systemic flaws in the current monitoring network; (c) potential means to bolster it; and (d) need of a participatory framework for monitoring. Information about Air Quality Index (AQI), obtained from 36 monitoring stations across Delhi is compared between 2021 (20 April–25 May; 2nd year/phase of SARS-CoV-2 lockdown), and the corresponding time periods in 2020 (1st year/phase of lockdown), and 2019 (business-as-usual) using the Mann–Whitney U Test. AQI during the 2021 lockdown (a) appeared statistically more similar (p < .01) to that of 2019 and (b) exceeded the environmental health safety benchmark for 85% days during the study period (20 April–25 May). However, this only presented a partial glimpse into the air pollution status. It owes to numerous ‘holes’ in the AQI data record (no data and/or insufficient data). Moreover, certain areas in Delhi yet have no monitoring station, or only too few, to yield a ‘representative’ estimate (inadequate spatial coverage). Such shortcomings in the existing monitoring network may deter future research and targeted/informed decision-making for pollution control. To that end, the present research offers a summary view of Low-Cost Air Quality Sensors (LCAQS), to offer the urban sustainability authorities, ‘complementary’ technique to bolster and diversify the existing network. The main advantages and disadvantages of various LCAQS sensor technologies are highlighted while emphasizing on the challenges around various calibration techniques (linear and non-linear). The final section reflects on the integration of science and technology with social dimensions of air quality monitoring and highlights key requirements for (a) community mobilization and (b) stakeholder engagement to forge a participatory systems’ design for LCAQS deployment.
AgbrokoS. O., & CovingtonJ. (2018). A novel, low-cost, portable PID sensor for the detection of volatile organic compounds. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 275, 10–15. 10.1016/j.snb.2018.07.173
2.
Barcelo-OrdinasJ. M., Garcia-VidalJ., DoudouM., Rodrigo-MuñozS., & Cerezo-LlaveroA. (2018). Calibrating low-cost air quality sensors using multiple arrays of sensors [Paper presentation]. IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference. 10.1109/WCNC.2018.8377051
3.
BorregoC., CostaA. M., GinjaJ., AmorimM., CoutinhoM., KaratzasK., SioumisT., KatsifarakisN., KonstantinidisK., De VitoS., EspositoE., SmithP., AndreN., GerardP., FrancisL. A., CastellN., SchneiderP., VianaM., MinguillonM. C., … PenzaM. (2016). Assessment of air quality microsensors versus reference methods: The EuNetAir joint exercise. Atmospheric Environment, 147, 246–263. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.09.050
4.
BosscheJ., TheunisJ., ElenB., PetersJ., BotteldoorenD., & BaetsB. (2016). Opportunistic mobile air pollution monitoring: A case study with city wardens in Antwerp. Atmospheric Environment, 141, 408–421. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.06.063
5.
CastellN., DaugeF. R., SchneiderP., VogtM., LernerU., FishbainB., BrodayD., & BartonovaA. (2017). Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates?Environment International, 99, 293–302. 10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.007
6.
ChaudhuriS. (2018, March26). Beyond temporary breathers. Millennium Post. http://www.millenniumpost.in/opinion/beyond-temporary-breathers-291292
7.
ChaudhuriS., AleS., DeLauneP., & RajanN. (2012). Spatio-temporal variability of groundwater nitrate concentration in Texas: 1960–2010. Journal of Environmental Quality, 41(6), 1806–1817.
8.
ChaudhuriS., & KumarA. (2022). Urban greenery for air pollution control: A meta-analysis of current practice, progress, and challenges. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(3), 1–30.
9.
ChaudhuriS., ParakhD., RoyM., & KaurH. (2021). Groundwater-sourced irrigated agriculture and agro-power subsidies in India: Boon or bane for small/marginal farmers?Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 15. 10.1016/j.gsd.2021.100690
10.
ChaudhuriS., & RoyM. (2017a, November15). The fight against pollution: Can Delhi better Beijing?Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-fight-against-pollution-can-delhi-better-beijing/story-IEiGLSK5NBJOorSnJRzNZK.html
11.
ChaudhuriS., & RoyM. (2017b, November16). Up in smoke. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/up-in-smoke/cid/1455657
12.
ChaudhuriS., & RoyM. (2017c, November9). Air pollution: Without alternatives, penalties against stubble burning will never work. The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/air-pollution-without-alternatives-penalties-against-stubble-burning-will-never-work/
13.
ChaudhuriS., RoyM., McDonaldL. M., & EmendackY. (2020). Reflections on farmers’ social networks: A means for sustainable agricultural development?Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 2973–3008.
14.
ChowdhuryM. R., DeS., ShuklaN. K., & BiswasR. N. (2018). Energy-efficient air pollution monitoring with optimum duty-cycling on a sensor hub [Paper presentation]. 24th National Conference on Communications (NCC), Hyderabad, India. 10.1109/NCC.2018.8600133
15.
