Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29704807›Full record

ReviewEnvironment international2018

Applications of low-cost sensing technologies for air quality monitoring and exposure assessment: How far have they gone?

Lidia Morawska, Phong K Thai, Xiaoting Liu, Akwasi Asumadu-Sakyi, Godwin Ayoko, Alena Bartonova, Andrea Bedini, Fahe Chai, Bryce Christensen, Matthew Dunbabin and 16 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environment international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 169 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
169citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

169 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Integrating community engagement into air toxics research in fenceline communities.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

109 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Lidia MorawskaQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Electronic address: l.morawska@qut.edu.au.
Phong K ThaiQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Xiaoting LiuQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Akwasi Asumadu-SakyiQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Godwin AyokoQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Alena BartonovaNorwegian Institute for Air Research, POB 100, N-2027 Kjeller, Norway.
Andrea BediniKZN Group, 12 St Georges Terrace, Perth, WA 6000.
Fahe ChaiChinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China.
Bryce ChristensenQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Matthew DunbabinQueensland University of Technology, Institute for Future Environments, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Jian GaoChinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China.
Gayle S W HaglerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Rohan JayaratneQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Prashant KumarGlobal Centre for Clean Air Research (GCARE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Alexis K H LauHong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China.
Peter K K LouieEnvironmental Protection Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region, China.
Mandana MazaheriQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Climate and Atmospheric Science Branch, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Zhi NingSchool of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Nunzio MottaQueensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ben MullinsCurtin Institute for Computation, Occupation and Environment, School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Md Mahmudur RahmanQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Zoran RistovskiQueensland University of Technology, International Laboratory for Air Quality & Health, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Mahnaz ShafieiQueensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Institute for Future Environments, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia.
Dian TjondronegoroSchool of Business and Tourism, Southern Cross University, QLD, Australia.
Dane WesterdahlSchool of Energy and Environment, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Ron WilliamsU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decade, a range of sensor technologies became available on the market, enabling a revolutionary shift in air pollution monitoring and assessment. With their cost of up to three orders of magnitude lower than standard/reference instruments, many avenues for applications have opened up. In particular, broader participation in air quality discussion and utilisation of information on air pollution by communities has become possible. However, many questions have been also asked about the actual benefits of these technologies. To address this issue, we conducted a comprehensive literature search including both the scientific and grey literature. We focused upon two questions: (1) Are these technologies fit for the various purposes envisaged? and (2) How far have these technologies and their applications progressed to provide answers and solutions? Regarding the former, we concluded that there is no clear answer to the question, due to a lack of: sensor/monitor manufacturers' quantitative specifications of performance, consensus regarding recommended end-use and associated minimal performance targets of these technologies, and the ability of the prospective users to formulate the requirements for their applications, or conditions of the intended use. Numerous studies have assessed and reported sensor/monitor performance under a range of specific conditions, and in many cases the performance was concluded to be satisfactory. The specific use cases for sensors/monitors included outdoor in a stationary mode, outdoor in a mobile mode, indoor environments and personal monitoring. Under certain conditions of application, project goals, and monitoring environments, some sensors/monitors were fit for a specific purpose. Based on analysis of 17 large projects, which reached applied outcome stage, and typically conducted by consortia of organizations, we observed that a sizable fraction of them (~ 30%) were commercial and/or crowd-funded. This fact by itself signals a paradigm change in air quality monitoring, which previously had been primarily implemented by government organizations. An additional paradigm-shift indicator is the growing use of machine learning or other advanced data processing approaches to improve sensor/monitor agreement with reference monitors. There is still some way to go in enhancing application of the technologies for source apportionment, which is of particular necessity and urgency in developing countries. Also, there has been somewhat less progress in wide-scale monitoring of personal exposures. However, it can be argued that with a significant future expansion of monitoring networks, including indoor environments, there may be less need for wearable or portable sensors/monitors to assess personal exposure. Traditional personal monitoring would still be valuable where spatial variability of pollutants of interest is at a finer resolution than the monitoring network can resolve.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringAir PollutantsAir PollutionAir PollutantsAir pollution sensingAir sensor/monitor performanceLow cost sensor/monitorPersonal exposure monitoringSensor data utilisation

Identifiers

PMID29704807
PMCPMC6145068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.