Data validation with DPCC

OIZOM > Case Study  > Data validation with DPCC
Case Information

Validation Equipment: Oizom Polludrone Pro
Reference: DPCC (Delhi Pollution Control Committee) Pollution Monitoring Station
Location: R.K.Puram (New-Delhi)
Parameters: PM2.5, O3, NO2, CO
Duration: 16 Days (10th December, 2016 to 25th December, 2016)

Context

R. K. Puram (Ram-Krishna Puram) is one of the largest corporate area and is surrounded by commercial hub. DPCC has placed one of their pollution monitoring station at R. K. Puram. To validate the low-cost ambient air-quality monitoring solution against regulatory board acceptable solution, OIZOM placed POLLUDRONE-PRO solution at the same place from 10th December 2016 to 25th December 2016 along with the help of India Open Data Association [IODA]. The primary parameters to be monitored were PM2.5, CO, O3, and NO2. The data observation of comparative validation has been displayed via graphical representation. Polludrone-Pro works on Sensor based technology where DPCC monitoring station works on various electrical sensing working principles.

Observation of Air-Pollutant

PM2.5 is a pollutant from manmade or natural sources like dust, ash, spray etc. The Polludrone-Pro and DPCC monitoring station provides data on hourly basis. Dot graphical comparison an average of six hours is considered for data-trend mapping.
CO Carbon monoxide is the most toxic gas commonly present in the ambient air. During the comparison study, it shows that, the measurement of CO is thresholded at 4000 μg/m3 (which is at the extreme level according to the safety standards) due to the limited range of the sensor used in the Polludrone-Pro solution. However, DPCC monitoring station measures the highest value and shows the concentration of CO level in graph, which shows the severe environmental condition in the specified area.

O3 After the comparison study between DPCC monitoring station and Polludrone, it shows good data correlations between both the systems.
NO2 stands for the Nitrogen Dioxide and generated due to industrial and vehicular emission. Graphical representation shows the similarity in the limits of measurement from both the solutions.

Conclusion

On the basis of the presented validation study, the graphical comparison of the data collected by both the systems shows a level of correlations and deviations in different parameters. There are several factors responsible for the deviation stated below,

  • The air-suction points for both the systems were at different heights. DPCC Station takes air-suction from height of 15-20 Feet where Polludrone Pro was installed at 6Feet from the ground level.
  • Air-quality systems were situated at 5m distance, which may also be a possible reason for the deviation.
  • Both the systems operates on different working principle. DPCC station has top suction method, where Polludrone has bottom suction method. DPCC station works on complex electrical sensing systems where Polludrone works on various electronic sensing systems.
  • Both the systems has different suction and sampling rates. DPCC station has high volume sampling with high suction flow-rate, where Polludrone has low volume sampling with lower suction flow-rate.
  • Both the systems are from different makes and works on different algorithms to derive air-quality measurements. In addition, both the systems are calibrated in a different way. This might be a possible reason for the deviation in the data.