ConcasF., MineraudJ., LagerspetzE., VarjonenS., LiuX., PuolamäkiK., NurmiP., & TarkomaS. (2021). Low-cost outdoor air quality sensor monitoring and calibration: A survey and critical analysis. ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks, 17(2), 1–44.
16.
DinhT., ChoiI., SonY., & KimJ. (2016). A review on non-dispersive infrared gas sensors: Improvement of sensor detection limit and interference correction. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 231, 529–538. 10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.040
17.
EspositoE., De VitoS., SalvatoM., BrightV., JonesR. L., & PopoolaO. (2016). Dynamic neural network architectures for on field stochastic calibration of indicative low cost air quality sensing systems. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 231, 701–713. 10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.038
18.
GaoM. L., CaoJ. J., & SetoE. (2015). A distributed network of low-cost continuous reading sensors to measure spatiotemporal variations of PM2.5 in Xi’an, China. Environmental Pollution, 199, 56–65. 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.01.013
19.
GiordinoM. R., MalingsC., PandisS. N., PrestoA. A., McNeillV. F., WesterveltD. M., BeekmanM., & SubramanianR. (2021). From low-cost sensors to high-quality data: A summary of challenges and best practices for effectively calibrating low-cost particulate matter mass sensors. Journal of Aerosol Science, 158, 105833. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2021.105833
HaganD. H., GaniS., BhandariS., PatelK., HabibG., ApteJ. S., RuizL. H., & KrollJ. H. (2019). Inferring aerosol sources from low-cost air quality sensor measurements: A case study in Delhi, India. Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 6(8), 467–472. 10.1021/acs.estlett.9b00393.
22.
HamaS. M. L., KumarP., HarrisonR. M., BlossW. J., KhareM., MishraS., NamdeoA., SokhiR., GoodmanP., & SharmaC. (2020). Four-year assessment of ambient particulate matter and trace gases in the Delhi-NCR region, India. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, 102003. 10.1016/j.scs.2019.102003
23.
HasenfratzD., SaukhO., WalserC., HueglinC., FierzM., ArnT., & ThieleL. (2015). Deriving high-resolution urban air pollution maps using mobile sensor nodes. Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 16(Part B), 268–285
24.
HolstiusD. M., PillarisettiA., SmithK. R., & SetoE. (2014). Field calibrations of a low-cost aerosol sensor at a regulatory monitoring site in California. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 7(1), 1121–1131.
25.
IQAir. (2020). World Air Quality Report: Region & city PM2.5 Ranking. https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-romania-stateless/2021/03/d8050eab-2020-world_air_quality_report.pdf
26.
KaragulianF., BarbiereM., KotsevA., SpinelleL., GerbolesM., LaglerF., RedonN., CrunaireS., & BorowiakA. (2019). Review of the performance of low-cost sensors for air quality monitoring. Atmosphere, 10(9), 506. 10.3390/atmos10090506
27.
KesavanA., KaurH., & ChaudhuriS. (2022). Unpacking Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN), an emerging paradigm to conserve land systems’ sustainability in 21st century? Meta-analysis of challenges and opportunities. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 21(1), 91–100.
28.
KimM., ChoiJ., & ParkW. (2018). MEMS PZT oscillating platform for fine dust particle removal at resonance. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 19(12), 1851–1859.
29.
KumarA., & ChaudhuriS. (2021). Is COVID-19 only but a short-term respite? A case study of urban air quality in Kolkata, a mega-city in India. Pollution Research, 40, S162–S172.
30.
KumarA., & ChaudhuriS. (2022). Post SARS-CoV-2 urban India: Computing air quality health indicators (AQHI) for Gurugram city to assess imminent threats to public health. Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 28, S185–S193.
31.
KumarP., KhareM., HarrisomR. M., BlossW. J., LewisA. C., CoeH., & MorawskaL. (2015). New directions: Air pollution challenges for developing megacities like Delhi. Atmospheric Environment, 122, 657–661. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.10.032
LinhL. T. P., KavalchukI., KolbasovA., KarpukhinK., & TerenchenkoA. (2020). The performance assessment of low-cost air pollution sensor in city and the prospect of the autonomous vehicle for air pollution reduction [Paper presentation]. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/819/1/012018
34.
MaagB., ZhouZ., & ThieleL. (2018). W-air: Enabling personal air pollution monitoring on wearables. Proceeding of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 2(1), 24:1–24:25. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5696&context=sis_research
35.
MahatoS., & GhoshK. G. (2020). Short-term exposure to ambient air quality of the most polluted Indian cities due to lockdown amid SARS-CoV-2. Environmental Research, 188, 109835. 10.1016/j.envres.2020.109835
36.
MargaritisD., KeramydasC., PapachristosI., & LambroulouD. (2021). Calibration of low-cost gas sensors for air quality monitoring. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 21(11), 210073. 10.4209/aaqr.210073
37.
McFarlaneC., RahejaG., MalingsC., AppohE. K. E., HughesA. F., & WesterveltD. M. (2021). Application of Gaussian mixture regression for the correction of low cost PM2.5 monitoring data in Accra, Ghana. ACS Earth and Space Chemistry, 5(9), 2268–2279.
