ArticleScientific reports2022
Feasibility of low-cost particle sensor types in long-term indoor air pollution health studies after repeated calibration, 2019-2021.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-Cost Sensor Systems and IoT Technologies for Indoor Air Quality Monitoring: Instrumentation, Models, Implementation, and Perspectives for Validation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Assessing the efficacy of a low-cost air pollution monitoring device for environmental and occupational exposure assessments.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2025Article
- Feature-Based Normality Models for Anomaly Detection.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Skyrocketing pollution: assessing the environmental fate of July 4th fireworks in New York City.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025Article
- Application of an Ultra-Low-Cost Passive Sampler for Light-Absorbing Carbon in Mongolia.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Gaps and future directions in research on health effects of air pollution.EBioMedicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Previous studies have explored using calibrated low-cost particulate matter (PM) sensors, but important research gaps remain regarding long-term performance and reliability. Evaluate longitudinal performance of low-cost particle sensors by measuring sensor performance changes over 2 years of use. 51 low-cost particle sensors (Airbeam 1 N = 29; Airbeam 2 N = 22) were calibrated four times over a 2-year timeframe between 2019 and 2021. Cigarette smoke-specific calibration curves for Airbeam 1 and 2 PM sensors were created by directly comparing simultaneous 1-min readings of a Thermo Scientific Personal DataRAM PDR-1500 unit with a 2.5 µm inlet. Inter-sensor variability in calibration coefficient was high, particularly in Airbeam 1 sensors at study initiation. Calibration coefficients for both sensor types trended downwards over time to < 1 at final calibration timepoint [Airbeam 1 Mean (SD) = 0.87 (0.20); Airbeam 2 Mean (SD) = 0.96 (0.27)]. We lost more Airbeam 1 sensors (N = 27 out of 56, failure rate 48.2%) than Airbeam 2 (N = 2 out of 24, failure rate 8.3%) due to electronics, battery, or data output issues. Evidence suggests degradation over time might depend more on particle sensor type, rather than individual usage. Repeated calibrations of low-cost particle sensors may increase confidence in reported PM levels in longitudinal indoor air pollution studies.
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.