ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Analytical Validation of Low-Cost Optical Sensors for Freshwater Monitoring: A Scoping Review of Current Gaps and a Proposed Framework.
Review 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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Low-cost optical sensors have emerged as promising tools for in situ freshwater quality monitoring, offering the potential to expand spatial and temporal data coverage, particularly in community-based monitoring projects. However, despite rapid technological development of low-cost optical sensors, analytical validation practices of these devices remain poorly studied. This study aims to systematically and critically assess analytical validation practices applied to low-cost optical sensors based on absorbance, fluorescence, colorimetry, and light scattering, potentially designed for community-based freshwater monitoring. A total of 40 studies were analysed to evaluate how key analytical performance parameters, including sensitivity, accuracy, precision, and repeatability, as well as comparison with reference methods or benchtop instruments, were assessed and reported in relation to established validation guidelines. The analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity and critical gaps in validation approaches. While most studies report sensitivity metrics such as limits of detection and quantification, comprehensive evaluation of key analytical parameters such as accuracy, precision, and reproducibility was often limited. The reliance on single calibration experiments and high determination coefficients (R2) frequently overestimates sensor performance. The lack of open-source materials further limits reproducibility and deployment: essential information such as design files, calibration procedures, and open-source resources is often incomplete or unavailable. To address these limitations, we propose a structured framework for validation and reporting that integrates established analytical guidelines with the practicalities of low-cost sensor development. Adoption of this approach would enable more consistent performance evaluation, improving reproducibility and facilitating comparison across studies and devices. Overall, strengthening analytical validation and reporting practices is essential to support the transition of low-cost optical sensors from proof-of-concept systems to reliable analytical devices for freshwater quality monitoring.
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.