38.
MeierR., ClarkK., & RiedikerM. (2012). Comparative testing of a miniature diffusion size classifier to assess airborne ultrafine particles under field conditions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 47(1), 22–28.
39.
MoEFCC. (2019). National Clean Air Programme (NCAP). Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Climate Change, Government of India. https://urbanemissions.info/wp-content/uploads/docs/India-NCAP-Proposal-Final.pdf
40.
MunirS., MayfieldM., CocaD., JubbS. A., & OsammorO. (2019). Analysing the performance of low-cost air quality sensors, their drivers, relative benefits and calibration in cities—A case study in Sheffield. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191(2), 94. 10.1007/s10661-019-7231-8
41.
OleticD., & BilasV. (2015, April13–15). Design of sensor node for air quality crowdsensing [Paper presentation]. IEEE Sensors Applications Symposium, Zadar, Croatia. 10.1109/SAS.2015.7133628
42.
OttosenT.-B., & KumarP. (2019). Outlier detection and gap filling methodologies for low-cost air quality measurement. Environmental Science: Processes Impacts, 21(4), 701–713.
43.
ParakhD., & ChaudhuriS. (2022). Groundwater regulation bills in Haryana—A call for groundwater conservation and management for sustainable irrigation supply services—Opportunities and challenges. Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 28(1), 147–164.
44.
PFI-CEH. (2017). Air pollution and health in India: A review of current evidence and opportunities for the future. Public Health Foundation of India and Center for Environmental Health. https://www.ceh.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Air-Pollution-and-Health-in-India.pdf
45.
RizwanS. A., NongkynirhB., & GuptaS. K. (2013). Air pollution in Delhi: Its magnitude and effects on health. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 38(1), 4–8.
46.
RomainA. C., & NicolasJ. (2010). Long term stability of metal oxide-based gas sensors for e-nose environmental applications: An overview. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 146(2), 502–506.
47.
SaukhO., HasenfratzD., & ThieleL. (2015). Reducing multi-hop calibration errors in large-scale mobile sensor networks [Paper presentation]. 14th International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks, New York, NY, USA. 10.1145/2737095.2737113
48.
SettiL., PassariniF., De GennaroG., BarbieriP., LicenS., PerroneM. G., PiazzalungaA., BorelliM., PalmisaniJ., Di GilioA., RizzoE., ColaoA., PiscitelliP., & MianiA. (2020). The potential role of particulate matter in the spreading of COVID-19 in Northern Italy: First observational study based on initial epidemic diffusion. BMJ Open, 10(9), e039338. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039338
49.
SharmaS., ZhangM., AnsikaG. J., ZhnagH., & KotaS. H. (2020). Effect of restricted emissions during COVID-19 on air quality in India. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138878. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138878
50.
SpinelleL., GerbolesM., VillaniM. G., AleixandreM., & BonavitacolaF. (2015). Field calibration of a cluster of low-cost available sensors for air quality monitoring. Part A: Ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 215, 249–257. 10.1016/j.snb.2015.03.031
51.
ThompsonJ. E. (2016). Crowd-sourced air quality studies: A review of the literature & portable sensors. Trends in Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 11, 23–34. 10.1016/j.teac.2016.06.001
52.
TsujitaW., YoshinoA., IshidaH., & MoriizumiT. (2005). Gas sensor network for air-pollution monitoring. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 110(2), 304–311.
53.
Van den BosscheJ., PeterJ., VerwaerenJ., BotteldoorenD., TheunisJ., & De BaetsB. (2015). Mobile monitoring for mapping spatial variation in urban air quality: Development and validation of a methodology based on an extensive dataset. Atmospheric Environment, 105, 148–161. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.01.017
54.
VeigaT., Munch-EllingsenA., PapastergiopoulosC., TzovarasD., KalamarasI., BachK., VotisK., & AkselsenS. (2021). From a low-cost air quality sensor network to decision support services: Steps towards data calibration and service development. Sensors, 21(9), 3190. 10.3390/s21093190
55.
WangC., YinL., ZhangL., XiangD., & GaoR. (2010). Metal oxide gas sensors: Sensitivity and influencing factors. Sensors, 10(3), 2088–2106.
56.
WangW.-C. V., LungS.-C. C., & LiuC.-H. (2020). Application of machine learning for the in-field correction of a PM2.5 low-cost sensor network. Sensors, 20(17), 5002. 10.3390/s20175002
57.
WangY., DuY., WangJ., & LiT. (2019). Calibration of a low-cost PM2.5 monitor using a random forest model. Environment International, 133(Part A), 105161. 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105161
58.
Zauli-SajaniS., MarchesiS., PironiC., BarbieriC., PoluzziV., & ColacciA. (2021). Assessment of air quality sensor system performance after relocation. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 12(2), 282–291.
59.
ZhivkovP. (2021). Optimization and evaluation of calibration for low-cost air quality sensors: Supervised and unsupervised machine learning models [Paper presentation]. 16th Conference on Computer Science and Intelligence Systems. 10.15439/2021F95
