ArticlePloS one2023
Laboratory evaluation of open source and commercial electrical conductivity sensor precision and accuracy: How do they compare?
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Variation in the electrical conductivity (EC) of water can reveal environmental disturbance and natural dynamics, including factors such as anthropogenic salinization. Broader application of open source (OS) EC sensors could provide an inexpensive method to measure water quality. While studies show that other water quality parameters can be robustly measured with sensors, a similar effort is needed to evaluate the performance of OS EC sensors. To address this need, we evaluated the accuracy (mean error, %) and precision (sample standard deviation) of OS EC sensors in the laboratory via comparison to EC calibration standards using three different OS and OS/commercial-hybrid (OS/C) EC sensors and data logger configurations and two commercial (C) EC sensors and data logger configurations. We also evaluated the effect of cable length (7.5 m and 30 m) and sensor calibration on OS sensor accuracy and precision. We found a significant difference between OS sensor mean accuracy (3.08%) and all other sensors combined (9.23%). Our study also found that EC sensor precision decreased across all sensor configurations with increasing calibration standard EC. There was also a significant difference between OS sensor mean precision (2.85 μS/cm) and the mean precision of all other sensors combined (9.12 μS/cm). Cable length did not affect OS sensor precision. Furthermore, our results suggest that future research should include evaluating how performance is impacted by combining OS sensors with commercial data loggers as this study found significantly decreased performance in OS/commercial-hybrid sensor configurations. To increase confidence in the reliability of OS sensor data, more studies such as ours are needed to further quantify OS sensor performance in terms of accuracy and precision across different settings and OS sensor and data collection platform configurations.
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.