12.4. Wrangling PurpleAir Sensor Data#

In the previous section, we analyzed data from AQS site 06-067-0010. The matching PurpleAir sensor is named AMTS_TESTINGA, and we’ve used the PurpleAir website to download the data for this sensor into the data/purpleair_AMTS folder:

!ls -alh data/purpleair_AMTS/* | cut -c 1-72
-rw-r--r--  1 nolan  staff    50M Jan 25 16:35 data/purpleair_AMTS/AMTS_
-rw-r--r--  1 nolan  staff    50M Jan 25 16:35 data/purpleair_AMTS/AMTS_
-rw-r--r--  1 nolan  staff    48M Jan 25 16:35 data/purpleair_AMTS/AMTS_
-rw-r--r--  1 nolan  staff    50M Jan 25 16:35 data/purpleair_AMTS/AMTS_

There are four CSV files. Their names are quite long, and the beginning of each is identical. The data dictionary for the PurpleAir data says that each sensor has two separate instruments, A and B, that each record data. Note that the PurpleAir site we used to collect these data and the accompanying data dictionary has been downgraded. The data are now available through a REST API. The site that documents the API also contains information about the fields. The topic of REST is covered in Chapter 14.) Let’s examine the later portions of the filenames:

!ls -alh data/purpleair_AMTS/* | cut -c 73-140
TESTING (outside) (38.568404 -121.493163) Primary Real Time 05_20_20
TESTING (outside) (38.568404 -121.493163) Secondary Real Time 05_20_
TESTING B (undefined) (38.568404 -121.493163) Primary Real Time 05_2
TESTING B (undefined) (38.568404 -121.493163) Secondary Real Time 05

We can see that the first two CSV files correspond to instrument A and the last two to B. Having two instruments is useful for data cleaning; if A and B disagree about a measurement, we might question the integrity of the measurement and decide to remove it.

The data dictionary also mentions that each instrument records Primary and Secondary data. The Primary data contains the fields we’re interested in: PM2.5, temperature, and humidity. The Secondary data contains data for other particle sizes, like PM1.0 and PM10. So we work only with the Primary files.

Our tasks are similar to those of the previous section, with the addition of addressing readings from two instruments.

We begin by loading in the data. When CSV files have long names, we can assign the filenames into a Python variable to more easily load the files:

from pathlib import Path

data_folder = Path('data/purpleair_AMTS')
pa_csvs = sorted(data_folder.glob('*.csv'))
PosixPath('data/purpleair_AMTS/AMTS_TESTING (outside) (38.568404 -121.493163) Primary Real Time 05_20_2018 12_29_2019.csv')
pa_full = pd.read_csv(pa_csvs[0])
(672755, 11)

Let’s look at the columns to see which ones we need:

Index(['created_at', 'entry_id', 'PM1.0_CF1_ug/m3', 'PM2.5_CF1_ug/m3',
       'PM10.0_CF1_ug/m3', 'UptimeMinutes', 'RSSI_dbm', 'Temperature_F',
       'Humidity_%', 'PM2.5_ATM_ug/m3', 'Unnamed: 10'],

Although we’re interested in PM2.5, it appears there are two columns that contain PM2.5 data: PM2.5_CF1_ug/m3 and PM2.5_ATM_ug/m3. We investigate the difference between these two columns to find that PurpleAir sensors use two different methods to convert a raw laser recording into a PM2.5 number. These two calculations correspond to the CF1 and ATM columns. Barkjohn found that using CF1 produced better results than ATM, so we keep that column, along with the date, temperature, and relative humidity:

def drop_and_rename_cols(df):
    df = df[['created_at', 'PM2.5_CF1_ug/m3', 'Temperature_F', 'Humidity_%']]
    df.columns = ['timestamp', 'PM25cf1', 'TempF', 'RH']
    return df

pa = (pa_full
timestamp PM25cf1 TempF RH
0 2018-05-20 00:00:35 UTC 1.23 83.0 32.0
1 2018-05-20 00:01:55 UTC 1.94 83.0 32.0
2 2018-05-20 00:03:15 UTC 1.80 83.0 32.0
3 2018-05-20 00:04:35 UTC 1.64 83.0 32.0
4 2018-05-20 00:05:55 UTC 1.33 83.0 32.0

Next we check granularity.

