Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41600538›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Using Low-Cost Sensors for Fenceline Monitoring to Measure Emissions from Prescribed Fires.

Annamarie Guth, Marissa Dauner, Evan R Coffey, Michael Hannigan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Annamarie GuthDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.
Marissa DaunerDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-3767-1171
Evan R CoffeyDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5511-9111
Michael HanniganDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder, 1111 Engineering Drive, Boulder, CO 80309, USA.

Funding

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program RC20-1282
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prescribed burning is a highly effective way to reduce wildfire risk; however, prescribed fires release harmful pollutants. Quantifying emissions from prescribed fires is valuable for atmospheric modeling and understanding impacts on nearby communities. Emissions are commonly reported as emission factors, which are traditionally calculated cumulatively over an entire combustion event. However, cumulative emission factors do not capture variability in emissions throughout a combustion event. Reliable emission factor calculations require knowledge of the state of the plume, which is unavailable when equipment is deployed for multiple days. In this study, we evaluated two different methods used to detect prescribed fire plumes: the event detection algorithm and a random forest model. Results show that the random forest model outperformed the event detection algorithm, with a detection accuracy of 61% and a 3% false positive rate, compared to 51% accuracy and a 31% false positive rate for the event detection algorithm. Overall, the random forest model provides more robust emission factor calculations and a promising framework for plume detection on future prescribed fires. This work provides a unique approach to fenceline monitoring, as it is one of the only projects to our knowledge using fenceline monitoring to measure emissions from prescribed fire plumes.

Indexed as

emission factorsfencline monitoringlow-cost sensorsplume detectionprescribed fires

Identifiers

PMID41600538
PMCPMC12845575

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.