ArticleAtmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994)2023
Evaluation of Calibration Approaches for Indoor Deployments of PurpleAir Monitors.
Article in Atmospheric environment (Oxford, England : 1994), 2023. 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.
- Analysis of sources and sinks of indoor particulate matter reveals insights into the real-world efficacy of portable air cleaners in a randomized intervention trial.The Science of the total environment · 2025Trial
- In-unit particulate matter (PM2.5) in a public housing complex and the importance of tobacco and cannabis as indoor pollutants.Indoor environments · 2026Article
- Site-Specific Calibration of Low-Cost Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 Monitors in the United States: A Comparison of Industrial and Non-Industrial Communities.Aerosol and air quality research · 2026Article
- Dataset on indoor and outdoor PMData in brief · 2025Article
- TracMyAir smartphone application for modeling exposures to PMThe Science of the total environment · 2025Article
- Practical Guidance for Using PurpleAir Particle Monitors for Indoor and Outdoor Measurements in Community Field Studies.Aerosol and air quality research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low-cost air quality monitors are growing in popularity among both researchers and community members to understand variability in pollutant concentrations. Several studies have produced calibration approaches for these sensors for ambient air. These calibrations have been shown to depend primarily on relative humidity, particle size distribution, and particle composition, which may be different in indoor environments. However, despite the fact that most people spend the majority of their time indoors, little is known about the accuracy of commonly used devices indoors. This stems from the fact that calibration data for sensors operating in indoor environments are rare. In this study, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of the raw data from PurpleAir fine particulate matter monitors and for published calibration approaches that vary in complexity, ranging from simply applying linear corrections to those requiring co-locating a filter sample for correction with a gravimetric concentration during a baseline visit. Our data includes PurpleAir devices that were co-located in each home with a gravimetric sample for 1-week periods (265 samples from 151 homes). Weekly-averaged gravimetric concentrations ranged between the limit of detection (3 μg/m
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.