12.4.1. Checking the Granularity#

In order for the granularity of these measurements to match the AQS data, we want one average PM2.5 for each date (a 24-hour period). PurpleAir states that sensors take measurements every two minutes. Let’s double-check the granularity of the raw measurements before we aggregate them to 24-hour periods.

To do this we convert the column containing the date information from strings to pd.TimeStamp objects. The format of the date is different than the AQS format, which we describe as '%Y-%m-%d %X %Z'. As we soon see, pandas has special support for dataframes with an index of timestamps:

def parse_timestamps(df):
    date_format = '%Y-%m-%d %X %Z'
    times = pd.to_datetime(df['timestamp'], format=date_format)
    return (df.assign(timestamp=times)

pa = (pa_full
PM25cf1 TempF RH
2018-05-20 00:00:35+00:00 1.23 83.0 32.0
2018-05-20 00:01:55+00:00 1.94 83.0 32.0

Timestamps are tricky—notice that the original timestamps were given in the UTC time zone. However, the AQS data were averaged according to the local time in California, which is either seven or eight hours behind UTC time, depending on whether daylight saving time is in effect. This means we need to change the time zone of the PurpleAir timestamps to match the local time zone. The df.tz_convert() method operates on the index of the dataframe, which is one reason why we set the index of pa to the timestamps:

def convert_tz(pa):
    return pa.tz_convert('US/Pacific')

pa = (pa_full
PM25cf1 TempF RH
2018-05-19 17:00:35-07:00 1.23 83.0 32.0
2018-05-19 17:01:55-07:00 1.94 83.0 32.0

If we compare the first two rows of this version of the dataframe to the previous one, we see that the time has changed to indicate the seven-hour difference from UTC.

Visualizing timestamps can help us check the granularity of the data. Visualizing timestamps#

One way to visualize timestamps is to count how many appear in each 24-hour period, then plot those counts over time. To group time-series data in pandas, we can use the df.resample() method. This method works on dataframes that have an index of timestamps. It behaves like df.groupby(), except that we can specify how we want the timestamps to be grouped—we can group into dates, weeks, months, and many more options (the D argument tells resample to aggregate timestamps into individual dates):

per_day = (pa.resample('D')
percs = [10, 25, 50, 75, 100]
np.percentile(per_day['records_per_day'], percs, method='lower')
array([ 293,  720, 1075, 1440, 2250])

We see that the number of measurements in a day varies widely. A line plot of these counts gives us a better sense of these variations:

px.line(per_day, x=per_day.index, y='records_per_day', 
        labels={'timestamp':'Date', 'records_per_day':'Records per day'},
        width=550, height=250,)

This is a fascinating plot. We see clear gaps in the data where there are no measurements. It appears that significant portions of data in July 2018 and September 2019 are missing. Even when the sensor appears to be working, the number of measurements per day is slightly different. For instance, the plot is “bumpy” between August and October 2018, where dates have a varying number of measurements. We need to decide what we want to do with missing data. But perhaps more urgently: there are strange “steps” in the plot. Some dates have around 1,000 readings, some around 2,000, some around 700, and some around 1,400. If a sensor takes measurements every two minutes, there should be a maximum of 720 measurements per day. For a perfect sensor, the plot would display a flat line at 720 measurements. This is clearly not the case. Let’s investigate. Checking the sampling rate#

Deeper digging reveals that although PurpleAir sensors currently record data every 120 seconds, this was not always the case. Before May 30, 2019, sensors recorded data every 80 seconds, or 1,080 points a day. The change in sampling rate does explain the drop on May 30, 2019. Let’s next look at the time periods where there were many more points than expected. This could mean that some measurements were duplicated in the data. We can check this by looking at the measurements for one day, say, January 1, 2019. We pass a string into .loc to filter timestamps for that date:


There are almost double the 1,080 expected readings. Let’s check to see if readings are duplicated:

2019-01-01 13:52:30-08:00    2
2019-01-01 12:02:21-08:00    2
2019-01-01 11:49:01-08:00    2
2019-01-01 21:34:10-08:00    2
2019-01-01 11:03:41-08:00    2
2019-01-01 04:05:38-08:00    2
Name: timestamp, Length: 1077, dtype: int64

