Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32403451›Full record

ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Photoacoustic-Based Gas Sensing: A Review.

Stefan Palzer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Sub-parts-per-billion CONature communications · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author.

Stefan PalzerDepartment of Computer Science, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Francisco Tomás y Valiente 11, 28049 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2109-1936

Funding

Consejería de Educación, Juventud y Deporte, Comunidad de Madrid 2016-T1/AMB-1695
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of the photoacoustic effect to gauge the concentration of gases is an attractive alternative in the realm of optical detection methods. Even though the effect has been applied for gas sensing for almost a century, its potential for ultra-sensitive and miniaturized devices is still not fully explored. This review article revisits two fundamentally different setups commonly used to build photoacoustic-based gas sensors and presents some distinguished results in terms of sensitivity, ultra-low detection limits, and miniaturization. The review contrasts the two setups in terms of the respective possibilities to tune the selectivity, sensitivity, and potential for miniaturization.

Indexed as

absorption spectroscopygas sensingphotoacoustics

Identifiers

PMID32403451
PMCPMC7248969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.