ArticleAtmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994)2020
One Year Evaluation of Three Low-Cost PM
Article in Atmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Towards Personalization of Indoor Air Quality: Review of Sensing Requirements and Field Deployments.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing the feasibility of indoor air quality monitoring in low-income housing among Black adults with uncontrolled asthma in New York City.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Validating the performance of low-cost IAQ sensors through co-location.Journal of building physics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Calibration Approaches for Indoor Deployments of PurpleAir Monitors.Atmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994) · 2023Article
- Enhancing the reliability of particulate matter sensing by multivariate Tobit model using weather and air quality data.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- An Investigation on the Possible Application Areas of Low-Cost PM Sensors for Air Quality Monitoring.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Performance of Using Low-Cost Sensors to Calibrate for Cross-Sensitivities in a Multipollutant Network.ACS ES&T engineering · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The availability of low-cost monitors marketed for use in homes has increased rapidly over the past few years due to the advancement of sensing technologies, increased awareness of urban pollution, and the rise of citizen science. The user-friendly packages can make them appealing for use in research grade indoor exposure assessments, but a rigorous scientific evaluation has not been conducted for many monitors on the open market, which leads to uncertainty about the validity of the data. Furthermore, many previous sensor studies were conducted for a relatively short period of time, which may not capture the changes this type of instrument may exhibit over time (known as sensor aging). We evaluated three monitors (AirVisual Pro, Speck, and AirThinx) in an occupied, non-smoking residence over a 12-month period in order to assess the sensors, the built-in calibrations, and the need for additional data to achieve high accuracy for long deployments. Two units of each type of monitor were evaluated in order to assess the precision between units, and a personal DataRAM (pDR-1200) with a filter was placed in the home for about 20% of the sampling period (e.g., about a week each month) to evaluate the accuracy over time. The average PM
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.