Each timestamp appears exactly twice, and we can verify that all duplicated dates contain the same PM2.5 reading. Since this is also true for both temperature and humidity, we drop the duplicate rows from the dataframe:

def drop_duplicate_rows(df):
    return df[~df.index.duplicated()]

pa = (pa_full
(502628, 3)

To check, we remake the line plot of the number of records for a day, and this time we shade the regions where the counts are supposed to be contained:

per_day = (pa.resample('D')
fig = px.line(per_day, x=per_day.index, y='records_per_day',
              labels={'timestamp':'Date', 'records_per_day':'Records per day'}, 
              width=550, height=250)

fig.add_annotation(x='2019-07-24', y=720,
            text="720", showarrow=False, yshift=10)
fig.add_annotation(x='2019-07-24', y=1080,
            text="1080", showarrow=False, yshift=10)

fig.add_hline(y=1080, line_width=3, line_dash="dot", opacity=0.6)
fig.add_hline(y=720, line_width=3, line_dash="dot", opacity=0.6)
fig.add_vline(x="2019-05-30", line_width=3, line_dash="dash", opacity=0.6)


After dropping duplicate dates, the plot of measurements per day looks much more consistent with the counts we expect. Careful readers will see two spikes above the maximum measurements around November of each year when daylight saving time is no longer in effect. When clocks are rolled back one hour, that day has 25 hours instead of the usual 24 hours. Timestamps are tricky!

But there are still missing measurements, and we need to decide what to do about them.

12.4.2. Handling Missing Values#

The plan is to create 24-hour averages of the measurements, but we don’t want to use days when there are not enough measurements. We follow Barkjohn’s analysis and only keep a 24-hour average if there are at least 90% of the possible points for that day. Remember that before May 30, 2019, there are 1,080 possible points in a day, and after that there are 720 possible points. We calculate the minimum number of measurements needed to keep per day:

needed_measurements_80s = 0.9 * 1080
needed_measurements_120s = 0.9 * 720

Now we can determine which of the days have enough measurements to keep:

cutoff_date = pd.Timestamp('2019-05-30', tz='US/Pacific')

def has_enough_readings(one_day):
    [n] = one_day
    date = one_day.name
    return (n >= needed_measurements_80s
            if date <= cutoff_date
            else n >= needed_measurements_120s)
should_keep = per_day.apply(has_enough_readings, axis='columns')
2018-05-19 00:00:00-07:00    False
2018-05-20 00:00:00-07:00     True
2018-05-21 00:00:00-07:00     True
2018-05-22 00:00:00-07:00     True
2018-05-23 00:00:00-07:00     True
Freq: D, dtype: bool

We’re ready to average together the readings for each day and then remove the days without enough readings:

def compute_daily_avgs(pa):
    should_keep = (pa.resample('D')
                   .apply(has_enough_readings, axis='columns'))
    return (pa.resample('D')

pa = (pa_full
PM25cf1 TempF RH
2018-05-20 00:00:00-07:00 2.48 83.35 28.72
2018-05-21 00:00:00-07:00 3.00 83.25 29.91

Now we have the average daily PM2.5 readings for instrument A, and we need to repeat on instrument B the data wrangling we just performed on instrument A. Fortunately, we can reuse the same pipeline. For brevity, we don’t include that wrangling here. But we need to decide what to do if the PM2.5 averages differ. Barkjohn dropped rows if the PM2.5 values for A and B differed by more than 61%, or by more than 5 µg m⁻³. For this pair of sensors, that leads to dropping 12 of the 500+ rows.

As you can see, it takes a lot of work to prepare and clean these data: we handled missing data, aggregated the readings for each instrument, averaged the readings together from the two instruments, and removed rows where they disagreed. This work has given us a set of PM2.5 readings that we are more confident in. We know that each PM2.5 value in the final dataframe is the daily average from two separate instruments that generated consistent and complete readings.

To fully replicate Barkjohn’s analysis, we would need to repeat this process over all the PurpleAir sensors. Then we would repeat the AQS cleaning procedure on all the AQS sensors. Finally, we would merge the PurpleAir and AQS data together. This procedure produces daily average readings for each collocated sensor pair. For brevity, we omit this code. Instead, we proceed with the final steps of the analysis using the group’s dataset. We begin with an EDA with an eye toward modeling.